Why can't people respect the rules around toilets!?!?

[coffeeandmycats]

I’m really angry and just need to get this off my chest. Me and my sister run a small shop, just the two of us and a couple of customer toilets, one for biological women, one for men, signs on the door. Never had any trouble. Until today.
A regular female customer comes up looking pretty upset, says there’s a man in the women’s loo. I go in to check. At first it sort of looked okay, hair, maybe a trans woman? But then I heard a deep voice, saw stubble and a broad build, a wig that looked like a last-minute costume. It was clearly a bloke who didn’t pass. Not even close.
I said politely, this is the women’s loo, please leave. He stared at me and said flat out, “I was born female.” Not I identify as a woman, he literally claimed he was biologically female. I asked him to go and he refused.
So I rang 101, didn’t want drama and wasn’t sure what rights we had as shop owners. The police said we can’t challenge how someone describes themselves. If he says he was born female, that’s it. We’re not allowed to question it based on how he looks. And since no laws were broken, they won’t come unless he’s being abusive or refusing to follow reasonable requests after shouting multiple times.
They also confirmed that the new Supreme Court judgment about women-only spaces is civil law, not criminal. That means even though legally women are defined by birth, you still can’t challenge someone in the moment just because they say they’re female.
I looked into it after, and yep, the Supreme Court (in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers) ruled that “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 means biologically female. But that applies to protecting women-only spaces under civil law. It doesn’t let us stop someone on the spot from walking into the wrong loo. The police still can’t act if someone says they’re female, even if it’s clearly false.
This bloke walked into the women’s loo, lied about being born female, made women uncomfortable, and we’ve got no legal leg to stand on to stop him. Women customers left feeling unsafe.
So what exactly are we supposed to do? Sit back and let it happen because the law only kicks in later on? Are we just meant to trust someone who’s lying about their sex to decide what sexed spaces they can use?
It feels like women’s rights are just words, no power in real life. Anyone else run into this mess in their business? I'm nearly losing my mind over how absurd this is.

Entitled men do not like to be told no.

Lots of laws are obeyed without daily enforcement.
(stopping at traffic lights is a prime example)
This one should be too.

I'm 5'11" and have had both shaved and short hair. I very very (very, ad infinitum) rarely get misgendered. Even if I did, it would soon be sorted out. That doesn't mean single sex spaces should be mixed though!

So you agree that it's relevant to the provision of single sex toilets which are only permitted due to the exemptions from sex discrimination in the Equality Act

Sure Jan

Yes it’s relevant to the provision of single sex facilities of all types.

However, the judgement did not say that OP must enforce the exclusion of people she believes based on appearance to be trans from the women’s toilets. Nor does it say many other things that have been erroneously claimed by people on this thread

Society decided that the Trust system doesn't extend to all men in all situations, because the adverse effects on women are too significant. Whether society is right or wrong to do that, that is one of the places we put limits on assuming good intent.

This does not mean that most men are not perfectly safe and supportive. It just means the few bad eggs are bad enough that the benefit to women of keeping the bad men out overrides the cost to women of not having the nice men around, or the cost to the nice men of not hanging out with the women in all things.

Some people believe trans women do not need to be treated the same way as other men but this belief is based on nothing more than a linguistic trick of applying the word "woman" to some men. There is no factual foundation for the belief that trans women are materially different, pose any less of a threat or impose upon women less than any other men.

If you want to make everything unisex then argue for that, but there's no logical reason to support separate provision for men and women but then go on to treat a small number of men like women.

That wasn't the point that was being made. It wasn't "everybody is assuming that transwomen will get up to no good in the loos". It was "everybody is assuming that some transwomen will insist on using the ladies', even though they are not entitled to so."

The service provider has a duty to ensure the single sex exemptions are being correctly complied with. A service provider who becomes aware that a man is in a female only space would not be complying with that duty if they did not take steps to prevent that man from using a female space.

You don't have to let him into your premises.

@coffeeandmycats At first it sort of looked okay, hair, maybe a trans woman? But then I heard a deep voice, saw stubble and a broad build, a wig that looked like a last-minute costume. It was clearly a bloke who didn’t pass. Not even close. I said politely, this is the women’s loo, please leave. He stared at me and said flat out, “I was born female.” Not I identify as a woman, he literally claimed he was biologically female. I asked him to go and he refused.

OP, what you have described is a transgender man. He said he was born female, and he has a deep voice and stubble, which is consistent with testosterone use.

If it is indeed a transgender man, then this means that this person has used the toilet which corresponds with his biological sex, and he was indeed correct to use the women's toilet.

So...is this a woman who is now a man, or the other way round? Confused.

I’m sorry that your life has led you to that conclusion. Again, sweeping generalisations help no one.

Hmm, yes we do seem to be at cross purposes.

I apologise as this is clearly frustrating you, but I do want to understand your point.

The reason your use of "only" is confusing me is that if something "only" applies to the use of sex in the EA, to me that implies there must be a significant amount of usage outside the EA where the EA definition of sex does not apply.

Can you give some examples of single sex provisions where the EA would not apply? I am sure that will help me understand what you are getting at when you say "only".

A transwoman has transitioned from male to female (so by the ruling, should use the men's), a transman has transitioned from female to male (so by the ruling should use the women's; that might be the case here; as many warned, this could result in biological women who to all intents and purposes pass as male being present in women's toilets)

It's legal to prohibit passing transmen from the ladies. That's a specific part of the SC judgment.

You could change both sets of toilets to gender neutral

Where do the cats go?

Except transmen who pass can legally be excluded from women's single sex spaces. Read the full judgment.

Not without changing the design of the toilets she couldn't.

A service provider has to comply with the law, yes.

The judgement did not say that OP must enforce the exclusion of people she believes are trans from the women’s toilets .

Nor can OP use the police to enforce the removal of people in these circumstances.

OP could find herself subject to a number of discrimination claims depending on how she acts.
The least likely of which is a man claiming he was unfairly excluded from using the woman’s loo because a trans woman was allowed- which is the only basis on which she would be found to be acting unlawfully by not actively excluding anyone who looked trans. Even in the extremely unlikely event such a claim was brought, I cannot see how it could possibly succeeed since it would be entirely impossible for OP to manage this enforcement in a practical and non discriminatory way.

You would not be challenging a woman. You are challenging a man who is is a place clearly not meant for him.
You may read a lot (from certain quarters) about butch women being challenged in toilets but I would say that it would be clear once you get up close.

Women have millennia of evolution hardwired into them to enable them to identify the type of humans likely to harm them ie men.
In the OP you described what you saw and heard.

Male build, bad wig, clear stubble and a male voice. Don't doubt yourself - that was a man.

He may say he is a woman - we don't have self ID in the UK and even if he has a GRC he still doesn't have the right to use the ladies.

So I cant see why you cant say “I believe you are a man and therefore you cannot use these facilities, please leave them and do not attempt to use them again.”
Could you consider a poster to say “In line with the Supreme Court ruling toilet facilities are separated by biological sex. Customers must use the appropriate facilities. Failure to respect this may result in sessions being cut short and you being asked to leave.”
You may need to consider if its possible to provide a unisex single sex facility within an appropriately fitted out space.
Im sure Sex Matters could advise you further if you contact them.

That’s what I would do, personally, in such circumstances.

I'm not trans, I'm just an ordinary middle aged woman and the fact you say you're calling the cops on someone going to the toilet after they've left and are presumably just supping their drink and stroking your cats, minding their own would make me want to avoid you and your place like the plague.
Where do you draw the line? I'd be bothered women will get hurt/harassed if they don't look sufficiently "feminine enough. Because despite usual protestations, no you cannot always tell.

Any man using spaces set aside for women is a horrible man.

I've got a friend who's a trans man. Beard, built like a brick shithouse thanks to (I'd guess) a combination of being on T and a lot of time in the gym. But biologically female. So I wouldn't assume the guy was lying, necessarily? I do know a fair few trans people who are sticking to the letter of the law re: bathrooms etc now to make the - valid - point that as much as people say otherwise, you can't 'always tell'...