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.

No link or anything to the original comment that was apparently such a big deal it made its own MN thread?

righty ho then.

I’m happy to have trans women in toilets with me. HTH

You can join them in the gender neutral/mixed sex toilets and changing rooms to your hearts content. Enjoy.

Spaces designated for women/females only are off limits to transwomen as they are male I am sure you too are not painting transwomen as non law abiding citizens are you?

I can find a reference to a telegraph article that mentions this ‘let the war begin’ statement but I can’t find the statement and it seems to have just been a random tweet by…anyone. Seems a little disingenuous to use it in this context to stir up bad feelings, especially given that this is an emotive issue with the potential for real world violence

VioletandDill

Without the flimsy excuse provided by the debunked claim that 'men are women' the situation has changed.

A man invading a women's single sex space like a changing room is in the same position he would have been before all this nonsense began. Then he'd have been thrown out and perhaps arrested. Depending on whether there were little girls present.

He could be charged with voyeurism, indecent exposure etc and end up on the sexual offenders register.

As for enforcing it you clearly have no understanding of the way laws work in general. We don't have police officers outside every home checking that people going in are not burglars.

In reality all law-abiding men will stop entering women's spaces because that's the right thing to do.

Hopefully that will include your friends and they will accept the situation and move on. They have lost nothing that was theirs to begin with. They have legal toilets/changing rooms available to them

Of those remaining most will stop because of the price of getting caught.

That will leave a very small number of men whose need to get in there is so great they will go to any lengths to achieve it. It's probably best not to dwell on their motives if the need is that powerful.

They will face being asked to leave and then being dragged out, arrested and risking a police investigation into their behaviour and those motives.

Inchworms a number of men have said they won't stand for being told no by women. That any woman who objects won't like how her face will look after.

Some go into quite graphic detail. I'm not going to, but this site may give you an idea terfisaslur.com/

I know that. I’m talking the OP of this thread specifically.

Amen to all of this xx

Employer compliance with EA 2010 regards facilities begins and ends with ensuring the facilities are available, and clearly marked. If someone, a customer perhaps, then opts to enter a facility not intended for use by their sex, that is a civil matter, not a criminal offence.

This is why it's entirely uneforceable and unpoliceable. Responsibility for proper use rests with the individual, and if they choose not to comply, then there is nothing in law whatsoever that actually provides an employee or a member of the public with any authority to challenge or evict a non-complying person.

If you believe they are present for nefarious reasons, then you call the police, but good luck getting someone nicked if they are using a toilet for it's intended purpose. They are not committing any sort of offence by simply being a person in the "wrong" loo.

If you believe they are present for nefarious reasons, then you call the police, but good luck getting someone nicked if they are using a toilet for its intended purpose. They are not committing any sort of offence by simply being a person in the "wrong" loo.

So women who don't want to be behind a closed door in an isolated space with a man because they've experienced male violence in the past, or they have a faith where they can't be alone with a man, or they want privacy to deal with the stuff women's bodies do (periods, miscarriages, etc), or they just want a single sex space, they don't matter? As long as the trans-identifying man isn't doing anything "nefarious" and it might not qualify as an offence under law, it absolutely doesn't matter if women are desperately uncomfortable, frightened or self-exclude from spaces?

Right.

As far as I see it, decent males stay out of women-only spaces. Those who insist on going in, knowing full well that at least some women don't want them there, are the bad guys. They are demonstrating not only their very male entitlement, but also EXACTLY why women want and need single sex spaces - to keep away from men like them.

I don't know. We managed well enough for the first 50 years of my life. You'd be amazed at how many men didn't follow my daughters into toilets back then.

I suspect the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 will require more then lip service and for places like schools..... Well a headmaster that openly refused to stop boys or male teachers from sneaking into the girls shower room would have a new career stacking supermarket trolleys to look forward to.

Remember that it only worked in the last decade or so because they could claim they believed the men to be women. Without that excuse it looks like enabling abuse doesn't it.

Yes that’s why no shop worker ever mentioned anything g to a shoplifter. Christ you’re idiotic in your reasoning.

So women who don't want to be behind a closed door in an isolated space with a man because they've experienced male violence in the past, or they have a faith where they can't be alone with a man, or they want privacy to deal with the stuff women's bodies do (periods, miscarriages, etc), or they just want a single sex space, they don't matter? As long as the trans-identifying man isn't doing anything "nefarious" and it might not qualify as an offence under law, it absolutely doesn't matter if women are desperately uncomfortable, frightened or self-exclude from spaces?
Right.

First off, at no point did I suggest any of this is unimportant or that women "don't matter", so I'm puzzled as to how you can possibly conclude this is my position.

My post was to clarify that, as things stand, it's both wholly unrealistic, and inappropriate to expect barstaff and suchlike to police toilet use on the basis that "it's the law", as @SingleSexSpacesInSchools suggests.

The SC ruling did not change any laws, and nor will the upcoming EHRC guidance, so absent of any new laws being made, the situation post-EHRC guidance is going to be no different whatsoever to that which pre-dated the SC ruling.

Again, the SC ruling pertains to EA2010, and the scope of that legislation extends to appropriate facilities being made available and clearly marked. It does not provide any means for organisations to enforce compliance by individuals, therefore organisations and employers can not reasonably expect employees to police third party use of those facilities.

The part of my post you quoted is relating to the fact that if people are expecting anything to change as a result of the SC ruling, especially if they are expecting non-complying people to be removed from toilets, then they are mistaken, because the law is still precisely the same as it has been since 2010, so individuals, organisations, and the police have no more means or authority to remove people from toilets than they had previously. You might be able to argue that a man in the women's loos is causing "fear, alarm, or distress", highlight that to attending police, but then it will be entirely up to the officers attending (assuming they actually attend and the individual is still present at the scene) to gauge whether the individual in question is, in fact, committing a public order offence or otherwise, and if all they are doing is using a toilet for it's intended purpose, then it's highly unlikely the police would judge that to be a public order offence.

If it isn't happening now, it's not going to happen post-SC or post EHRC guidance without some change in the law, or some new law being brought into being, as per OP.

Hahahahagbaha. We don’t need intrusive tests. We have eyes.
why are you so intent on making all spaces mixed sex? You do know that if a space is mixed sec by including your “trans friends” that means everybody of thst sex is allowed in. No exceptions. So if your trans friends are uncomfortable sharing spaces with men in male facilities, won’t they be just as uncomfortable sharing mixed sex spaces with those men? If not. why not? Unless of course it’s not about safety, it’s about validation?

if you’re so happy sharing spaces with men, use the men’s.

Yes, a factual recounting of reality, and where we stand re: law is "idiotic".

It may have escaped your attention, but standard advice to shop employees now is not to challenge shoplifters.

Dont be so stupid. Trans women don't pass. No one needs a test. In the vast overwhelming majority of cases we can tell.

And why the fuck are you advocating for men to be in women's spaces amongst vulnerable women, kids, rape survivors, women whose religion doesn't allow them to be in mixed sex spaces? Are you a pervert? A nonce apologist?

This is now settled law and why aren't you listening to women telling you no?

You sound like a horrible misogynist with no respect for women or their rights and dignity.

Would you go into a setting purely for people of colour blacked up and tell them they had to accept you because you feel black? Would you fuck.

So are you saying that males with a trans identity would break the law and make women uncomfortable just because they can? You don’t seem to have a very high opinion of them do you? Surely knowing they are making women uncomfortable and scared would be enough to prevent them from causing distress? I mean aren’t women told to put others before themselves and #bekind? So are you saying TW are not women then? Because if you thought they were, surely you’d be telling them to be kind and not upset women? Wouldn’t you?

What about changing rooms in gyms and sports centres? If I’m getting undressed in a communal area I don’t want or expect to see a man in there however he might identify and however lovely his friends think he is.

If it isn't happening now, it's not going to happen post-SC or post EHRC guidance without some change in the law, or some new law being brought into being, as per OP.

Oh but it will, because the law has been clarified by the SC ruling - previously there was ambiguity as to whether transwomen were women in law. Now it's been made clear that they aren't, so it makes it so much easier to bring court cases against organisations that don't comply with single biological sex spaces. There is already one pending against Hampstead Ponds. Women who feel strongly about this - me included - have been putting our own money into crowd funders for years, plus there is now JKR's fighting fund. It only takes one or two companies to not only be dragged through the courts, with all the negative publicity that comes with that, but found to be breaching the law for organisations to suddenly realise that they can enforce the law.

That's just it, isn't it? It's not just about loos, it's changing rooms in shops and gyms, it's prisons, it's women's sports and just any space that's allocated for women only.

Women do not have to budge up and relinquish our spaces to validate the feelings, wants, desires and fetishes* of men.

(*Google autogynaephilia. But only if you've got some mind-bleach to hand.)

shop lifting is a criminal offence . It is not remotely comparable. People really don’t understand the basics of law lol.

Correct

@SidewaysOtter

Now it's been made clear that they aren't, so it makes it so much easier to bring court cases against organisations that don't comply with single biological* sex spaces.*

Yes, but this is still an entirely separate issue from actual enforcement re usage, which is what the OP's point about new laws refers to.

Again, the EA compels provision of facilities, but does nothing to compel enforcement. That is entirely separate legislation, and it's hasn't changed post SC.

but found to be breaching the law for organisations to suddenly realise that they can enforce the law

Again, you are conflating two entirely separate issues.

Non-complying organisations will be held to account, and I have no doubt that will spur more compliance, but this means providing facilities, not "enforcement", because it simply is within the scope of EA to compel enforcement, it's entirely down to individuals to comply, organisations have no means whatsoever to compel those individuals.

Indeed, and yet you are within your rights to challenge someone you believe to be committing a criminal offence, leaving without an attempt to pay for example, but employers are now prohibiting staff from doing so. Why then, there is an expectation that staff will be compelled to challenge people who are not committing any offence I do not know, especially when there is no basis for it, and staff would be entirely correct if they simply shrugged and said "nothing to do with me"

it seems that things like that are exactly how we have ended up with Reform polling first.

They lack the biological male entitlement that is firmly attached to the Y chromosome and fully activated by SRY gene.