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.

Because men's trauma at being asked to use the men's toilets is more important.

we can do this yes ut I believe we need to make them enclosed with sinks inside

It's pretty gross though to use a toilet straight after a man has been in, and find the seat covered in piss.

I'm sure someone will come along to tell me women do this too, but no, not so much. And for some reason it feels more disgusting to have to wipe up a random man's piss than a random woman's.

Everyone knows men's toilets smell bad.

The OP!!!

think some of you are over thinking the toilet set up. The OP wanted advice on the legal side of denying someone access to a toilet if she believed they are lying about their sex.

he used the loo (I assume) as when I entered he was washing his hands, would this cover it? i'm not sure it would

Thanks to an injury, I pee using a catheter with a valve, which means I pee with my feet pointing the wrong way. I am obviously female once people see me, but people have shouted things at me from the next door cubicle. I know people would say that they were right to question me, but it is humiliating nonetheless.

You said the reason the Supreme Court mentioned this was because it happens.

It's not.

They mentioned it because it theoretically could happen. That doesn't mean it actually does.

I dismissed it because it was American AND nonsense.

This literally doesn't say anything your original link didn't say.

Peer review is worth fuck all when all your peers are as batshit as you are.

The point is they wouldn’t bother mentioning any possible scenario that could ever theoretically happen however unlikely.
They specifically covered it because they felt it was something of significance that needed to be covered.
They were right, it is and it does.

No, you're wrong. The legislation is clear that anyone is entitled to protection from discrimination on the basis that they are perceived to have a protected characteristic they do not actually have.

So a person who is not Jewish but is mistakenly perceived to be Jewish is entitled to protection from antisemitic discrimination.

A woman who is not pregnant but is mistakenly perceived to be pregnant is entitled to protection from discrimination on grounds of pregnancy.

A person who is not a Tory voter but is mistakenly perceived to be one is entitled to protection on grounds of political beliefs, even though they do not actually hold those political beliefs.

A rather effeminate straight man who is mistakenly perceived to be gay is entitled to protection on grounds of sexuality, even though he is not actually gay.

And yes, a trans woman who is mistakenly perceived to be a woman is entitled to protection from discrimination on grounds of being female, despite not being female.

Just because the law provides for these eventualities does not mean any of them are likely to happen, or that all of them are equally likely to happen. The law merely provides for the possibility that these things might happen. The law provides for a great many things which may never happen.

And in any case, this is a very weak argument for you to be making, because it makes it clear that people can be protected from discrimination on grounds of being X even when they are not in fact X. In the context of trans women, this is a point which only needs to be made because they are not in fact women.

I feel like it's time to bit ethernet bullet and turn all my loos to any sex and just bite her bullet of he building owner and insurance company agree.

I would need to install separate sinks but I feel this this seems to be the way forwards

Also I assume I only need one disabled loo.

Out of interest how come the law allows disabled people whether trans or biologically the same birth sex to share a disabled toilet still?

@coffeeandmycats "Out of interest how come the law allows disabled people whether trans or biologically the same birth sex to share a disabled toilet still?" Probably because they're self-contained loos with hand-basin and dryer behind one locked door, unlike your other loos which have three cubicles and hand-basins/dryers outside, all behind an unlocked door.

It’s allowed because it isn’t specified as a single sex space.

The only point was that the court wouldn’t have felt the need to discuss it in the context of a court judgement if they didn’t consider it important.

In the context of trans women, this is a point which only needs to be made because they are not in fact women.

For the very last time- the judgement specifically said nothing about whether trans women are or are not in fact women.

They were simply clarifying that for the purposes of sex based discrimination protections in the EA 2010 , “women” means “biological women” (by which they mean women at “birth”) however protections for women extend to trans women where they are perceived to be “biological women” (women at birth).

Which means that in every context which actually matters, they aren't women.

It doesn’t mean they “aren’t women”, it means they aren’t covered by provisions in the EA that refer to “women” ( unless of course they are perceived to be women in which case they are…😅)

@coffeeandmycats
Talk to Audrey Ludwig.
She is an absolute expert on these issues.

There are some people on this thread massively misrepresenting the law and your responsibilities
(USA case law does not apply in the UK for a start)

You had a bad day.
You did no wrong.
All will be well.

Sorry OP, I know this is confusing but you are using the term "trans woman" totally wrong (apologies if someone has already pointed this out).

A trans woman is someone who was born male but wants to present as a woman. Your problem is with a trans man - someone who was born female but presents as male.

I have to say I have a lot of sympathy for people who are genuinely trans. If you have gone to a lot of trouble (possibly surgery and social exclusion/discrimination) to present as a particular gender then you must want to use the facilities for that gender.

However that doesn't help us with the issue of men pretending to be a trans woman in order to invade women's spaces. And just when we think the law has stepped in to help us, we have the converse problem of a bloke claiming to be biologically female!

I don't have all the answers, but for a repeat offender I think you could ask for proof - ask him/her to show you his/her birth certificate.

They aren't women for all purposes which actually permit men and women to be treated differently in public life.

As far as I'm concerned that's the only context that matters.

I couldn't give a shit what people get up to in their personal lives. It's not interesting.

Disability groups fought long and hard for facilities for people with disabilities.

Trans rights groups have spent years misrepresenting the EA2010 and insisting that people have rights to use opposite sex facilities.

Maybe those trans rights groups should have spent their time fighting for separate unisex spaces.

The blame lies squarely on the likes of Stonewall and its misrepresentation of UK law.

So take a long hard look at Stonewall et al, and the result of its disinformation, which now is effectively pushing service providers into making disabled facilities into unisex facilities for the folx unwilling to use the facilities provided for their sex.

Check on this by all means, but I have been in pubs that have one unisex toilet consisting of an open area with sinks and a number of cubicles.

But, as someone else pointed out, your clientele may not like it.

Certainly it would be expensive for you to create individual units with sinks in though.