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 was trying to highlight the stupidity (setting aside the illegality) of the OP saying no one objects when she has admitted herself that it would be a risky thing to do.

I think you're being very patient. 👏

Strange how it does tend to be women who are constantly told to be kind, isn't it?

Also this.

At this point I don’t think anything the OP says has actually happened to be honest. That or they have the most incompetent employer ever.

Yes. This all seems to be flailing wildly between a whole range of positions and back stories. The current one 'men can if all the women sign to say they don't mind their rights being infringed and support breaking the law' is not going to fly with a court either.

And I'm done, I participated in good faith and you've wasted enough of my time now. You're not the only people on the planet with rights guys, you're going to have to deal with it.

Except when those rights get in the way of them doing what they want though, right?

They aren't respecting women's rights to female only spaces, opportunities or protections, are they? They aren't even respecting our right to have our own name.

Someone might say they are "respecting women's rights" in the same way they are "women", that is not at all.

I just don’t understand what these posts are supposed to achieve.

Did they do a DPIA @Theotheruser ?

We can’t rule out incompetence just look at NHS Fife and the bumba of incompetence

Wow!

You do understand that this is very very wrong don't you?

Your company are behaving appallingly towards their actual women staff.

You should NEVER have been put in a position where you're all signing to say you'll be good women and let the man do whatever the fuck he wants.

Your bosses should have just said NO GARY YOU CAN'T USE THE WOMEN'S TOILETS. You should NEVER have even been part of the discussion.

Naomi would have a field day with this at an employment tribunal. JKR would probably foot the legal bills from her fund.

No, just pedantic 😂

If it was AIBU I’d think it’s a reverse 😂

I think they’re coming up with various reasons why we shouldn’t bother fighting this shit because trans women’s are always going to get a round it which makes no sense because women keep winning in court.

No. It was a quick fix.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

they can’t do that. There’s no way they’d get away with this. None. Who is their DPO? Donald Duck?

I believe OP is basically right, at least as far as toilets go. A person does not automatically commit an offence by entering toilets designated for the opposite sex. Whilst it might in some cases be possible to find them guilty of some actual offence, in practice this is not very often going to be very easy to prove.

Toilet providers have a duty to ensure that toilets are appropriately segregated by sex and, presumably, to take reasonable steps to ensure that this segregation is enforced. This might, in some cases, necessitate legal action to remove or ban a person from the premises, but this is unlikely to be an appropriate first step (unless an actual offence is also being committed).

What the law actually says is a different matter from what we might like the law to be. We might appreciate it if the law criminalised a person (deliberately and without fair excuse) going into the opposite sex toilets, but that doesn't mean the law actually does this at the current time. This is an important distinction. Confusing what the law says with what it "ought" to say is a common error/tactic of TRAs and it would be a terrible shame for feminists to fall into the same trap.

What the hell is wrong with the men where you work????

What the hell is wrong with your employer that their risk assessment finds one of their employees is not safe from their other employees and their solution is to shrug and make that employee go elsewhere rather than do something about the ones who are apparently to dangerous to be around???

I mean - really? This really happens where you work?

I said that very early on in the thread @applebyarrows

What they’re wrong about is that we should just get on with it and accept men in the toilets and not challenge it every time.

you really need to read the whole thread

They are, with their various unlikely scenarios and anecdotes.

I'm going to be very patient, and assume that it's true that Theotheruser is a woman who is working hard to support her daughter and pay her bills and really needs the job she's in.

In which case - Theotheruser, your employer is not doing the right thing, they are ignoring all sorts of laws and regulations, and they are causing you - potentially forcing you, given that you need your job and the manager asked - to sign away rights under workplace regs and the Equality Act 2010.

They either don't now what their responsibilities are, or don't care. This puts you in a bad place - if they are this lax about provision of facilities, how are they on health and safety? fair pay?

So - if you are genuine, I'm genuinely concerned for you, you seem to be accepting things that you shouldn't have to accept, when in fact the relevant law and regulations are not what management are making you believe they are.

She would, in the parallel universe where any of it happened.