Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Transgender women will not be prosecuted in the use of women’s single sex facilities

464 replies

Theotheruser · 20/06/2026 14:11

You can support transgender rights or not but the law isn’t itself politics. Transgender women will not be prosecuted in the use of women’s single sex facilities in public in the standard use the facilities was built for.

A standard use is:

  • A transgender woman goes into the women’s toilet facilities in a cubicle for the purposes of relieving bodily fluids.
  • A transgender woman goes into the women’s changing facilities in a cubicle for the purposes of removing clothing for leisure activities.
  • A transgender woman goes into the women’s toilet facilities to protect the transgender women of being attacked or sexually assaulted.

A transgender woman in the standard uses of the women’s facilities are not exposing the users of the single sex facilities.

A transgender woman in the standard uses of the women’s facilities are not exposing child users in the single sex facilities.

A child user using single sex women’s facilities can’t deny other women public access of the facilities the child user believes are transgender.

With official documentation of the new sex will be difficult to disprove the claim of the transgender women being the male sex.

No harassment or sexual offences can be found against the transgender woman in the standard use of the women’s facilities with official documentation of the new sex.

A woman in the women’s single sex facility can be prosecuted for an offence and or removed if the woman is abusing or harassing the other user of being transgender without proof.

A woman recording and sharing publicly the other user without proof of being transgender can prosecuted.

The Supreme Court ruling or EHRC guidance has not changed the law to prosecute transgender women in women’s single sex spaces.

Transgender women have history of official records to support beyond a reasonable doubt the new gender identity. Have protection of gender discrimination.

Prosecution of transgender women is not going to work in the standard uses of the women’s facilities.

A woman can complain to management but unless management decides to take action to resolve the issue no action can be taken against the other user.

OP posts:
Theotheruser · 20/06/2026 20:33

CityonFire · 20/06/2026 20:28

They’re clearly not okay of even half of what you say is true.

I left school with no GCSEs and was pregnant. When on UC and lived at my parents house until they were evicted by section 21 three years later. I moved in temporarily housing and later got a job and moved in a good area with my daughter who is doing good at school. I am not giving it up.

OP posts:
Boiledbeetle · 20/06/2026 20:30

Theotheruser · 20/06/2026 20:27

My employer is okay and pay well. I won’t say as I don’t want to lose my job. UC doesn’t cover rent.

They really are not OK. They are very bad employers who are taking advantage of their female staff rather than tell Gary to get a bloody grip and use the gents just like he did for however many decades he did prior to his come to Jesus moment.

MarieDeGournay · 20/06/2026 20:30

Theotheruser · 20/06/2026 20:27

My employer is okay and pay well. I won’t say as I don’t want to lose my job. UC doesn’t cover rent.

If you're prepared to - or have to - put up with that kind of management, that's up to you and I've expressed my genuine concern for your workers rights, but I'll leave it at that.
Just don't think that it is 'okay', it's not - the law is the law, workplace regs are workplace regs and employers can't pick and choose.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/06/2026 20:29

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 20/06/2026 20:26

"Lie down and let me drive this truck over you because I want to."

Yes, “if you just pretend the truck isn’t there, the problem goes away”

Taztoy · 20/06/2026 20:28

Theotheruser · 20/06/2026 20:27

My employer is okay and pay well. I won’t say as I don’t want to lose my job. UC doesn’t cover rent.

They’re not ok.

CityonFire · 20/06/2026 20:28

Theotheruser · 20/06/2026 20:27

My employer is okay and pay well. I won’t say as I don’t want to lose my job. UC doesn’t cover rent.

They’re clearly not okay of even half of what you say is true.

Taztoy · 20/06/2026 20:27

@Theotheruser is my assumption for the reasons under article 9 conditions correct? Because that puts a different slant on things. Can you confirm? Thanks.

Theotheruser · 20/06/2026 20:27

MarieDeGournay · 20/06/2026 20:21

I'm going to be very patient, and assume that it's true that Theotheruser is a woman who is working hard to support her daughter and pay her bills and really needs the job she's in.

In which case - Theotheruser, your employer is not doing the right thing, they are ignoring all sorts of laws and regulations, and they are causing you - potentially forcing you, given that you need your job and the manager asked - to sign away rights under workplace regs and the Equality Act 2010.

They either don't now what their responsibilities are, or don't care. This puts you in a bad place - if they are this lax about provision of facilities, how are they on health and safety? fair pay?

So - if you are genuine, I'm genuinely concerned for you, you seem to be accepting things that you shouldn't have to accept, when in fact the relevant law and regulations are not what management are making you believe they are.

My employer is okay and pay well. I won’t say as I don’t want to lose my job. UC doesn’t cover rent.

OP posts:
BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 20/06/2026 20:26

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/06/2026 20:24

TRAs and their hangers on of both sexes have said to me more than once “if you just accept that trans women are women, the problem goes away” 🙄

"Lie down and let me drive this truck over you because I want to."

Boiledbeetle · 20/06/2026 20:26

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/06/2026 20:22

She would, in the parallel universe where any of it happened.

After the shit I've heard in tribunals about what organisations get up to in order to allow men into women's spaces I work on the principle that if someone can imagine a shitty work scenario then law of averages it's probably happening at someone's place of employment somewhere.

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 20/06/2026 20:25

MarieDeGournay · 20/06/2026 20:21

I'm going to be very patient, and assume that it's true that Theotheruser is a woman who is working hard to support her daughter and pay her bills and really needs the job she's in.

In which case - Theotheruser, your employer is not doing the right thing, they are ignoring all sorts of laws and regulations, and they are causing you - potentially forcing you, given that you need your job and the manager asked - to sign away rights under workplace regs and the Equality Act 2010.

They either don't now what their responsibilities are, or don't care. This puts you in a bad place - if they are this lax about provision of facilities, how are they on health and safety? fair pay?

So - if you are genuine, I'm genuinely concerned for you, you seem to be accepting things that you shouldn't have to accept, when in fact the relevant law and regulations are not what management are making you believe they are.

You're a better woman than I am, Marie!

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/06/2026 20:24

TRAs and their hangers on of both sexes have said to me more than once “if you just accept that trans women are women, the problem goes away” 🙄

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 20/06/2026 20:23

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/06/2026 20:20

They are, with their various unlikely scenarios and anecdotes.

Don't worry, it's all been noted... <giggles childishly>

FlirtsWithRhinos · 20/06/2026 20:22

Boiledbeetle · 20/06/2026 19:27

It is easier to not notice a transgender woman in the women’s space and go on with your life.

It's actually easier for the man to just stay the fuck out of somewhere he's not supposed to be. But that thought doesn't even seem to occur to you does it?

Never does. They have a total fixation on the man and his needs, and only see the world in the terms he describes it. They want to solve his problem on his terms, never see the problem from any other angle even though as soon as you take his demand that the solution must validare him as a women out of the equation the problem becomes almost trivial to solve.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/06/2026 20:22

Boiledbeetle · 20/06/2026 20:14

Wow!

You do understand that this is very very wrong don't you?

Your company are behaving appallingly towards their actual women staff.

You should NEVER have been put in a position where you're all signing to say you'll be good women and let the man do whatever the fuck he wants.

Your bosses should have just said NO GARY YOU CAN'T USE THE WOMEN'S TOILETS. You should NEVER have even been part of the discussion.

Naomi would have a field day with this at an employment tribunal. JKR would probably foot the legal bills from her fund.

She would, in the parallel universe where any of it happened.

MarieDeGournay · 20/06/2026 20:21

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 20/06/2026 20:11

I think you're being very patient. 👏

I'm going to be very patient, and assume that it's true that Theotheruser is a woman who is working hard to support her daughter and pay her bills and really needs the job she's in.

In which case - Theotheruser, your employer is not doing the right thing, they are ignoring all sorts of laws and regulations, and they are causing you - potentially forcing you, given that you need your job and the manager asked - to sign away rights under workplace regs and the Equality Act 2010.

They either don't now what their responsibilities are, or don't care. This puts you in a bad place - if they are this lax about provision of facilities, how are they on health and safety? fair pay?

So - if you are genuine, I'm genuinely concerned for you, you seem to be accepting things that you shouldn't have to accept, when in fact the relevant law and regulations are not what management are making you believe they are.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/06/2026 20:20

CityonFire · 20/06/2026 20:15

I think they’re coming up with various reasons why we shouldn’t bother fighting this shit because trans women’s are always going to get a round it which makes no sense because women keep winning in court.

They are, with their various unlikely scenarios and anecdotes.

Taztoy · 20/06/2026 20:18

ApplebyArrows · 20/06/2026 20:17

I believe OP is basically right, at least as far as toilets go. A person does not automatically commit an offence by entering toilets designated for the opposite sex. Whilst it might in some cases be possible to find them guilty of some actual offence, in practice this is not very often going to be very easy to prove.

Toilet providers have a duty to ensure that toilets are appropriately segregated by sex and, presumably, to take reasonable steps to ensure that this segregation is enforced. This might, in some cases, necessitate legal action to remove or ban a person from the premises, but this is unlikely to be an appropriate first step (unless an actual offence is also being committed).

What the law actually says is a different matter from what we might like the law to be. We might appreciate it if the law criminalised a person (deliberately and without fair excuse) going into the opposite sex toilets, but that doesn't mean the law actually does this at the current time. This is an important distinction. Confusing what the law says with what it "ought" to say is a common error/tactic of TRAs and it would be a terrible shame for feminists to fall into the same trap.

you really need to read the whole thread

CityonFire · 20/06/2026 20:18

ApplebyArrows · 20/06/2026 20:17

I believe OP is basically right, at least as far as toilets go. A person does not automatically commit an offence by entering toilets designated for the opposite sex. Whilst it might in some cases be possible to find them guilty of some actual offence, in practice this is not very often going to be very easy to prove.

Toilet providers have a duty to ensure that toilets are appropriately segregated by sex and, presumably, to take reasonable steps to ensure that this segregation is enforced. This might, in some cases, necessitate legal action to remove or ban a person from the premises, but this is unlikely to be an appropriate first step (unless an actual offence is also being committed).

What the law actually says is a different matter from what we might like the law to be. We might appreciate it if the law criminalised a person (deliberately and without fair excuse) going into the opposite sex toilets, but that doesn't mean the law actually does this at the current time. This is an important distinction. Confusing what the law says with what it "ought" to say is a common error/tactic of TRAs and it would be a terrible shame for feminists to fall into the same trap.

What they’re wrong about is that we should just get on with it and accept men in the toilets and not challenge it every time.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/06/2026 20:18

I said that very early on in the thread @applebyarrows

FlirtsWithRhinos · 20/06/2026 20:17

Theotheruser · 20/06/2026 19:02

It’s lawful to allow transgender women to use the women’s toilets if there is no other provision is available. If the disabled toilets being out of order. The transgender women must able to access toilets. Men’s are no go.

What the hell is wrong with the men where you work????

What the hell is wrong with your employer that their risk assessment finds one of their employees is not safe from their other employees and their solution is to shrug and make that employee go elsewhere rather than do something about the ones who are apparently to dangerous to be around???

I mean - really? This really happens where you work?

ApplebyArrows · 20/06/2026 20:17

I believe OP is basically right, at least as far as toilets go. A person does not automatically commit an offence by entering toilets designated for the opposite sex. Whilst it might in some cases be possible to find them guilty of some actual offence, in practice this is not very often going to be very easy to prove.

Toilet providers have a duty to ensure that toilets are appropriately segregated by sex and, presumably, to take reasonable steps to ensure that this segregation is enforced. This might, in some cases, necessitate legal action to remove or ban a person from the premises, but this is unlikely to be an appropriate first step (unless an actual offence is also being committed).

What the law actually says is a different matter from what we might like the law to be. We might appreciate it if the law criminalised a person (deliberately and without fair excuse) going into the opposite sex toilets, but that doesn't mean the law actually does this at the current time. This is an important distinction. Confusing what the law says with what it "ought" to say is a common error/tactic of TRAs and it would be a terrible shame for feminists to fall into the same trap.

Taztoy · 20/06/2026 20:16

Theotheruser · 20/06/2026 20:15

No. It was a quick fix.

they can’t do that. There’s no way they’d get away with this. None. Who is their DPO? Donald Duck?

TrainedByTheBiddyMafia · 20/06/2026 20:15

Theotheruser · 20/06/2026 20:15

No. It was a quick fix.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Theotheruser · 20/06/2026 20:15

Taztoy · 20/06/2026 20:13

Did they do a DPIA @Theotheruser ?

No. It was a quick fix.

OP posts: