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 act refers to “birth sex” and that “woman” means women “at birth”. That means that protections from discrimination based on “sex” in the act should be understood as referring to people based on birth sex , although the judgement also clarified circumstances where protections for women may apply to trans women (eg if through gender reassignment they are perceived to be women) or enable exclusion of trans men (if through gender reassignment they are perceived to be men) .

Food outlets, I think, are obligated to provide toilets. Also, if I go for a coffee, I expect to have access to a loo.

You're so cocky and so wrong, are you sure you're not a man? (seeing as we're judging people based on stereotypes)

Disingenuous.

That "One particular act of parliament" is the one that makes it illegal to discriminate by sex in the UK.

That is the baseline. No single sex anything.

However there are times where sex segregation or sex specific services are reasonable, either for privacy, because of different physical capabilities, or because in world where men fetishise women's bodies and where men benefit more than women from sexism, women may need single sex support for safety, or woman-only support and opportunities to redress the balance

So the same act allows for an exemption where it can be legal to provide single sex services if they are a proportionate means to a legitimate end.

Which means that yes it is just "one particular act of parliament", but since any single sex provision has to comply with it, it does in fact apply to all single sex provisions (other than those entirely exempt from the EA Act). Basically, if you want to be woman-only in most cases you'll have to comply with the EA Act, and that means the EA act defintion of woman applies.

It is true that a man entering a women's space is not breaking the law, although what he does there, especially if it's a pattern, may fall foul of other laws like haassment, indecent exposure or nuisance. The obligation to comply with the EA act is on the service provider not the service users. However, a service provider who offers single sex provision but does not enforce the rules under which their single sex provision is classed as exempt from the EA is breaking the law and is liable to being sued.

thanks for all the posts everyone and advice.

I'm trying to reply to everyone but there are a lot of messages.

To the people who say I am lying, i'm not but you do you, also i'm not working today hence why I am posting at lunch time.

To the people who are suggesting codes on doors or keys, how would this work exactly? If someone states they are biologically born female do I hand them over the key even if they are (almost certainly) a trans woman? this is the part I don't get. Because it seems to be illegal for me to tell a trans women they are a trans women and not a biological women based off of the law.

Also to the people suggesting I re do the toilets, this is something I would have to discuss with the building owners as we rent the building unfortunately.

Just say the womens toilet is currently unavailable. No reason needed. Could be a plumbing issue, a cleaning issue or a staff member having a moment.

If they need the loo that badly they will have to be very very brave and remember that at home no one asks your sex before you go to the toilet because you all use the same one.

Tbf, I had regular chats with a man operating a checkout at our local supermarket before finding out he was a trans man. Really, had no idea.

I'm pretty sure it would be humiliating to be sat on the loo, and have a man pop his head over the top of the stall, to look at you, with your kickers down. And YES, this has been done many, many times in mixed sex toilets.

This actually happened at our hotel in Mexico - bloke lasted about 10 seconds, before a gaggle of women frog marched him to the door, and threw him out.

As for PP saying he might have been a woman, or a trans man, we KNOW what someone is when we look at them, it's ingrained, and instinctive. I think women are even better at it, because we have to constantly evaluate risk. People who say otherwise might do well to read the George Orwell speech :

"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

I asked my sister about this and she says that if they see other people use the toilet I could be legally in trouble.

Also can I go off at a tangent here and ask how a court would identify if someone is a trans woman or a woman if they do bring a discrimination claim? I know this is slightly unrelated but couldn't the trans woman tell the court they were born biologically female and aren't trans (providing their birth cert etc)

as much as the idea of refusing to give the key seems like a good idea in practise it feels like the person will put 2 and 2 together as to why it was refused and if they are that type of person bring a claim against us

However, a service provider who offers single sex provision but does not enforce the rules under which their single sex provision is classed as exempt from the EA is breaking the law and is liable to being sued

Yes, I agree with this. It is also entirely compatible with everything I have said on this thread.

I thought so too but didn’t want to say so in case it turns out I’m a crazy cat lady 😁

Our cats would hate being forced to interact with strangers.

can you break this down into simpler terms for me please?

A restaurant I was at recently had mixed sex loos. They felt safe, as there were no gaps in the stalls, so floor to ceiling walls. BUT....both stalls had the seats up, piss all over the floor and they STANK! So even without the safety element, I don't want to share toilets with men!!

Bollocks.

yes people pay upfront so we do know who has entered, but obviously trans woman and trans men are allowed in, and we don't ask anyone's status upfront when they pay

I think the problem is, we have to get it wrong only one time for someone to bring a claim against us, and that seems like a very costly mistake.

Humans have been able to correctly sex other humans since the beginning of time. All of these people so gender non conforming walking about that we can’t tell, and masculine looking women suddenly being harassed all over the shop because women think they are men, even after speaking, is bollocks. Pun intended.

I think OP explained her circumstances and her cafe's situation pretty well in the following posts. Oh well, at least I understood what she meant.

Here’s my quick and rushed perspective on the matter:
Trans people can do whatever they want because no one can oppose them.
Males/men who identify as females/women can get away with doing anything.
The same presumably applies to females/women who identify as males/men.
Ordinary women and men feel they must remain silent and adapt to the changing times.

In your opening post you said this happened today and now you say you’re not working today. You’re really not keeping track of this nonsense are you?
If you’re going to make something up keep it simple so you don’t get confused.

Gender non conforming people have been harassed since the beginning of time. It’s got worse recently in the UK with the spread of transphobia.

What kind of small shop has space for 2 sets of toilets- this sounds completely fake tbh

even if it was true literally nothing g happened - if you waited 2 mins to he person would have left and then it would have been over and you could all move on with your day without needing to call the police 😆
what a load of drama

It did not! You are outright lying.
Trans people are protected by the characteristic of gender reassignment against direct discrimination regarding employment/housing etc.

That's it!
A space designated women only invokes the protected characteristic of SEX. As defined by the SC as referring to biological sex only.

And this is the law NOW! NOT In some mythical future after the guidance is out. NOW!

Don't ask that poster as they are misreporting the law.

If it is labelled women's, it's for birth women. Men's is for birth men.

Passing transmen can be excluded from women's spaces if their appearance is such that women would think they're men. (They're not allowed into the men's, so would have to use the disabled / any unisex single loo option.)

Transwomen are never allowed into women's spaces. Because they're men.

Transwomen can claim sex discrimination as women only if they are perceived as so. As vanishingly few pass, this will rarely apply.

Non-passing transwomen can still claim sex discrimination, but their comparator will be men, not women.

Cool cool. Glad that now not only my sex is doubted but also the truth of my experience of living as a butch woman. So much for women supporting women. Guess that's only a club for sufficiently feminine women who support your fixed world view.

Please read the judgement. This is what it said:

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 (eg if through gender reassignment they are perceived to be women) or enable exclusion of trans men (if through gender reassignment they are perceived to be men) .