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.

*The judgement clarified that the word “sex” as used in the equalities act 2010 refers to “biological sex”, by which they simply mean “birth sex” and that “woman” means “biological” women - women “at birth”. That means that protections from discrimination on the basis of sex in the act should be understood as referring to people based on their birth sex , although the judgement also clarified circumstances where protections for women may apply to trans women or enable exclusion of trans men.

Where on earth are they supposed to go, then, if they can’t use the biological men’s loos or the biological women’s loos?

As a disabled person, I disagree with you. Please don't give our spaces away

Thank you

The judgment says that if a business makes use of the single sex exemption in the Equality Act to provide a space or service for one sex and not the other, or for both sexes separately, that space or service must actually be single sex. That means biological sex. If some members of the opposite biological sex are allowed in, it is not a single sex space or service, meaning the single sex exemption has not been correctly applied and so the business can no longer justify excluding all other members of the opposite sex from that space or service.

Additionally, the Equality Act says that in some circumstances failing to provide single sex spaces may constitutes sex discrimination, and other legislation specifically requires workplaces to provide single sex toilets and (where applicable) changing rooms, except in circumstances where there is not enough space to provide anything other than a limited number of unisex facilities, in which case they must be a fully enclosed room..

So here we see that single sex means biological sex, that where a business chooses to provide a single sex space or service it must actually be single sex (i.e. it cannot include members of the opposite sex based on their gender identity), and that in some cases failing to provide a single sex space or service may constitute discrimination.

How can a business provide a single sex space or service if they refuse to deal with members of the opposite sex attempting to access that space or service?

Nope. You are over interpreting. None of this has been tested in law.

Absolutely this. Why do the needs of disabled people always seem to come at the bottom of the list?

This is what the judgement says

Why can’t a male use the men’s loos?

Paragraph 221 of the judgement

Moreover, women living in the male gender could also be excluded under paragraph 28 without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination. This might be considered proportionate where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example, because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken in the context of the women-only service being provided.

Not really sure what your dilemma is. The SC ruled that trans men are biologically women. So presumably trans men can use your female toilets. It is your responsibility to tell your customers that anyone born biologically female can use the female toilets.

This is exactly what people were fighting for and wanted.

Surely that is not hard to grasp. It’s pretty black and white.

The judgment isn't clear on this point.

I think the fall out from this is ultimately going to go one of two ways. Either the law will be changed to essentially change the meaning of sex in the Equality Act (i.e. trans activists will have won and women can get to fuck, as per usual), or building regs will have to change to mandate fourth, unisex spaces in addition to single sex and accessible spaces.

Additional unisex facilities are going to be the only facilities which are appropriate for trans men.

In reality, I don't think the Supreme Court judgment changes much for trans men in practical terms. Some trans men who are confident they they "pass" and are currently using men's spaces will probably continue to do so without issue. But there have been threads on here by trans men who say they pass (including one who said he lives "stealth" and has basically not kept in touch with anyone who knew him as a woman) and still avoid using either men's or women's facilities. They avoid the women's out of respect for women and fear of being outed, and they avoid the men's our of fear for their personal safety.

They avoid the women's out of …fear of being outed

I wonder if you took any notice of this

Self contained cubicles are far more dangerous for people not being found if they fall ill. Enclosed toilets are NOT the way to go.

‘I’m so so sorry- the toilet is currently out of order. We’ve called an engineer’ followed by a bland smile…

The law will not be changed.
It has been clarified.

Men's issues with other men are not for women to solve.

What's your point?

Sorry, not sure I understand?

I was referring to someone upthread saying that if a trans man looked too masculine and frightened other users, they could be prevented from using women’s toilets. Surely that can’t be right? If trans women have to use men’s toilets by law, surely the same applies to trans men?

I can't do this, they have paid to enter the cafe already plus they may see another biological female use the women's loo, plus telling someone who is trans female they can't have the key to the women's loo is clearly discrimination.

which begs the question why in the UK is there not a government body that lays out in laymens terms what should happen in these situations?

That this is one of the multiple reasons why it is profoundly unjust and illegal to “expect” (as a preferred word of a pp) trans people to use toilets according to “birth sex”.

is the bottom line here that unfortunately no one wins in these situations?

Ah I see, apologies. I would assume that trans men, if they present so convincingly that no one can tell they would just continue to use the men’s and if men had a problem with it they would raise their own concerns 🤷‍♀️.
I just care about women having spaces away from men to be honest.

i care about women AND men having their spaces and not lose them.

@Tandora I think that women's perfectly reasonable fears about being sexually assaulted trump trans women's almost entirely imaginary fears about being "outed".

Firstly because being sexually assaulted is a much bigger problem than being outed, and secondly because we can see what sex they are anyway.

Trans men have a much greater reason to fear being outed, because they're much more likely to pass in the first place, and the consequences of people finding out you're really a woman are more serious than the consequences of people finding out you're really a man.

I have no idea why you're saying it is illegal to expect trans people to use single sex spaces for their own sex when the highest legal authority in the country just said that this is exactly what they should be doing. The Supreme Court doesn't get the law wrong. The Supreme Court IS the law.