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 ruling didn’t say that.

Clarifying the law was step 1. Step 2 is how we enforce it, given that these horrible men have no respect for women's boundaries or the law.

So this happened today at 12.10….peak lunchtime for your food based business

and you’ve phoned the police,got an almost immediate response then gone on to google, read various articles and researched case law…

over 1 incident which sounds a bit interesting .

Yes it did.

You should have told the truth he was unpleasant aggressive and causing a disturbance

apologies are you saying awful to my question?

But you can ask him to leave premises once paid and never return and ban him from shop
in your situation I’d do that..fairly loudly citing he refuses to comply with your shop rules.

id avoid saying about what rules…in case overhearing trans allies

butnid make it very clear he’s banned from entering ever agian

Did I understand these are single toilets ?

Take the gendered signs off these single toilet doors and replace them with “WC”. Then anyone can use either, there is no confusion, no customers are excluded or humiliated and everyone can buy food, and piss, or shit in peace.

he was causing a disturbance but to be fair he wasn't aggressive he just (99.999%) lied and said he was born biologically female.

Nope.

The judgement clarified that the word “sex” as used in the act refers to “birth sex” and that “woman” means women “at birth”. That means that protections from discrimination in the act should be understood as referring to these groups , although the judgement also clarified circumstances where protections for women may apply to trans women or enable exclusion of trans men.

Thats all the judgement did.

That sounds so cute. Really sad things are getting tougher. I hope that horrible man doesn't ever try and come back. You should tell other local businesses to look out for him and potentially bar him.
I wish you and the cats the best x

Tandora is misleading you.

The 1992 workplace regs require staff toilets separated by SEX
The Supreme Court ruling stated categorically that identity does not alter sex.

Men have no business going into ANY toilet / space / service that is labelled women

He wasn't being excluded. He was a man and there was a toilet for men.

So definitely not a transman?

I did think this but my sister was worried he would bring a claim for discrimination, as (although it appeared to be a transwoman (99.999%) sure there is always a chance we get it wrong.

also how can the court tell if someone is a trans woman or a woman? can they DNA test them at court etc? it seems dangerous

You don’t know that. There’s already been cases on masc women being harassed and accused of being men. Again and again we see you can’t always tell. Stop policing how people present themselves.

I call BS. What is the business OP?.I don't believe for a second you have a male and female with baby change in both. Let me guess you also have a disabled? If you have all this space why don't you also have a unisex?

The Supreme Court ruling stated categorically that identity does not alter sex.

They categorically did not state this. This is false.

The judgement clarified that the word “sex” as used in the EA act 2010 refers to “birth sex” and that “woman” means women “at birth”. That means that protections from discrimination in the act should be understood as referring to these groups , although the judgement also clarified circumstances where protections for women may apply to trans women or enable exclusion of trans men.

“These horrible men”.

Sweeping generalisations are never a good idea.
Like any group, there will be a range of personalities amongst trans women.

But not legal in a workplace.

The judgment confirmed that "women" means female people, and sex means biological sex, not imaginary sex.

If something is labelled "women" it is for female people only, not for male people who imagine themselves to be female. If male people are in a women only space then it is now a mixed sex space and should be clearly labelled as such. Unless it is a toilet which isn't suitable to be designated as a unisex toilet, in which case, tough shit, use the toilet matches your sex. There is no such thing as a toilet which matches your identity/personality.

The OP has assumed that.

Regarding “humiliation”, I was referring to suggestions that people need to come to the counter and ask for the gender specific key at which point the person behind the counter will make a judgement.

Are you suggesting that the OP can't tell whether someone is male or female?

Er... Read it again. Or at least stop disseminating bogus information.
Rights for women do not include transwomen and the judgement does not say they do.
It was very clear. Transwomen are men.

Yes. People are misgendered frequently.