Can a man claim he has the right to be in the women's toilet or changing room?

[JellySaurus]

Because there is no law stating who may enter sex-segregated spaces, can a man claim he has the right to be in the women's toilet or changing room?

The EA states that places may segregate such spaces by sex. But in places that do not do so, does that entitle people to enter the spaces of the opposite sex?

Does a social contract have any legal weight?

In Scotland, he just needs to say he identifies as female.

The EA states that places may segregate such spaces by sex. But in places that do not do so, does that entitle people to enter the spaces of the opposite sex?

I think it does (entitle them). Single-sex spaces aren't mandated in law - they're determined by the organisation providing the facility. So a gym chain, for example, could decide to have mixed-sex changing rooms, a hospital could have mixed sex wards and a theatre could have mixed-sex toilets. They legally have the right to make them single-sex, but they are not obliged to make them single-sex.

IANAL, but I think that if the space has been designated a female single sex space, a TW does not have any legal right to be there. No male people would be entitled to go there. But if the owners of the space had not done that (and in most cases they don't have to, the default position is that anyone can go anywhere unless the owners choose to discriminate on the basis of sex which they are permitted to do in pursuit of a legitimate aim (privacy, safety and dignity are given as examples of legitimate aims).
So no, TW and other males do not have the right to be in spaces set aside for the opposite sex.
Wrt the social contract, it has unfortunately been broken due to the demands of TRAs based on erroneous Stonewall law. So there may have to be changes in the law to make SS spaces mandatory and/or penalties for owners in order to nudge us back to the previous honour system. Yet another social good destroyed by transactivism.

I think if a space is described as female single sex by the owners but they allow or encourage opposite sex use, then they might be liable for any sexual assaults or voyeurism etc which occurred especially if the woman/girl didn't know in advance. And possibly a claim for (indirect?) sex discrimination or discrimination based on religion? But I repeat, IANAL.

I'm not thinking about trans people here, but simply men and women entering opposite-sex spaces.

(I suppose the trans issue becomes relevant in considering how an organisation defines women and men with respect to the use of these spaces. But these terms are already defined in law.)

Understood, but it makes no difference, since the issue is sex. The act also makes that clear because even a GRC doesn't change things.

I have been thinking about this recently as twice in the last month or so I have ended up in a men’s changing room with my children as that was the one attached to the children’s department.
Both had fully locking, proper door changing rooms but it did make me question whether I should be in there.
The alternative was a trip down the escalator to the other side of the shop to find the women’s.
Staff didn’t seem to be bothered but I’m still unsure??

Seems v odd that the men's changing room was attached to the kids' department but I think you should have gone to the women's changing room, sorry @Smartiepants79

I’ve found that many shops have the kids attached to the men’s department. It’s bloody annoying.

To deter these males from violating the boundaries of females against our consent we are going to have to demand that single sex spaces and services be made mandatory.

When it comes to toilets, changing rooms etc that boundary exists at the door on which there is a sign that indicates females only. Any male who crosses that threshold is violating that boundary against our consent.

Those males who claim they are protected by "gender reassignment" also claim that this protection gives them the right to enter women's spaces. The law does not say this; which is made clear by the existence of the single sex exceptions wherein it is stated that those who claim the protected characteristic can be excluded on the grounds of privacy, dignity and safety for females.

Those single sex exceptions were not intended to be ignored, they were intended to uphold the social contract that understands that people need privacy, dignity and safety. That social contract is being dishonoured. This is why we must now demand the mandatory application of single sex spaces and services.

If, say he was accompanying his disabled wife and there were no disabled facilities then that'd be okay but I'd expect an ' excuse me do you mind' opener.

Context is everything

That's not claiming the right to be there, but politely asserting a reasonable need to be there on that occasion.

Can a man claim he has the right to be in the women's toilet or changing room?
Lets flip it. If a business offers a toilet or changing room and labels it 'women', can customers expect it to be single sex and for women only? The EA suggests we can expect some facilities to be single sex.
I think the onus should be on the business to label their toilets and changing rooms accurately.
And if they want to make them mixed sex they should explain how they will keep their female customers safe from flashing, voyeurism, filming and hidden cameras.

The EA suggests we can expect some facilities to be single sex.

No, I think the EA states that it is legitimate for an organisation to be discriminatory against a sex in certain situations when we could expect some facilities to be single sex.

I've thought about what would happen in the event you wanted a male ejected from a women's loo. I'm in Scotland, so I only really think in terms of Scots law.

If the staff of the facility were unwilling to intervene and the male is adamant on his right to use it, presumably you would call the police. As there is no law that prohibits people from using any bathroom they see fit, it is just social convention and people's willingness to follow this that means males typically use their own loo, women theirs'. So I think you would have to make a case to the police that the person involved is 'acting in a manner likely to cause fear, distress, or alarm' and hope that the police would view it as a public order offence.

However, the pendant in me thinks that provided the person in question was doing nothing more than using the loo for it's intended purpose, I don't see how the police could in any way view that as 'acting in a manner likely to cause fear, distress, or alarm'. I mean, they are using the facility for it's intended purpose. Going to the toilet is not a public order offence.

In short, I think a man absolutely can use a ladies loo, and there isn't a damned thing that can stop him provided he is genuinely using it for it's intended purpose.

I've used disabled loos in the past despite not having any obvious outward disability. I know it's not strictly the same thing, but if someone else challenged me on my use of a disabled loo, I would not, as a first recourse, immediately reveal my hidden disability to a total random stranger. I really do not need to 'prove' my entitlement to use the facility. If they believe I am not entitled, then they can call the police and make their argument as to why. Aside from the fact I am indeed perfectly entitled to use a disabled facility, I'd love to know what sort of argument they'd make to say that I'm not. After all, what can you possibly be doing wrong by using a toilet for it's intended purpose?

If the sign says 'women' its reasonable to expect a single sex service.
If its not single sex they need to change the sign.

So I think you would have to make a case to the police that the person involved is 'acting in a manner likely to cause fear, distress, or alarm' and hope that the police would view it as a public order offence.

Well, I think in a sane world, it would be universally accepted that a man in the ladies' is doing exactly that, just by virtue of being there. Unless, obviously there were extenuating circumstances. The intended purpose of a ladies' loo is to provide toilet facilities for ladies.

Sadly, we do not live in a sane world.

I don't agree that the question has no meaning, or that it's entirely down to social convention.

Social conventions inform the way that the law is interpreted. For example, I have the legal right to walk down the pavement. If, however, I pace up and down the section of pavement outside your house all day, this might be used as evidence of stalking, harassment or similar. This is probably a rubbish example, but you get my drift.

I think it's a very good question, seeking to analyse the logic of the jumbled legal landscape where sex and gender are dealt with.

I agree nobody ever thought a law explicitly forbidding men's access to women's loos would be necessary, and that such a law (now) would be a blunt instrument ready for self-identified lawyers, lobbyists and litigation enthusiasts to beat us over the head with.

This! As to the OP's question, no a man can't claim the right. In the absence of any other evidence, such as clear signage on toilet doors that they are mixed sex / gender neutral, men should use the facilities appropriate to their sex. If he is unhappy, at present he could check with the provider of the services and facilities, since they can legally insist on single-sex provision but regrettably do not always do so. It is sad that the EHRC guidance on this issue is not more robust, but hopefully we are s-l-o-w-l-y getting there.

The sign on our loos just has someone in a skirt. There are no men in the ladies loos where I work but there are a couple of mildly militant, blue haired women who are currently using the mens loos. Maintenance have blocked off the urinals. There is a decent amount of ffs and eyerolling from the blokes. Been Stonewalled so nothing is said overtly but still made clear.

I meant to add: 1) Single-sex services/facilities are vastly preferable and should be the default; 2) Mixed-sex ones should only be offered in circumstances where provision of single-sex services/facilities is untenable due to genuine constraints (e.g., where a tiny café only has space for a single lockable toilet, etc.; 3) When it comes to serious matters, such as DV refuges, rape counselling, prisons etc., provision No. 2 above should be entirely disregarded and the financial/space constraints fully mitigated so that single-sex provision is possible.

Not any more... women means feelz to most organisations now

If the sign says "No Entry" it doesn't mean it's illegal to go through the door. It just means that whoever put the sign up doesn't want you to go through that door.

OTOH if the ⛔️ "No Entry" sign has been put up on a street by an authorised body such as the LA, then it is backed up by the law allowing the LA to control and restrict access on the public highway.