The Times has seen a copy of EHRC's final guidance

[Igneococcus]

and it looks like it's pretty rubbish:
"Under the new guidance, places such as hospital wards, gyms and leisure centres will be able to question transgender women over whether they should be using single-sex services based on how they look, their behaviour or concerns raised by others."

https://www.thetimes.com/article/82eecc43-711f-4c0a-b669-42d09d60d63e?shareToken=e5c7b92df4468caa07dbd71d66c660ab

Because there are some legitimate reasons why a male may be in a female single sex space or vice versa.

What are they?

Please don't come back with cleaners, doctors or other workers whose presence has been announced beforehand

I'm finding this discussion really useful, as I need to think through all the complexities of the implementation of the SCJ to be able to counter the arguments from people in the workplace and everyday life about how it's 'unworkable.'

It seems to me that we have a situation now where in shop changing rooms obvious looking men can be challenged and refused entry. This won't necessarily help with those few men who are very feminine and could pass, who people will be reluctant or unsure in challenging and will probably still get away with it.

There will probably be a period of TIM using not been challenged as a badge of honour for how gorgeous they are, and crowing over the 6'3 bloke who stuffed a bra being very upset he can't get away with it anymore.

Where I do think it will be different is in places where people reguarly use SSS such as the workplace. It is very hard to be stealth as trans in these situations, as often they've made a big song and dance about how brave they are, or there is online info they've shared. Basically they only way they could get away with it is if they manage to never reveal they are trans, which is very hard to do.

Once there is evidence they are trans, employers have a duty to ensure they use the correct SSS. If they continue not to, the employers will liable.

Basically a Sandie Pegg situation could never happen again.

So the SCJ does not mean that no man will ever be able to falsely access women's spaces unchallenged. That was never the case. Shitty very motivated men could always get away with shitty stuff.

In practice, inclusive services mean that there is no boundary, and anyone can use any facility depending on their preference, so it's not just about a tiny number of people trying to live their lives quietly.

There was a transwoman recently convicted for deception relating to sexual activity. If a man uses female facilities knowing that it is unlawful and causes alarm or distress to the female services users, they may be committing a criminal offence.

Yes. That's how safeguarding works.

We have DBS checks because of the tiny percentage of people abusing the system, to prevent the damage they inflict on others.

And in this case, the 'tiny percentage' is unfortunately just not true. Even the men wanting to 'live their life quietly' in women's spaces exclude and harm women with their presence.

You cannot 'include' men in single sex spaces for women without removing single sex spaces from all women. Women have a right to these. What would we do with the women excluded from the women's spaces for those men? They won't be a 'tiny percentage'. They can't be dismissed as just not mattering. The women who don't care and don't want single sex spaces can have their needs met in the gender neutral facilities.

Men's needs can be met without destroying women's equality and access. They are going to have to be. Men don't matter more.

I understand your point, but it doesn’t actually work like that. Most people aren’t randomly going into the opposite sex space. Unless I’ve missed stories about hordes of men in the ladies, men still use the mens and women still use the womens. Trans people generally try to use the space that causes the least amount of fuss. Some don’t think about others and insert themselves into spaces where they make others uncomfortable, but most try to be respectful

Well that's the problem solved really.

The men trying to be respectful will use the gender neutral facilities, and the ones inserting themselves into spaces where they impact on others will now be prevented from doing so by this guidance.

It doesn't necessarily have to be about "hordes of men in the ladies" FGS

RMW take note.

But it’s even worse than this. ‘TW’ also says, as well as my incredibly convincing hosiery and false eyelashes, look at my birth certificate/passport/driver’s licence/[ID card] - all of which say that I’m a woman. Even though we all know there is a PENIS lurking under there!

It’s an absolute shit show - how the hell did we end up in a situation where legal documentation can be changed to support a fantasy? It makes me so MAD!

We’re talking about less than 1% of the population, so I’m trying to understand where it’s been such a large scale problem to require total exclusion

To answer that, maybe you could answer the question :

How many female people do you consider acceptable to be harmed before all male people are fully excluded from all single sex provisions?

I'd suggest reading through the court documentation of all the cases leading up to the SCJ being written. That gives the pathway from the GRA (the experiment of just a few sincerely transitioned men in women's spaces), through the decade of this really not working for women at all, to the point this judgment was written.

Even though it is a few men abusing it, it is a large number of women negatively impacted, so yes. Those large number of women have rights to dignity as well.

Also, there is no reason why transwomen cannot quietly live their lives using other facilities amd services than the womens, like specific trans services, trans healthcare, the trans prison wing, or mixed sex options open for everyone, or even the mens. There is no reason for transwomen to infringe on womens rights,

Because you let one in, you let them all in - no such thing as a single sex space anymore. Policy doesn’t work on an individualised basis. Had the TRAs not pushed and pushed for full access to all women’s spaces, women would have continued to ignore the historically very few harmless-looking trans identifying men quietly accessing women’s loos. It’s now developed into something much more sinister.

We’re talking about less than 1% of the population, so I’m trying to understand where it’s been such a large scale problem to require total exclusion

Men are not 1% of the population.

For the purpose of sex TW are men.

This is all clarified in the SC judgement. The EHRC guidance just sets out how it should be applied.

So the law applies to 100% of the population, which is only fair.

1 man in a women's space effects 100% of the women in that space.
Because it changes it to a mixed sex space.

It's not a 1% issue, it's an everyone issue.
It's just forced on us by a self obsessed 1%.

Most people aren’t randomly going into the opposite sex space.

It depends which facilities you use, and it doesn't have to be 'hoards' to cause a problem. Current tribunals involving NHS staff changing rooms demonstrate that there is a problem.

It’s interesting that it stopped working when an increasingly hostile press started publishing thousands of negative articles about trans people

"men still use the mens and women still use the womens. Trans people generally try to use the space that causes the least amount of fuss."

@OneDeepLimeScroller You seem to think that trans people are no longer male and female? You are wrong, they have not changed sex.

The space that will create the least fuss following the SCJ will be the facilities for their biological sex.
So do you agree they should use those?

If they've had so much cosmetic surgery that causes them problems they'll need to ask their employer for a mixed sex space and campaign for more of these if they wish.

Remember that no one EVER asked women how they felt about it, even years ago when it was apparently never a problem

That women are making their voices heard about this now is a good thing

It’s interesting that it stopped working when an increasingly hostile press started publishing thousands of negative articles about trans people

What stopped working?

It has not been working for women for a decade and we've been ignored maligned and cancelled for challenging it.
The press are now just beginning to fairly and honestly describe the situation.

It only feels like there are so many negative articles because they are now finally reporting the truth and the legal situation.

No. It stopped working the minute women were bullied and told to STFU about men being in women's changing rooms, showers, hospital wards, sport and the rest. No women anywhere in the world campaigned to share these spaces with men. It was dumped on women with zero consultation and agreement.

Which is why the majority of women are thoroughly pissed off that any men were told they could have access and that the crimes of indecent exposure and voyeurism (see Fife & Darlington tribunals) would be decriminalised for them.

No, those articles didn't form any of the basis of those court papers. Just the experiences of women. There's a whole lot of it. Do read, you'll find it eye opening.