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.

It is mad as it is essentially arguing that these male people will "be angry and upset and take action with violence and take lives." However, the law "will need fixing" presumably to lawfully let these violent males use female single-sex facilities. How the hell does that support women's rights? I have no idea, but violent men are the very worst men to be let into female single-sex spaces.

As I said, the argument isn't logical. If anything, it is self-defeating.

Indeed.

Most TRAs don’t seem to have grasped this.

All the defence needs is one of those cheek swabs that show if the SRY gene is present.

Looking at section 71 in the Sexual Offences Act and reading down further (2 is my bold):

71Sexual activity in a public lavatory
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he is in a lavatory to which the public or a section of the public has or is permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise,
(b)he intentionally engages in an activity, and,
(c)the activity is sexual.
(2)For the purposes of this section, an activity is sexual if a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person’s purpose, consider it to be sexual.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

You see toilets are such vulnerable places they have a section dedicated to them. The Hansard notes are quite illuminating when this section was being debated. It was said by an MP to be discriminatory towards men as he couldn’t find any records of two women that had ever been arrested having sex in a toilet.

In fact in recent sentencing, judges have forbid men from going in women’s toilets (and sometimes also stipulated unisex toilets) under Sexual Harm Prevention Orders. I have never found an instance where a woman was banned from going into the men’s.

What the law relies on in terms of a man being in the women’s toilets, is if the woman/women occupants think the activity is sexual. And whether any one of those women are reasonable people.

Any man using a toilet cubicle in the women’s toilets has to consider the above. The correct toilets for men are the men’s or universal designs (including the accessible) which are rooms with a toilet, sink and dryer for individual use.
edit: with the correct sex-based pictograms on the doors just in case of confusion.

That's nicer, @ThatsNicer !
😁

There is, of course, a single solution to all this. How about trans women simply respect women's privacy? Or show some empathy to women who need single sex spaces and the reasons why? How about they respect the 'no' from women who make it clear they don't consent?
Why can't trans women #BeKind as the phrasing goes?
But of course, the fact that this is seen as both unachievable and unreasonable displays exactly why this is a mens rights movement.
Women are expected to put their needs second to male desires. Same old patriarchal shit.
Respect the 'no', fellas. It's not that complicated.

Then those men who “get angry and upset and take action with violence and take lives” will be prosecuted for murder and spend a life stretch in a male prison, won’t they?

Elon Musk?

Or they could, you know, recognise that women have rights too.

It won’t be discrimination based on the sex of a female ejected as a result of misidentification as other females will not be excluded.

The service providers don’t have to prove anything. They can just refuse service and eject male people from female services. It would be on the prospective service user to appeal/sue/stage a piss protest and to do that they will need to prove they are female. Which obviously the male people can’t.

It is very telling that you are so keen to cause service providers to be in breach of the law and cause all sorts of trouble and upset to women. It’s exactly the opposite of normal female behaviour. We have a right to single sex spaces and you are opposing that. Try thinking of women as human being with rights and needs for a change. You might surprise yourself.

Luckily, as the law and growing public awareness of this matter is on our side, it’s only a matter of time before this is settled.

Ha! Cross post! Some posters would clearly find that a novel thought.

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

Wrong. It's legal to exclude a woman from a women-only space if she looks male (Schedule 3 derogation from the general ban on perceptive sex-discrimination).

This. You seem to have a very grim view of men with gender identities, OP.

As pp says.

There cannot now be men in single sex women's prisons (yesterday's court case confirmed), hospital wards, refuges, rape crisis groups and services, no strip searches by a man who identifies as a woman, no man in a post advertised as being for women only. Women can set up groups that are for women only and maintain those boundaries legally. Lesbians can have lesbian groups that say no to men who identify as lesbians. Changing rooms cannot be named as women's and permit any males into them. These were the really big harms to women and they're sorted. The prison service and NHS will whinge and drag their feet all the way, but they're well aware the game is up.

The Hampstead pond situation has yet to go to court, but as the Scots govt found yesterday, 'case by case' and 'we know the law but we want to do our own version of it' doesn't fly legally.

Why on earth do you envisage men being aggressive and difficult about using the additional provisions to be made available and instead insist on harming women and overturning women's rights? You seem to be arguing that women should just give up and accept men will do whatever they want. Which is an interesting argument to bring to a women's rights forum, what were you hoping for?

Bluesky and Reddit users having another normal one I see

trust me, you'll get bored before we will

I think a pp was right on the nail the other day. The reason some people come to MN is that it’s far more exciting than the stale echo chambers of Reddit and Bluesky where everyone agrees with their mad worldview. It’s thrilling to come across people who think it’s all nonsense and to plop crap arguments and wind them up. Bonus points if you can tell women that they have zero rights to privacy and dignity and chuck around a few veiled threats. Not that they ever have any genuinely compelling or convincing arguments, any more than the small fringe of TRA Mumsnetters do.

Not to mention, if it goes to court and the user was proven to be using the space for their sex, I can't see it will achieve anything beyond permission to use that space.

The service provider had a duty to provide and protect a single sex space for the population group of women (half the population) and an accessible mixed sex space in addition. Protecting that space requires having to make these decisions. It's about the group not the individuals. Service providers can't reasonably spend their working lives playing silly games with men determined to get in a room with non consenting women in a state of undress, and to prevent women who need single sex spaces from being able to have access.

Women may end up answering questions or being asked to use the single sex space - the term in law is 'hard cases' I think, individual people affected by a necessary group law, policy and procedure there for the good of the majority. They're not a reason to remove or change that law or policy.

And frankly women have been put in the position for years now of being excluded, harassed and worse by men in their spaces, so this is yet more unpleasantness and stress caused to women by these men, just in another way. Women have been expected to just get on with that, so I don't see why the distress of the women questioned about their sex is now important, when those other women weren't. And when in the activist ideal world, those women's distress and actual exclusion still doesn't matter.

Exactly @Wishesandhorses- women’s distress is only meaningful when it benefits their aims.

You are not quite correct.

They are not committing a criminal act but they are committing a civil offence of trespass.

If they are asked not to do that and repeatedly continue to do that then they can be charged with one of a number of criminal offences, the most likely being harassment.

Lets make it easy for everyone shall we?

If you've got a dick don't take it into a womens loo or a women's changing area.

I can see what transgender women are going to be like.

You mean you can recognise male entitlement and aggression?

Oh, good, you're back! Perhaps you provide the evidence now for all of the assertions in your OP?

ps.

A transgender woman having a pee
"pee" is American English

bodily fluids is wee and poo.
"poo" is also American English

So, are you American or is your AI programmed with American English?

You do realize that some of us can tell, right ?

If a TW uses a female single sex space I suspect you’re right. There will be no thunderbolt or police sirens (more’s the pity).

But the minute they walk across the threshold, that space ceases to be a single sex facility and the owner of that space is breaking the law for providing single sex spaces, and not reasonably upholding them.

All because some men won’t allow women to have privacy or dignity. Even the law won’t prevent them from stomping on boundaries and making women uncomfortable.

Great job championing such lovely empathetic chaps 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 just the types we love having in our enclosed single sex spaces…🙄

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

Oh really? That sounds like a threat.

But perhaps you are a fan of everyday terrorism.

Sorry but I'm UK born and bred, "having a pee" stands for "spend a penny" which was the coin you had to put in the lock to get into a public loo pre decimalisation.

And I've always used poo as well, first recorded use for defaecate in 1744.

It won't help our fight to pick on the wrong things.

Yes, I love trump. He is the greatest president of the world!