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.

So you say; because you don’t accept transness is a thing, and your goal is trans erasure.

Not all women feel this way. many women may not want to share a toilet with men but be fine doing so with trans women. I am one of them.

I was having a Google earlier and I’m happy to be corrected, but it looks like British courts can’t actually prove someone’s biological sex. So if a trans woman has a Gender Recognition Certificate and a new birth certificate that says "female," they can legally say they’re female and take a business to court for discrimination if they’re refused access to the women’s toilets.
From what I’ve read, even if it’s obvious to everyone that they were born male, they don’t have to mention that they’re trans or that they have a GRC. They can just show their birth certificate, which now says "female," and the court is supposed to take their word for it.
So in that situation, a business could get in trouble for saying no, even if the person isn’t biologically female. The business owner wouldn’t really be allowed to question it, and if they did, they might be accused of harassment or discrimination.
Is that actually how it works? It seems completely upside down if someone can just change their documents and then legally insist they’re biologically female, even though they’re not, and no one’s allowed to challenge it.

also how does this work for people who come to England on a Visa, i.e. a trans woman comes from Australia to England on a skilled work visa but says she is biologically female and was born that way, the UK court would have to take their word for it and has no way to prove otherwise.

I guess what I'm getting at it is I feel the law needs clarifying.

Incorrect. The Supreme Court ruling was clear that single sex facilities should be used in accordance with their biological sex.

right 👍🏻

I feel like wording posts like this makes it harder for other people to follow though personally

Exactly

Many transgender men have a broad build. That comes from testosterone, increased muscle mass from the gym, and weight gain.

Many LGBT people wear wigs. It's not specific to transgender women. I imagine a transgender man might wear a wig if he started to go bald, as many transgender men do.

It's not a thing except in the minds of the people who believe it is a thing.

The only "thing" it is, is saying you are the opposite sex to the one you actually are. Apart from that, there is no definition of what it means to be trans. It means whatever the fuck anyone wants it to mean at any given time.

My goal isn't "trans erasure". I don't see everything through the lens of trans people. My goal is for women's rights to be respected and upheld.

PS - there is literally no way of sharing toilets with trans women and keeping other men out. None at all. If you don't want to share toilets with men, you have to accept that trans identifying men (aka trans women) are also subject to the same rule.

so basically if I add locks or a keycode to the door and I don't hand over the key to anyone who insists biologically female I can be sued?.. surely i'm missing something

Lock your loos. Have different keys for men's and women's. Hand over the key if you feel like it. It's not a public service, you can do as you wish.

It’s interesting, started travelling in Europe as a fairly young child in the mid 1960s and remember the mixed public lavatories, it was pretty much the norm (some were still just holes in the ground, but that’s another matter!). I wonder whether this particular issue is seen as such a big deal in the UK in particular because it’s not something that UK citizens have grown up with?

Some posters here seem think I’m anti women’s spaces. I’m not. I don’t want to change with anyone, whatever their sex so personally avoid communal areas full stop. I don’t believe trans women should be placed in women’s prisons, which is where most of the rare but obviously horrific assaults seem to take place. (Neither do I believe they should be placed in men’s prisons, for their safety. A separate unit would seem the obvious solution). I don’t believe trans women should compete against women in sports, where being born male clearly gives an unfair advantage. Again, separate categories would seem the obvious solution.

What I can’t do, though, is get worked up about toilets, where we all use individual cubicles. I think the hyperbolic narrative about this actually detracts from the more serious problems.

i don't want to offend anyone, or cause arguments but when people type men instead of transwoman it comes across as a bit disrespectful and also makes me have to re read their post a few times to work out what's going on.

I just want to live out my dream running a cafe

There's a lot of incorrect advice about the judgment.
No man even if they have a gender recognition certificate with female on it can claim sex discrimination for being refused entry to female single sex facilities because the Equality Act says it is not unlawful discrimination to exclude males from female single sex facilities

I have to hand over the key to one of the bathrooms, as they have already paid, and we serve snacks and hot drinks so legally must have bathrooms, people pay then enter the cafe.

If they sued you they would have to prove they were biologically female.

Which, of course, they won't be able to.

@coffeeandmycats

See my posts - a screenshot of one of the proposed EHRC guidance scenarios (from the consultation) and a link to guidance from employment lawyers.

How do you enforce your policy?
You are not required to have people at the entrance of your facilities to ‘police’ them but you will need signs which make it clear which facilities people should use. Signs and policies that promote ambiguity are likely to mean that you will not be able to show that you are meeting the gateway conditions for providing a lawful separate sex facility. Your staff should also reinforce your rules if customers ask them for advice and address any complaints you receive.

www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/expert-comment/post/102kb9l/do-retailers-have-to-provide-single-sex-toilets-and-changing-rooms-for-their-cust

.If you refuse to even name trans women then yes your goal is to erase them.

Nothing to do with upholding women’s rights whatsoever.

Being trans does not mean whatever you want it to. Being trans is real. Perfectly Explainable. Legitimate. And just a-ok,

Some people think trans women are female people who identify as male. The language they adopted and imposed on us is deliberately confusing.

Agreeing to pretend that they are any kind of women is exactly how we ended up in this mess, with you being unable to kick a man out of the women's toilets.

but apparently (and I'm happy to be corrected here) the trans woman can show her birth certificate and say look it says female I'm biologically female, and the court can't question this, or have like a "warrant" to see if they have a GRC, or if they are from abroad in a country that allows sex to change etc.

see this is great, but I feel like it reads we basically turn a blind eye to whoever uses the toilet, plus we seemingly can't challenge anyone as if we get it wrong we risk a fine of up to 5k

also surely removing the disabled toilet isn't legal as we need that

You said it was obvious from looking at this person that they are a man. If it's obvious to you it will be obvious to a judge as well. I don't know whether they can order a DNA test, but they can have a case thrown out for time wasting.

Perhaps this will all come to a head in a case where a trans identifying male with a falsified birth certificate insists that they are biologically female and can't be required to prove it. Perhaps that will bring everyone's attention to the fact that allowing people to falsify their legal documents isn't actually a very clever idea.

A court can question whether someone has a GRC if its relevant to the legal case.

You can live out your dream of having a café. You are, in fact. And seen as the person, who we haven't proved is a TW, was not in fact harassing anyone or behaving in an unacceptable manner...why not just leave them alone and let them pee where they like? You don't seem to want to be disrespectful of TW. So how about just continuing as society has done since forever, and just let them carry on? As you've found it, the rule is totally unenforcable. It would be very complicated and inconvenient for you to try to enforce it, so just leave it. She wasn't hurting anyone. She said she was female, so just take her at her word and leave it.

it was obvious (99%) but apparently judges aren't allowed to discriminate based on appearance and therefore can't use this to determine it, also legally they can't ask for a DNA test apparently.