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.

I don't disbelieve you at all! My post wasn't in response to you. I fully support what you're doing.

Plenty of threads on FWR. But this will perhaps understand why I’ll be taking your “oh I’m sure x museum will have thought it all through and arrived at the best option” with a large amount of salt.🧂

Do you work for a public body? They are driven by public liability and statistics.

If fully enclosed lavatories were an health and safety issue, they absolutely would not be installed in public buildings.

(Phrases like “trans brigade” and “trendy causes” really don’t further your argument.)

No. You’re “done”, because it doesn’t say what you’re claiming, does it? You seem unable to quote the words which you think support your claim, other than the passages which also clearly aren’t saying what you’re claiming. You’re spreading misinformation, either because you don’t understand the report or the case, or you’re trying to mislead..

For the record:

toilets along with all single sex spaces are covered by the Equality Act 2010. This thread relates to a service open to the public which is unequivocally only covered by the EA 2010, it’s not a workplace toilet. So the Supreme Court judgment is relevant to toilets, because it rules on what a woman is and that men don’t qualify, even with a gender recognition certificate. Hope that helps.

I have worked for public bodies, yes. If you’re unaware of the existence of ideological capture, that’s really a you problem.

And treating them as if "transness" makes them actually interchangeable with the opposite sex destoys sex-based protections and erases the legal and social recognition of the significance of actual sex to public life,

This affects women (original sex based meaning) in particular because due to being physically weaker than men, carrying a higher social and physical burden for reproduction, and living in a culture where our bodies and our privacy are fetished and where people of our sex have historically been considered less intelligent and capable, our sex is significant to how we are treated and to the physical,social and economic risks we face.

So, an impasse. By supporting trans people to be treated as they sex they want to be seen as, we hurt women. By supporting women to deal with the challanges of being the sex we are, we hurt trans people. How can this be resolved?

The answer is very simple. Sex is not gender so stop trying to make it the same thing. Maintain women-only language and support based on sex and sex alone, and also go back to the drawing board and build up the supports and protections that trans people need as well, not as a colonistion of women's protections and rights but as something new. It does not have to be zero sum game.

Do you currently work for a public body?

Why is that relevant? Do you think there’s been some massive cultural change since I did? I’m not going to post my CV, sorry.

You can look at Arts Council England, Social Work England, Westminster Council, Fife NHS Trust, Darlington NHS Trust, Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre for just a few examples of ideological capture that have ended up in court on this issue.

Yes, there probably has. Public bodies are very much liability driven now. If the risk of people being taken ill in public lavatories with no gaps beneath the doors were sufficient enough to affect insurance costs, it would most certainly be taken account of.

You should have a chat with @KeepToiletsSafe @MrsSkylerWhite- she knows more stats on this issue than the average local council.

I’ll read with interest, thanks. Very open to informed people.

This thread.

34 pages so far.

All because some men won't accept being told no and some women are deparate to make it so they don't have to be.

Women in all seriousness suggesting that buildings are reconfigured, thousands of pounds spent, because it's easier than saying No to men who don't like to be told No.

So much hand wringing about how it is so impossible to stop men who want to be in women's spaces that the only rational answer is not to bother trying to stop them at all.

Even though those men know perfectly well what sex they are and are perfectly capable of stopping themselves should they want to, the thought that it might actually be on men to do something they don't want to do, and that it's ok for women to point that out, is so huge it seems to be literally unthinkable to some women.

It's fucking heartbreaking.

Yes, people who are informed is why MN is such a great resource.

The main Labour Party LGBT group has cancelled its AGM rather than tell some entitled men that they aren’t eligible to be women’s officers.

Well yes, that’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it? Your belief that trans women, “know what sex they are”.

Therein lies the problem. They don’t.

It is. Can agree on that 😃

How does someone genuinely not know what sex they are? Everyone else knows what that person's sex is, how could they themselves remain oblivious?

This is nonsense. They do. Of course they know they’re male. That’s why they’re trans.

To play along with the idiocy for a second, if people are unsure of their sex, a visit to the Dr will clear that up for them, so they can be law abiding citizens.

HTH

I mean, my God. The barrel scraping is extraordinary. 🫠

I’m not sure because as a woman that’s all I’ve ever felt I am.

That a significant number of people don’t feel equally sure about their gender, though, tells me something.

That corney old line about walking a mile in someone else’s shoes springs to mind.

Just because it’s not my experience doesn’t mean that it’s not an equally valid experience.

Agree @TheKeatingFive

Utterly desperate you might say.

Gender (identity) isn’t sex. Many TRAs are at pains to (disingenuously) point that out.