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?

I'm not asking about what is reasonable, or even what is moral, but about what is legal.

If a deed is not specifically banned by law, do individuals have the legal right to do it?

Same discussion in 2018
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3140457-Is-it-legal-for-a-man-to-use-the-womens-toilet-in-England-Scotland

And interestingly a technical review following a call for evidence which I wasn't aware of:

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/toilet-provision-for-men-and-women-call-for-evidence/toilet-provision-for-men-and-women-call-for-evidence

Sex segregated or single sex spaces should mean no adults of the opposite sex allowed entry. It should be considered an unwritten rule even there is an actual law or not.

This may not be helpful but I understand the situation in general is that you may do anything not specifically illegal (although efforts might be made subsequently to make your actions illegal if necessary). The way you are framing the question applies to criminal behaviour, though. The way I see it, lawful/unlawful discrimination is a civil law matter. The default position is that we all have the right to be everywhere in public spaces. If a woman enters a space which has been designated male SS by the person/authority entitled to do so, she isn't committing a crime but she isn't entitled to be there because of the designation of the space as male SS by the authority - who are permitted by law to curtail her right to go anywhere. If the space was not designated male SS, it would not be lawful to exclude her. But the authority wouldn't be committing a crime by excluding her although she might be able to sue them, depending on the specific circumstances.
The right to go anywhere is the default for everybody but that right can legally be restricted for reasons and in ways set out in the Equality Act. So I would still say that no-one has the right to be in areas which have been set aside for the opposite sex by the person/body authorised to do so. If the authority gives permission or hasn't designated an area SS, then the default position applies.
Again, IANAL!

Men can legally be asked to leave/be excluded from toilets/changing rooms and the police called if they refuse to go (in Scotland too) not by individual service users but by service providers - local authority leisure centre owners, gym owners, etc ('owners' being represented by their staff or volunteers). If they don't then individuals may be able to make a claim for sex discrimination against that service provider as single sex facilities are provided to enable women to access facilities.

IDK if you are misunderstanding my posts, or we are just coming at this from different angles. I don't think it is or should be illegal to walk into or use the wrong toilet.

I don't know whether this is aimed at me. As a small-l liberal, I think I agree with you.

It's a bit like trespass: it's not illegal to enter someone else's property, it is illegal to cause harm or the fear of harm to the property or to anyone in the property.

Toilets are single-sex in order to prevent harm, or the fear of harm, to women.

I am JellySlice. JellySaurus is my post-Lamy dinosaur name.

I think the onus should be on the business to label their toilets and changing rooms accurately.

This. I don't understand how claiming something is single sex when they aren't making any reasonable attempts to make it single sex isn't against trades discription act.

Quite, they should be labelled mixed sex

IADNAL. But since the provider of services/facilities can legally designate their service/facility as single-sex, provided that doing so is "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim", isn't anyone ignoring that provider's decision breaching the law, specifically the Equality Act 2010?

I doubt it (unless civil trespass laws) but if they refuse to leave when requested they could be. Especially if they become belligerent. A bit like I wouldn't be breaking the law if I decided to wonder through to the loading bay of the supermarket.

However, if it is a changing room where women are undressed?

No, customers are not liable under the Equality Act, or responsible for implementing a provider's policies.

I suppose the customer could be asked to leave, on the grounds that they have breached the shop's policy, in the same way that I could be asked to leave a shop or cafe for all sorts of legal but disruptive behaviour. The way I see the Equality Act operating here is that, if the man said "You've discriminated against me based on my sex, because you wouldn't have thrown a woman out of the ladies' loos", the provider can say "We haven't discriminated unlawfully, because we are making use of the single-sex exception here, in a way which is reasonable and proportionate".

Customers aren't liable but a shop may be if failure to provide a single sex space means women are less able to access their service.