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.

Where possible and affordable, all toilets should be in enclosed cubicles of Disabled standard, with emergency cords.

I am disappointed to see that the (usually just one) disabled facility is being mooted as unisex, just because some men want to invade the female spaces, and should not do so anymore. Less availability for the disabled, and surely that impacts on THEIR rights?

Just look what the TRAs have started, and continue to demand at the expense of the rights of others.

Then your insurers are muppets.

Follow the Supreme Court.

see I feel like my grips is similar, I don't want to (nor do I think I can legally) turn the disabled loo into a disabled / unisex loo. removing disabled peoples spaces isn't okay (plus we are required by our insurers to have a disabled loo)

That is BAD advice.
The law dating back to 2010 was clarified on April 16th

wait and see could make a discrimination claim WORSE not Better.

PLEASE read Ben Cooper's summary

yes but the sc says what the law is but not how to enforce it, seemingly if someone says they are a biologically woman we have to take their word for it even if they look trams, as it is illegal for a business to use physical appearance which can lead to discrimination.

How do you know that they were born a male? Transmen are also biological women. You sound like one of the “wE cAn AlwAYs TeLl” brigade, that actually cannot “always tell” at all, and end up subjecting women to harassment.

No.
The exact opposite.

I'm not the smartest cookie in the cookie jar, but I feel like their advice is, wait and see how it plays out before making changes, I suppose their reasoning for this is because no government body physically bothered to say how we should challenge etc and how to do it compliantly legally and respectfully

Were you in doubt as to this man's sex OP?

And Transmen (females) can legitimately be excluded from female spaces if they appear so male that their presence would cause upset to those who NEED single sex spaces

yes this is my point (probably badly worded) if customers complain and I miss challenge someone they could claim I'm discriminating on them

But the actual ruling - which is very easy to read DID

Here it is with bookmarks and links
https://sex-matters.org/posts/for-women-scotland-v-the-scottish-ministers/fws-v-the-scottish-ministers/

99% sure, (closer to 100 to be honest) but I only have to be wrong one time to have to pay out to someone.

People say it is easy to tell, however if you showed these people 10,000 women and said some are trans women identify every trans women, i can guarantee you no one is getting 100%....

How do you they were not born female

Can they? I thought that the new legislation meant that people must use the appropriate lavatory for their biological sex?

thanks for this, i'm reading now, however it's a bit hard to understand

They could, but you would have the perfectly reasonable defence of protecting your female customers who need a female only space.

this was included in the ruling as well (meaning hypothetically if a trans man wants the loo and another man complains I'm opening a whole new can of worms

will this hold up though? people have received payouts for this previously.

Look, at some point you have to use common sense.

The law has now clarified that women's spaces are for female people only.

If you refuse to let an obviously male person use a women only space on the grounds that they look obviously male, they're not going to sue you if they actually are biologically male. Because they will be unable to prove that they are biologically female, which they would have to do in order for their claim to succeed.

And in the very unlikely event that you genuinely believe an actual woman is man, you won't be the only person to make that mistake, and you can say that you were trying to follow the law in good faith.

You're worrying about something which isn't going to happen.

But I do hope that some absolute muppet of a trans activist tries to push this one in court and ends up sparking a public discussion about whether letting people falsify their birth certificates is a failed experiment which now needs to end.

There is no new legislation.

It is clarification of what the 2010 Act always said
and how it should always have been adhered to

That's your answer then.

You knew he was a man, so you tell him politely that the women's toilets are for biological women and he should use the men's.

If he tries to argue, you ask to see his birth cert and you will never see that man again.

If in doubt, don't challenge, but be mindful of your other patrons and how they're reacting.

Since the Supreme Court judgment? I highly doubt it.

Fair enough.

but what if they are doing this for a reaction and pull out their birth certificate showing born female, as this can be changed