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.

You have misunderstood the law
Another surprise (not). Shower of dimwits.

I don’t quite understand your point. I would never dream of reporting to the police a one off incident of a man using a female changing room, transgender or not, if no significant harm had occurred.

What most women are now pleased about is:
That an employer would be expected to stop a transwoman using a female changing room.
That a leisure centre cannot allow an obviously male person into a female changing room
That youth hostels cannot have ‘single gender’ rooms rather than single sex.
That women will not be strip searched by men who say they are women.

What the position is now, and always should have been, is that when a man encroaches on a single sex space or service, and a woman complains, the law and the service provider is on her side. For too long the woman has had to worry that it wouldn’t be.

Unless you’ve got proof to prove the person is transgender

I, and many other people have eyes.

I see you attended the Maugham School of Nonsense Law and are allowing wishful thinking to get in the way of reality.

You have a very low opinion of trans people, framing it like they will all behave like abusive men and not respect the rules and laws around single sex spaces. Interesting.

Do you routinely ignore traffic lights as well?

Service providers are allowing trans women and biological women in single sex spaces.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjpjvvyp91o

Trans woman will not stop transitioning and using women’s single sex spaces. The colchester train station incident is the likely outcome of service providers intervening with no action taken against the suspected transgender user.

As long as it's not a golden shower...

And they will continue losing court cases until they learn.

You could just use the official mixed sex pond instead of making the women’s pond mixed sex.

Eyes can be deceiving and in law that isn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt the person is transgender. In reality official documents are going to be used for service providers to remove suspected transgender users.

If the suspected transgender user was biologically female and removed from a female single sex space it will be sex discrimination.

A transgender woman will continue to use single sex spaces. There is no law against it.

As a man, you are more than welcome to continue to use the men's single sex spaces. But not the women's.

Unfortunately the men’s doesn’t provide the same kind of relief for bodily fluids, it seems.

Well yes, OP, it’s going to take a few more court cases against service providers to galvanise some of them into ejecting men who can’t abide by the law. Prosecution & invalidated insurance will focus their minds quite quickly.

& probably a few individual non law abiding trans identified men charged under the Sexual Offences Act for various antisocial acts.

That’s fine; this is only going one way.

@Theotheruser how about just be a good boy and use the mens? The other men won't care.

Sigh.

We really are just background scenary to this lot aren't we?

No thought to how female people might feel or think about all of this. In the transwoman's mind there's no curiosity about us at all. Like Everest, we exist to be claimed.

bodily fluids is wee and poo. Masturbation is a sexual offence in a public space in the men’s and women’s spaces.

I hate to tell you but I am a women biologically. I can see what transgender women are going to be like. Prosecution will not work.

The reality is people can be angry and upset and take action with violence and take lives.

The law is broken and it will need fixing to support transgender rights and women’s rights.

So, you are actually arguing that men with trans identities are not decent people and that they will not obey the law.

It will be interesting to see this play out in court rather than non legal Stonewall type advice.

I also think it will be interesting to see play out with HR departments when someone tries this at their place of work. Or in a leisure centre in terms of membership.

And that if these men physically attack us or vandalise buildings, like the Bash Back bunch, it’s because they’re so upset.

Which is quite an unusual tactic when I think about it. It just makes me want to keep them out even more.

Are you suggesting that transwomen are going to react violently to being told "No"?

Sadly I think you are probably right that some transwomen will, because some angry men have always been violent towards women who do not deliver what said men believe is their due.

But I am hopeful the majority are just confused or chancers, and as society moves away from this moment of sexist madness, they will find other outlets to express whatever emotional needs they currently link to society being accepted as a "woman", whatever it is that that means in their heads.

Space owner customers? Like aliens or the Klangers?

No men get prosecuted for using women’s single sex facilities whether “transgender women” or any other men. It’s not a criminal offence or ever has been. HTH.

The service provider doesn't need proof, they can kick out an obvious man in the female facilities.

If the ejected man wants to make something of it he can take the service provider to court but the onus will then be on him to prove he is female or he has no case. His falsified birth certificate will not do because everyone knows birth certificates are no longer reliable proof of sex. I suppose he would need to get medical evidence. Good luck with that.

If the service provider fails to remove the obvious man then female service users could take the service provider to court for violating their dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and / or offensive environment for them, related to their sex.

If the obvious man refused to leave he could be banned from the service altogether. If he kicked off then the police could be called to remove him. If he kicked off numerous times in the same or different service provisions he could be served with whatever they are calling an ASBO these days. If he broke the ASBO he could be charged and prosecuted.

Or he could just use the gents.

There are times when I disbelieve what I read on the Internet. That's down to my ability to have critical thinking and weigh up everything that's been provided regarding the situation.

There was a male doctor who said he was biologically female. IW also states he's a real woman with a real cervix. Both are liars and both are men and yet would be adamant they were biological women.

Indeed. I’ve seen much whinging on Reddit that employers have told them they can’t use the ladies’ toilets or changing rooms, and much pseudo-legal bluster from other posters about it like the OP’s.