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.

It’s also not a criminal offence to use a changing room as a changing room.

the SC judgement was about the obligations on service providers re discrimination legislation- a matter of civil law. It’s got nothing to do with criminalising individuals for how they use service.

Yes. They quite literally want any male at all to be in your female changing room, maybe just you, maybe just your daughter. Any type of man at all.

More questions should be asked about why they want such societal taboos removed.

Semantic, but yes, if you are a man in a women's toilet, and all that you are doing in there is using the loo, then you are using the loo for it's intended purpose, you are just a man using a loo in the women's loo for it's intended purpose.

This is why it is not an offence for a man to just enter a women's loo and use the loo. It has to be more than that before there is any sort of offence taking place.

Right so it’s not a criminal offence for a male to enter a female changing room, where young women might be present, and strip naked?

Let’s say this happens, I’m there and I phone the police, what do you think their response will be?

In fact, no.

The EHRC’s new guidance, lets venues lawfully require any male, including a trans-identified male with a GRC, to leave a women-only space. Refusal is not itself a criminal offence, but it strips away ambiguity: once any woman objects, the police have clear grounds to act. If the person so much as exposes male genitalia, section 66 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (“indecent exposure”) can be charged, carrying up to two years’ custody and automatic entry on the Sex Offenders Register. Disorderly or abusive refusal to leave can trigger section 4A Public Order Act 1986 (“intentional harassment, alarm or distress”), punishable by up to six months. Re-entering after being told to stay away risks prosecution under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (two incidents are enough; penalties rise to five years if fear of violence is caused). If evidence shows the person entered as a trespasser with a sexual motive, section 63 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (“trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence”) allows sentences up to ten years. In practice, officers frequently use common-law breach-of-the-peace powers to remove the individual on the spot, buying time for formal charges. Bottom line: once women complain, exposure, harassment or trespass offences are readily available, and any conviction for the sexual counts means the register—so the personal stakes are very high.

And you KNOW that a mouthy TRA is going to make a scene DAY ONE. And force an arrest.

So it’s going to take security guards on the door, checking ID, with the threat of arrest under a new law to stop some men entering spaces specifically provided for females only?

How about they just stay the fuck out, as the decent men always have, because it’s the right & respectful thing to do towards women? Women, remember them, the sex that gave birth to you, the one you wish you could be?

This isn’t an existential debate. It’s about men choosing to be in the wrong place, a place designated only for women.

but it strips away ambiguity: once any woman objects, the police have clear grounds to act

what are you on about. The guidance is about the interpretation of equalities law- statutory guidance for service providers- civil matter regarding discrimination. It , has, nothing, to. Do. With. The. Police. Literally of no relevance to the work of the police whatsoever.

the legal illiteracy is astounding.

but it strips away ambiguity: once any woman objects, the police have clear grounds to act

what are you on about. The guidance is about the interpretation of equalities law- statutory guidance for service providers- civil matter regarding discrimination. It , has, nothing, to. Do. With. The. Police. Literally of no relevance to the work of the police whatsoever.

the legal illiteracy is astounding.

I don't see how any of this contradicts anything in my post, so I have no idea why you have answered "In fact, no".

For a start, you are acknowledging there is no mechanism to force an individual to leave upon request, or compulsion upon the individual to actually comply with a request to leave, and yes, if the police attend and decide an offence has been committed, of course they will act. This is no different to the situation as is, or as it has been since 2010.

There is a world of difference between simply using a loo for it's intended purpose, and conducting yourself in a manner which contravenes Indecent Exposure legislation. Given that women's loos involve cubicles, in order to glimpse the penis of a man simply using the toilet for it's intended purpose, you would, presumably, have to be either looking over or under the walls/door yourself. That being the case, I don't fancy your chances much of convincing the police it's the man who is one committing an offence here. FWIW, simply having a penis on display is not, in itself, ordinarily enough to cop an Indecent Exposure charge, hence why men who are caught surreptitiously peeing in public are not, ordinarily, hit with an IE charge. There is normally some sexual element to the exposure when IE comes into play, and simply holding your penis while you pee is not a sexualised behaviour. It's also likely any man in a cubicle would be peeing sat down, so possibly not even holding their penis in any case.

Of course if someone is waving their penis around in the communal part of the loo, then that's a different matter altogether, but then that's not in any way just "using the toilet for it's intended purpose", and any man behaving like that in any space is already committing an offence, the fact that we're discussing a loo scenario here is rather moot.

And you KNOW that a mouthy TRA is going to make a scene DAY ONE. And force an arrest

I suspect you are correct, and it likely will result in a rumpus sooner rather than later, however, I also think there is potential for this to occur in not quite the way you specify. "Day one", when is that precisely? Post-EHRC guidance? Again, that will not change any laws, so even if it emboldens people, they are still going to have precisely the same authority they have now, i.e. none whatsoever. I think it's also likely that there will be an instance of a biological female being challenged, and that will also lead to a kerfuffle of some sort, so the status quo isn't particularly workable for anyone, in any respect.

Just FYI, I voted YANBU in your OP, so don't for a minute mistake me for someone who is all for a free-for-all in spaces. I'm not of that view at all. My only point is, and always has been, that the SC ruling and EHRC guidance are going to make no appreciable difference to the status quo because no laws have been changed and no additional laws have been made. You are entirely correct in that if the SC clarification is going to be enforced in any meaningful way, then there has to be some new law made to bring that about, or at the very least, a change in current law, because as things stand the clarification in and of itself changes nothing beyond the fact that organisations now have clarity on what "single sex" precisely means for the purposes of EA2010.

No. You’re mixing up two different things and getting both wrong.

1. Civil clarity first: The Supreme Court has confirmed that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex. The EHRC has told providers they may run women-only spaces on that basis and lawfully exclude males (including trans-identified males). That means a man in a women-only facility is not authorised to be there and staff are entitled to ask him to leave. That is exactly what the guidance is for.
2. Police relevance the moment there’s a complaint: Once staff ask him to go and a woman objects, we’re out of “abstract guidance” and into real-world policing if he refuses or the situation causes alarm or disorder. Officers can and do:
3. Arrest for intentional harassment, alarm or distress (Public Order Act s4A) if the behaviour is abusive or disorderly and aimed at a complainant. No “sexual” element is needed.
4. Remove or arrest to prevent a breach of the peace if violence, indecency or disorder is likely. That’s standard College of Policing practice.
5. Charge indecent exposure (Sexual Offences Act s66) if genitals are intentionally exposed where someone will see and be caused alarm or distress (e.g. communal changing areas). The test is intent to cause alarm/distress, not “sexual gratification”.
6. For repeat intrusions after warnings, use the Protection from Harassment Act for a course of conduct causing distress.

Bottom line: The judgment sets the lawful boundary (women-only means female-only). The guidance tells providers to enforce it. When a male refuses to leave and women are alarmed, police absolutely are relevant—because criminal powers then bite. In practice that means removal and, depending on behaviour, arrest. Calling that “legal illiteracy” is… well, not my problem. The law’s quite clear.

😂

It will just go back to what it was before and people who have have changed their genitalia to match their opposite sex will go in their "new sex" changing room.
It's only become an issue since people are able to arbitrarily choose and it's not a choice.

Their response would be exactly the same as it was before the SC judgement.

Their response would be exactly the same as it was before the SC judgement.

So the transwomen going into a female changing room have absolutely nothing to worry about then.
The female changing room is now a mixed changing room. So it’s ok if I go into the male changing room and that can become mixed too. I can chat to the dads and see if they’re ok with their daughters next door getting changed with a fella, I’m sure they’ll be fine about it because nothing’s changed and everyone’s cool and happy, good to know. Those dads will be able to go in the mixed changing room that was previously female only and the transwomen won’t mind at all because they’re confident they’re not doing anything wrong and all men however they identify are allowed in there, it’s just the silly mummies making a fuss about nothing. Carry on chaps.

The good thing is that there won’t be any nonsense that men can get undressed in female changing rooms and women gaslighted about “accepting different bodies” (penises) with breathtakingly offensive comparisons to female breast cancer patients as has been the case before.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5149172/snp-breast-cancer-patients-id-row-mastectomies/

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/139271435/Bristol_Pure_Version_PD.pdf

So the transwomen going into a female changing room have absolutely nothing to worry about then.

they have nothing to worry about in terms of criminalisation by police.

They have a lot to worry about in terms of violation of their privacy/ dignity; being harassed, asked intrusive, personal questions, subject to confrontation and discrimination etc. etc. by others- including service providers and members of the public.

The 2017 paper by Dr Dunne - a law lecturer and human rights expert - argues men who self-ID as trans women should be allowed into female-only facilities.
Under a section headed “Abnormal bodies”, the academic insists arguments for banning “non-normative bodies” from “single-gender spaces” are undermined because “cisgender” or “intersex” people are “not held to that same ‘normal’ body standard”.
A “cisgender” person is someone who still regards themselves as the sex they were born, while an “intersex” person is someone born with characteristics of both sexes.

Dr Dunne’s paper adds: “It would be unthinkable that general discomfort could prevent a cisgender woman from using segregated showering facilities after she had a double mastectomy.
“In reality, UK law tolerates a considerable amount of bodily diversity when cisgender and intersex persons use single-gender spaces.
“Why are trans persons treated differently?” And it adds: “If cisgender and intersex persons can use women-only and men-only services, even when they have non-normative bodies, concerns about bodily diversity do not justify the current legal position.”

Researcher Ms Sinclair said Dr Dunne’s report was seeking to hammer home its core point by likening “seeing a naked male body within a ‘women only’ showering facility to seeing a woman who has had a double mastectomy”.

Then they shouldn’t seek to invade women only spaces which aren’t intended for them, should they.

They are not “invading spaces not intended for them”.

They are using the facilities provided , as appropriate, based on their need like everyone else.

What needs?

They are male, there are facilities available for male toileting needs.

There is no need for them to be in facilities for women at all.

They literally are invading spaces not intended for them, because men will no longer be permitted to use women’s single sex spaces if the report is correct, but I won’t be engaging further with you directly on this Tandora. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I will continue to correct your misinformation about what single sex spaces are.

Anyway, suffice it to say I have zero sympathy for men who don’t respect the privacy and dignity of women, and think the rules don’t apply to them.

They are male, there are facilities available for male toileting needs.

Nope male toilets are not an option for trans women. If they can’t use the women’s then they can use any public toilets.
that’s the reality they are faced with.

And I will continue to correct your nonsense, prejudiced, harmful and incorrect statements about both trans people and the law.