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.

Why? This happens all the time. There are men protesting in the streets of London and Manchester and other places to be allowed to do this. Many of them being quite clear that they intend to continue to use women's spaces in direct violation of the law.
Why be surprised that one has actually done this?

Your confusion is entirely understandable

Perhaps they've just read the whole judgment, unlike you, Tandora.

to the people who said I said today in my original post when this happened the other day, this is because typed it up a couple of days ago and then posted it, apologies for this, it's not an attempt to drip feed, but whether it happened today, yesterday or a week ago hardly matters does it?

Indeed, just pointing out that it is possible to misgender people (another poster said we all know instinctively what sex someone is: that’s not always the case. Particularly, I think, in respect of transmen).

this would be costly and it would be down to the building owner to authorise

Why don't you go and ask Katie Dolatowski's victims to explain it to you?

yes but the issue is they said they were a biologically born female, how can I challenge this? I can hardly tell them they clearly look male can I? apparently that's illegal

Don't be awkward. We can all tell the difference between a man and a "butch woman". It's innate in women. It's part of our defense mechanism. 99% of the time we are correct.

It's not illegal

It's not illegal to tell a man he is clearly a man.

Great if they have. Then they will know that it says the following.

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 these words 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 or enable exclusion of trans men .

What about the 1%?

Ignore Tandora, they are presenting the law as they'd like it to be not as it is.

Try contacting Sex Matters for some advice: https://sex-matters.org

Yes, you've already said this at least once in this thread.

The judgment was about 90 pages long. It said a lot of things, many of which you clearly aren't happy about.

but on legal websites etc it says that a business cannot challenge a woman based on appearance? this is what I don't get

If I found someone in a toilet ..where there was only one. I'd wait for them to finish and then use it. No problem at all..unless you want to create one...for other reasons. A ridiculous drama when actual harm is happening - both here and across the world...a distraction from real problems that need change

The mistake is immediately apparent as soon as she opens her mouth and confirms that she is a woman.

I don't really undestined either.
My daughter and I go for lunch in a lovely old cafe sometimes. In what I think was once a cricket pavilion in the local park. It has one loo. Says WC. Everyone uses it and doesn’t seem to have any problems 🤷‍♀️ Common in lots of small premises.

Just label all cubicles WC, OP.

Which websites?

Lots of "legal" websites spout rubbish particularly if they have been stonewalled. Do any of them actually state which crime would be committed?

No. It's not. And the police officer who told you that was wrong (or lying)
So called "misgendering" is not illegal. But I really think the time has come for you to get proper legal advice on this.
And do post in FWR in the meantime. There are rabid TRAs on that forum too but not nearly as many. And the women on there really know their stuff on this subject.

It is. I'm glad we agree. I have no desire to see trans women criminalised simply for entering a women's space once, and frankly the police have better things to do than be a parent to childish men who need to hear that social "no" more often.

Equally, service providers complying with their legal obligations should not be subject to harassment, campaigns against their business or personal integrity or threats of retribution from activists or naive allies because said activists disagree with those legal obligations.

Assuming no actual crime like harassment, voyeurism or phsyical or verbal abuse or intimidation was commmited, I believe the issue of trans women abusing women's single sex boundaries should be handled in the first instance the same way we handle other sexist or inappropriate social behaviour - by making it clear to the perpetrator that their behaviour is inappropriate and likely to cause distress, and educating them that men's presence in certain situations can have an adverse effect on women even if the man in question is not actively abusive.

Reasonable people should understand, rethink their actions and not have to be told twice.

If it becomes a pattern of harassment or anti social behaviour by that individual then laws already exist to handle this.

The main purpose of my post was that you may have accidentally given the impression that because the EA is "one particular act of parliament", that the EA definition of sex only applies in limited circumstances. By the nature of what the EA act is, in the vast vast majority of circumstance that single sex provision is offered, the EA is the act that applies.

Why do you want to police your toilets? If I were you, I would stick to providing coffee & cats. Make the toilets unisex. If you don't want the cost of changing the facilities take the Male/Female signs off & call the toilets Cubicles & Urinals.

OP has communal toilets she can't just label them WC