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.

Personally I put the rise of Reform down to overwhelming general ignorance, but that's just my opinion.

Well there are at least three charges that could be brought against a male entering female space. I listed them in the first post.

my question was - do we need an ADDITIONAL one and it seems the vast majority of people here want one.

so maybe a few weeks of men forcing their way into the ladies and we’ll have it?

after all they have promised to fight and be arrested?

Sneering at your lessers has always been a thing to do just before the revolution. Always works out well.

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.

The Equality Act 2010 doesn't compel the provision of facilities, I think you're confusing that with the Workplace (HS&W) Regulations 1992. The EA2010 covers the specific characteristics which are protected from discrimination. The SC ruling in FWS vs The Scottish Ministers clarified the definition of woman and man under law in respect of the EA2010, and therefore that a single-sex space is limited to biological women or biological men, and that trans people are defined by the sex they're born as.

Women will ensure the EA2010 is enforced. We've been doing this a long time via many court/tribunal cases, we're not stopping now.

Err yeh, trans men use the men’s toilets.

Well there are at least three charges that could be brought against a male entering female space. I listed them in the first post.

yeh. Good luck with that 😂.

It not a criminal offence to use a public toilet as a public toilet, regardless of the definition of “sex” in equalities law.

One has literally nothing to do with the other.

my question was - do we need an ADDITIONAL one and it seems the vast majority of people here want one

If you actually expect enforcement, then yes, unquestionably, because as things stand there is absolutely no mechanism to compel individuals using facilities to respect EA legislation.

The immediately obvious thing to do would be to make it a defacto Public Order Offence to enter the "incorrect" facility for your biological sex, no exceptions, but that in itself poses issues, mainly that it's still reliant on police attendance and the individual remaining present, and of course, it doesn't account for the odd instance where an individual, for whatever reason, accidentally stumbles into the "wrong" loo, changing room, or whatever. I'm sure that's something which has happened to most people at some point in their lives, it certainly has to me, more than once.

Sneering at your lessers has always been a thing to do just before the revolution. Always works out well

I do not consider people who are planning to vote Reform "lesser", there are plenty of perfectly intelligent people claiming they are going to do so. I do consider them misguided, as intelligent people are still perfectly capable of performing acts of stupidity through either poor judgement or ignorance of the consequences. I also doubt a Reform government would be anything akin to a "revolution", because if you genuinely believe they'd be a boon to women's rights then you clearly aren't paying attention.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. You are absolutely correct in that EA does not stipulate facilities, however, for the purposes of this discussion the pertinent part is the SC clarification re single-sex facilities.

It still does not change the point though, that there is nothing in any of the legislation compelling provision of facilities which either permits or compels organisations to ensure "enforcement" of proper usage by individuals, which is what the real issue is when it comes to people using the facility provided for their biological sex.

Just because the facility exists, there is nothing in law which grants anyone either the right or the power to police it, or to take it upon themselves to enforce single sex compliance.

All three charges could be brought and given the recent changes to guidance will probably stick.

your game is up.

you can intimidate females in their spaces any more.

no kore toilets

no more changing rooms

No more clubs

youre done sir.

Before they were allowed into women's toilets. Men used to hide in the bushes in my local park near the children's play area and expose themselves to kids.

There was no problem arresting them even though it was a public park and somehow claiming they just wanted to pee didn't stop them being dragged out and arrested.

Just saying...

I see you’re missing the irony gene.

Bless.

All three charges could be brought and given the recent changes to guidance will probably stick.

my dear, the guidance is about the obligations re service providers regarding complying with anti discrimination law- a civil matter.

It has nothing to do with the enforcement of criminal provisions re harassment etc.

one literally has nothing to do with the other.

Just because the facility exists, there is nothing in law which grants anyone either the right or the power to police it, or to take it upon themselves to enforce single sex compliance.

Nonsense. The law is there in black and white and it is utterly disingenuous to suggest that somehow the law exists but can't be enforced. It can and it will be enforced - as I've said upthread, it only takes a few organisations to be found guilty of discrimination under the EA2010 for the rest to find that enforcing the law is very much in their interest.

There is a significant difference between exposing yourself to a child, and using a toilet for it's intended purpose.

All three charges could be brought and given the recent changes to guidance will probably stick.

my dear, the guidance is about the obligations re service providers regarding complying with anti discrimination law- a civil matter.

It has nothing to do with the enforcement of criminal provisions re exposure/ voyeurism etc.

one literally has nothing to do with the other.

When will we learn that if you are born with a willy you are a man, if you aren't then you are a woman?

The attempted rewriting of history by TRAs is hilarious. The handwringing over how entry into toilets is to be policed. Er, the same way it has been for decades. The social contract where men stay out of the womens.

And I’m sorry to break it to the Bernards of this world in a dress & heels, but we clock you as male in 1-2 seconds, just as we do when you’re not pretending to be female. Evolution, innit?

My dear - the intent would be much more obvious - given the guidance. Voyeurism, harassment, etc. much easier to make stick now everyone knows trans women are blokes in frocks forcing their way into women’s spaces.

If you’re a man in female toilets you’re not using it for it’s intended purpose, are you?

Nope. The guidance has nothing to do with criminal law re voyeurism. Bonkers that you think this. 😆

Bonkers you’re so thick.

Lol

It's not "nonsense" it's reality, and you clearly do not understand the purpose of EA and how it pertains to single-sex spaces if you genuinely believe it somehow empowers people or organisations to challenge people and/or remove them from spaces. It does not.

In the event that someone is in a space provided for the opposite sex, the transgressor is the individual, not the organisation providing the spaces. There is nothing whatsoever in EA that then provides anyone with any legal basis for challenging or ejecting that individual.

But it’s not just toilets is it?

What about communal changing rooms? Do you honestly believe that males should have the legal right to enter a female changing room where women are in a state of undress?

I’m female and I use communal changing rooms, I do not wish to have men in there. I’m pleased that the law has been clarified.

The problem with social contracts is they are dependent on nothing but good will. If someone has a mind to ignore them, then there isn't any real comeback beyond ill-feeling.

This is precisely why, if people genuinely want to see single-sex spaces effectively enforced, then it's going to require either new legislation, or some change to existing legislation. The SC ruling hasn't done either.