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.

This is a situation that has been fostered and encouraged by many years of campaigns, lobbying, and manipulation. Yes, we will see more of it, unfortunately. We're going to need to learn how to deal with it as a society.

That was supposed to be a response to how many changes rooms are communal which somehow ended up in a reply to the wring post.

Prison statistics do show that the percentage of trans identified men in prison convicted for sex crimes is higher than the percentage of the general male population in prison who have been convicted for sex crimes

It’s not 2015 any more. This is a quaintly old fashioned notion of what “trans” is.

You didn't answer mine

You don't appear to understand safeguarding principles.

We keep men out of women's spaces. Why should we make an expection for this specific group of men?

That's not permitted if these toilets are also the ones that the staff use. The Workplace Regulations 1992 mandate provision of single sex toilets & changing rooms. Unisex toilets that are completely enclosed including washing facilities may be provided as an alternative. Gender neutral or mixed sex toilets with shared washing facilities are not permitted.

In what way are they 'not men'? The basic prerequisite for being a 'trans woman' is being male, being a man. There is no way to be a 'trans woman' without being a man.

"Forcing" - well, expecting certainly - trans women to use men’s facilities is entirely incompatible with their dignity, health, safety, privacy and humanity.

Can you explain why?

And also can you explain why "I can't use the men's" has become "I can only use the women's"?

Oh, and "because they are women" is only an explanation if it includes both the defintion of "woman" by which trans women are women and shows the connection between that definition and the needs of female people that lead to the creation of these single sex provisions in the first place. Otherwise it's just silly wordplay.

Yes, I think so.

I just don’t make negative assumptions about whole groups of people.

The OP describes a wig that looked like a last-minute costume so it's very unlikely that this was a female transexual.

To safeguard women, society has made a (perfectly justified) negative assumption about men.

So what makes these men different and exempt from that?

I suspect your business needs good legal advice on this from a company that hasn't drunk the cool aid.

There are no negative assumptions about men who identify as trans here, other than that they are men. And as such, are excluded along with all their sex from female only spaces for women’s privacy, dignity and safety.

And no, it’s clear that you don’t understand safeguarding.

It’s not an assumption! For what the third time, males commit 98% of the sexual and violent crimes that occur.

Like a PP said, why do you think we all have to go through stringent airport security measures when the majority of us aren’t terrorists?

The basic principle, the first principle, of safeguarding is that we assume that anyone is capable of wrongdoing, and we take measures to try to prevent that from happening. Nobody is above suspicion. Because as soon as you say, 'oh, priests never abuse anyone', or 'police would never do a bad thing', or 'scout masters are all good men without exception', guess what happens?

You create a cover situation for bad faith actors. Predators go to enormous lengths to gain access to the vulnerable. They look for exactlly those weaknesses, those sacred casts, those blind spots. And they exploit them.

That’s just the point, I don’t know. I suspect that in years to come, it may be proven that are in fact more than two sexes. Sounds way out there but many things proven by modern science seemed so prior to that proof.

Bitchy. They were knowledgeable enough to persuade the Supreme Court. The women's group that won the SC ruling started from that corner of MN.

Someone's presence could be "Unwanted conduct". This meets the definition of harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act, relating to the protected characteristic of sex, and creating an environment in which service users are subject to such harassment is unlawful.

OP, I'd follow Sex Matters - the group involving Maya Forstater and Dr Helen Joyce. They are incredibly helpful with interpreting the law for us.

Not everyone here gets off on the appalling hatred directed at trans women since the Supreme Court judgement. Persecution never ends well.

No. All mammals are male or female.
Its been that way for millions of years and will stay that way.

Even if there were more than two sexes, a 'trans woman' would still be a man who had decided he felt like what he thought a woman feels like.

That's the definition.

They existed throughout history...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history#:~:text=The%20respective%20transitions%20of%20transgender,day%20Stonewall%20Riots%20of%201969.

this is fanciful nonsense. There are disorders of sex development within the sex binary. Medical conditions. There are no further sexes out there to be discovered. What reproductive role do you imagine they would have?

Firstly you could apply this to literally anything. But we need known facts to govern in society's best interest. Not wild assumptions.

Secondly, even if something was discovered that was 'different' about these men, they'd still be biological men, not women. They'd be a subset of biological men. So you wouldn't be any further on.

You'd make some mistakes and let those who pass easily in, but you'd be able to keep the obvious autogynephiles out. Which would be a huge win.