To think that, under the threat of "Let the war begin", there should be specific laws against male's entering female private spaces (and vice versa)

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

After being told they will not be allowed to enter female toilets, changing rooms, clubs and other private sexed spaces, men have vowed to "fight" or be arrested “multiple times”

https://archive.ph/tdkd0

"Let the war begin. Fingers crossed. You need to fight for all of us globally. It’s a war."

I think it is reasonable to have a specific crime for this sort of violation of rights and privacy, rather than Outraging public decency, Voyeurism, Exposure/ indecent exposure.

It seems clear that without firm dealing with, men are going to violate these spaces again and again.

Thank you for thinking I’m confused. I’m not. My point stands that violent men don’t need to hide behind a trans status.

I have no interest in what you look like. Stop telling men that they can use female spaces.

Again, then you’ll be fired.

it’s not transphobic to say people have to stick to the toilet or changing room for their actual sex. That’s not transphobic. It’s safeguarding

So? This isn’t just about whether men will rape us, isn’t the bar allowed to be higher for women than that?

They don’t need to. But plenty do.

saying you’re trans does not reduce the likelihood you will assault someone sexually or violently.

in fact if you look at uk trans prison population, it’s the opposite.

But just for the avoidance of doubt you are more at risk in a mixed sex space, statistically.

Where are all these places with a "mixed sex" option? I've never seen it.

The only gender neutral option in a lot of places is a disabled toilet. It doesn't seem fair for trans people to be using a facility intended for people with disabilities. And a lot of the pubs and restaurants where I live don't have a disabled toilet anyway.

They aren’t entitled. They never have been entitled. And now, they never will be entitled.

Then they can use the one for their biological sex like everyone else.

Genuinely. Do you actually expect people to sit outside toilets all day scrutinising people’s appearance? Do you actually think think staff have the time for this when already massively over worked in an understaffed sector?

Out of interest do you leave your house unlocked because most people walking by are not thieves? Your car door?

Safeguarding works to eliminate risk. The fact that men don't need to dress as women to be violent doesn't mean that some men won't do this. You are literally making it easy for them to do so.

And it's not just about risk it's about dignity and consent.

Decent men/ including decent trans women would respect the law and that they do not have consent of all women to be in women's single sex spaces.

Trans women who continue to break the law are not decent.

If it’s their job, which it will be once enough complaints roll in, and they will with gusto.

either do it. Or quit.

But you do if you think policing toilet use is ok.

wouldn't need to be policed if men / including trans woman act decently and respected the law.

Why don't they?

It’s not “what you look like” it’s “what you are”

it should not even need policing if people were decent human beings who understood what they were doing to others with some empathy. A minority of men who need hollistic mental health should not be setting the agenda and attitude towards private spaces of 51% of the planet.

Ok. You have no experience in the retail sector if you think adding this to the duties of staff is doable.

Sorry, we can’t serve you at the till right now because we’re too busy checking birth certificates.

But nobody needs to check any certificates.

they just need their eyes

nobody passes as the opposite sex. They really really don’t.

It would be a completely unenforcable law... you do not have to prove anything, and nobody can prove your biology without the aforementioned invasive/intrusive tests. If challenged you simply need to say 'I'm entitled to use this space' and use it.

THIS IS TERRIBLE LEGAL ADVICE

Sorry for shouting but you are wrong here and anyone reading this should know that there are laws and you can be arrested if you are seen to cause harassment, alarm or distress (which you would be if you were a male person deliberately using the female facilities).

Also, even if you are not arrested, the service provider can ban you from the premises full stop. Your only redress would be to sue but then you would have to provide proof of your sex in a court of law.

If you are going to encourage people to contravene the law then at least advise them correctly of the potential consequences of doing so.

I think what has happened is that many people have grown up choosing which facilities they use at school, in their social clubs and then later at work. This will absolutely no longer be the case. People growing up through the system will know that they are not entitled in law to use those spaces. The message will filter through that it is not allowed or acceptable. There will be teething issues along the way as we deal with those who bought the Stonewall version of the law, and adopted a gender identity during those times, but eventually reality will kick back in.

And everybody views people the same do they?

sorry, your nose looks a bit manly

sorry, your a bit tall

sorry, your feet are a bit big

You can’t dictate who staff will or won’t ID because not everyone’s judgement is the same.

I agree. Even if men barge into women’s toilets in public places, they won’t be able to do it in the workplace, school, college etc where their sex will be known.

That pp is a woman, no? Not a man.

The point isn’t that we are expecting toilet police to be stationed outside the loos in shops and restaurants, but that if we see people who are obviously the wrong sex in our spaces, we can alert the staff and expect it to be dealt with, and not reported to the police for a hate crime.

I’ve been reminded of watching The Sweet on Top of the Pops with my mother as a teen. She was convinced Brian Connolly was a woman, and a pretty one at that.

Exactly.