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.

I seem to remember something about keeping his male voice as it has more authority in court. According to him. Which is whole can open worms all over the floor in itself.

Hardly a groundbreaking suggestion that men still sound like men, even after “voice training”.

Don't worry about that. You don't have to fight, others can and will.

Because it has always been true that most women do not have the economic or social power to fight the Feminist fight.

I mean, it's kind of unavoidable given the reason we need Feminism in the first place is exactly because women don't have equal economic and social power to men.

Nevertheless, there are women who can fight and will, and they still fight for you and your daughters just as Feminists have always fought for the women who can't fight as well as the ones who can, and even for women who don't think they need fighting for. Because better to have rights you never need than need them and not have them.

We signed a document allowing Gray to use the women’s toilets. Gray can use the toilet.

I'm not inclined to go back and read his blog on his journey from eying up men in uniform on the train, throwing out his man clothes except some for doing the gardening, to getting his balls chopped off and his cock inverted but I'm sure he had vocal surgery but it went wrong. Although by all accounts his recollection of whether he had vocal surgery or not may have changed since then.

This. But good luck getting the average genderist to actually engage with their own logic.

Until a woman joins who objects.

😳

What was the employers legal basis under gdpr asking you to sign that?

Either the OP is painfully naive or it’s a very young & stupid TRA thinking they’ll be able to argue us out of resistance

The OP I have a daughter to support and I need my job to pay the bills and I can’t afford to do that if I start policing the women’s spaces.
Transgender women have won. Prosecuting will not happen and that why I wrote the post. It’s all talk. It will not happen. It takes courage and money and with the cost of living crisis I don’t want to lose my job or house.

Also the OP
The manager told the women in the break room to decide if a transgender woman can use the toilet or not. We know the person for 5 years and non of the women had issues with the person and respected us. We accepted.

So in summary: I'm scared of consequences if I object but it's all OK because no-one objected.

💯

And the way to do that is to have men in the gents and women in the ladies. Simple.

I don’t know

Bun........

Fight

I'm sticking with Russian bot or a small group of bored teenagers who are switch-hitting.

But ukgdpr says they can’t do that.

What 'regulatory changes'?
Men's/women's/accessible has always been the regulatory configuration.
Businesses who always met those requirements don't have to keep up with anything, they're good.

And they just need to make very clear, with signage and company policy, who is entitled to use the men's/women's/accessible, and who is not.

They don't have to do anything silly like 'policing', they just have to make the policy clear, trust their employees to do the right thing, and step in if somebody refuses to respect the policy.

Oh thats another breach. They’ve a legal obligation to have told you. Have they a privacy notice for staff?

...or none of this happened.

Also, these posts are very incoherent and don’t flow very well, either poor AI or English isn’t the poster’s first language.

I’m sure this can’t be legal. How do you know everyone signed of their own free will and weren’t worried about any possible comeback if they didn’t? It’s pretty coercive, as well as most likely not being legal.

It wouldn’t come out well in a tribunal.

It’s actually irrelevant. The point about discrimination law is that you can’t opt out of it.

No blacks are allowed in our office; but that’s ok because we all agreed with it.

Can you imagine?

It’s not legal. I’ve set out the ukgdpr breaches. The op should report to the ICO.