Transgender women will not be prosecuted in the use of women’s single sex facilities

[Theotheruser]

You can support transgender rights or not but the law isn’t itself politics. Transgender women will not be prosecuted in the use of women’s single sex facilities in public in the standard use the facilities was built for.

A standard use is:

• A transgender woman goes into the women’s toilet facilities in a cubicle for the purposes of relieving bodily fluids.
• A transgender woman goes into the women’s changing facilities in a cubicle for the purposes of removing clothing for leisure activities.
• A transgender woman goes into the women’s toilet facilities to protect the transgender women of being attacked or sexually assaulted.

A transgender woman in the standard uses of the women’s facilities are not exposing the users of the single sex facilities.

A transgender woman in the standard uses of the women’s facilities are not exposing child users in the single sex facilities.

A child user using single sex women’s facilities can’t deny other women public access of the facilities the child user believes are transgender.

With official documentation of the new sex will be difficult to disprove the claim of the transgender women being the male sex.

No harassment or sexual offences can be found against the transgender woman in the standard use of the women’s facilities with official documentation of the new sex.

A woman in the women’s single sex facility can be prosecuted for an offence and or removed if the woman is abusing or harassing the other user of being transgender without proof.

A woman recording and sharing publicly the other user without proof of being transgender can prosecuted.

The Supreme Court ruling or EHRC guidance has not changed the law to prosecute transgender women in women’s single sex spaces.

Transgender women have history of official records to support beyond a reasonable doubt the new gender identity. Have protection of gender discrimination.

Prosecution of transgender women is not going to work in the standard uses of the women’s facilities.

A woman can complain to management but unless management decides to take action to resolve the issue no action can be taken against the other user.

That is a law suit waiting to happen.

Not so, women can tell whether it's a man or a woman walking behind them, we risk assess all the time. And no voice training has ever worked completely.

All of which is irrelevant, as they just shouldn't be there. But when they are we can tell. And will report.

My bingo as you call it comes from a rape so violent MNHQ dont allow me to describe it.

your empathy is palpable.

If someone steals your car, even if they really do need a car, even if without a car they will lose their job or not get their kid to vital hospital appointments, the correct answer is for you to get your car back and separately for that person to find the support they need.

The correct answer is not you share the car because somehow the fact they stole it means they have a valid claim to it.

Trans "women" don't have a valid claim to be women or to women's spaces. They are not in reality any closer to being female than any other man is. The only thing that makes people think the compromise somehow has to involve women's spaces is that they called themselves "women"

But it's just a word.

Take the word away and try to justify their demands without it, and they got nothing.

There are two ways this plays out fairly.

We either agree women's spaces are for women specifically - female people - to be safe from men specifically both physically and emotionally, as these spaces always were and as everyone still understands perfectly well even if they pretend they don't because they think they can get what they want that way

Or

We agree "women's" spaces are wrongly named, are actually supposed to be "vulnerable people" spaces, and we open them up to all men who have reason to feel vulnerable, not just the men who tried to sneak in by claiming to be "women".

What is not fair is to say women's spaces are for women (female people) but then include a random selection of men with nothing really in common with women expect a stolen name. Because that makes no sense at all.

All of which are true tells though.

You can also tell if a man or a woman is peeing by sound unfortunately.

OP, why are you bring so transphobic?

I thought all transpeople were delicate little law-abiding flowers who just want to pee. So surely, it won't be difficult for then to use the toilet of their natal sex?

You are not suggesting that they would break the law or cause other people discomfort?

If they are at risk, it's up to the service provider or workplace to resolve it. Not women. And as an added bonus, no one can accuse them of voyerism or indecent exposure.

Isn't that nice? They get to pee in peace.

Also true.

No one ever said “spend a p”.

it's still the wrong fight for this thread

Who cares?

Weird doesn't even touch the sides on this one!

So basically your employer is too lazy or too scared to confront their transphobic male employees about their transphobia, and is taking the soft option of dumping the toilet issue on the women to sort out. Nice.

Totally with you on the voice training. It did wonders for a certain legal gentleman who sometimes frequents this board, although I think he's more of a lurker these days <waves to bundles> you can hardly tell he's a man when listening to him!

(I am of course being facetious)

You realise your employers flawed risk assessment doesn’t change UK law don’t you? 🤦‍♀️

Did they do a risk assessment for women if they allowed the TW aka male to use the female toilet?

Did they do equality impact assessment of the impact on Muslim female employees?

Just don’t say ‘bundle’ 3 times.

Didn't he chose not have voice coaching 'coz no one listens to female voices'?

But hey he is a women really.

ok, that's twice already!

What part of
all able-bodied people, including transpeople, show a bit of respect for disabled people and leave the accessible toilet free for people who really need an adapted toilet.
in my post at 19:46 do you disagree with?

Obviously there are people who are just nasty pieces of work and are disrespectful of anybody and anything, but surely most of the people you work with are capable of showing basic respect for other human beings, and stayed out of the spaces that are not designated for them?
Especially the accessible toilets which disabled people campaigned for for decades, and which they actually need - not 'feel more comfortable using', but need.

Then management needs to remind those men that Gary will now once again be using the gents and if any of them so much as smirk when he's at the urinal they'll be on a disciplinary.

And again, I find myself asking why, if all transpeople want to do is pee in comfort , they are not on board with fourth spaces and actually called me a nazi for suggesting having their own spaces would be a good compromise.

What a shame that some men make it so difficult for other men to be in men's only spaces. It is awful and they should be more accepting of other men regardless of what they wear. But that doesn't make it women's problem or women's responsibility to fix but opening up their own spaces.

TRAs really should just tell them 'to be kiiiiiind'.

That is a problem for HR to resolve and they need to resolve it in a way that doesn’t involve coercing their female employees or breaking the law

Absolutely!
And they also need to remind Gary that if Gary persists in using the women's, Gary too will be on a disciplinary.

Businesses are trying their best to keep up with the regulatory changes and help the business run.

Under UKGDPR - Your employer isnt allowed to have used consent as their article 9 condition because of the imbalance of power (for sharing the special category data which trans status and disability both are).

they can’t have used compliance with employment law

or vital interests coz thats immediate threat to life or limb

legal claims doesn’t apply

nor does manifestly made public because according to you no one can tell

that only leaves not for profit, but again that has to directly relate to the charitable purposes - so you work for a trans charity?

Edit to be clear

health social care doesn’t apply
public interest is a non starter
so is public health

and it isn’t archiving

the DPIA they’ve done should identify the legal basis. Can you let me know what basis they used?