Impact of Self ID On other laws

[ThinEndoftheWedge]

Labour/TRAs/Lib Dems keep mentioning self ID is fine and that there will be protocols in place to prevent inappropriate behaviour in single sex spaces.

So, by definition - the law will find it appropriate for an adult male bodied person to go into a female communal changing rooms and:

• view teenage girls getting undressed
• Undress themselves and show a penis in front of teenage girls

LegalEagles out there:

--If we temporarily park the fact that TRAs would
like us convicted of a transphobic hate crime if we object to adult males in our spaces-- - how will this impact on current voyeurism/ indecent exposure laws?

Are they written in a way which they could still apply in single sex spaces under self ID?

What about now in places like CentreParks who quietly allow males into female communal changing rooms but really wouldn’t want their female customers to know? Can the voyeurism/indecent exposure laws still apply even though management permission has been given?

I would also love an answer to these questions because right now, it feels as though I have less protection/recourse to the law when I'm in the female changing rooms than when I'm at the park.

Labour/TRAs/Lib Dems keep mentioning self ID is fine and that there will be protocols in place to prevent inappropriate behaviour in single sex spaces.

Not all of them. Some of them are crowing about how single-sex spaces would no longer exist under self-ID. Like Torr Robinson, author of the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights which call WPUK and the LGB Alliance 'hate groups'.

Whilst the preservation of “single-sex spaces” would be meaningless legally, as single-sex spaces already include trans people with the Gender Recognition Certificates that GRA reform would make more accessible, the addition was nonetheless celebrated by transphobes.

tribunemag.co.uk/2020/02/the-labour-campaign-for-trans-rights

I think this needs spelling out. I'm sure it will be argued that in changing rooms etc the exposure would be accidental rather than indecent. TRAs have argued we shouldn't be looking at other people's genitals so could we be accused of voyeurism.
Or will the next stage be decriminslising because people like Peter Tatchell believe everyone should be comfortable with their own bodies and those of the opposite sex?
I really feel that the laws and norms which have given women some protection are systematically being rolled back.

@OldCrone - important point - yes - not forgetting it’s a strategic aim of Stonewall to eradicate single sex spaces as well.

So - how will impact indecent exposure/voyeurism laws? Will we still have recourse to these laws? Will there need a separate act of government to cancel / remove coverage of the laws?

Whilst the preservation of “single-sex spaces” would be meaningless legally, as single-sex spaces already include trans people with the Gender Recognition Certificates...

(A) Not always. There are exceptions.

(B) Only because they bloody well snuck that through with the original GRA. Hands up anyone who remembers being asked if that major change was OK with women?

I'm sure it will be argued that in changing rooms etc the exposure would be accidental rather than indecent.

How is stripping to your skin an accident? If you strip down completely - as you may do in the changing room at the gym/pool/etc - and you're not in a cubicle you know what the people around you are seeing. How could anyone argue (note I'm leaving out 'reasonably', there's nothing reasonable about this) that if they strip nude in front of a child/teen/woman who finds a random penis offensive the exposure is accidental? I'm sure you're right and they attempt it, but how?

My MSP couldn’t answer this question (especially when I pointed out that an erection could be argued as involuntary...)

I think there are unintended issues. Say birth and death registration. If someone male dies, do they get recorded with a female name and sex and then a cause of death as say prostate cancer??