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.

Would you like a job doing marketing for Wowcher? I think there’s probably one coming up soon.

You are aware that before decimalisation a penny was represented by d?

Piss and its variations - pee, pipi and so on are common across European languages for urination. Try again.

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.

A transgender woman with a history of gender dysphoria, updated official documents and living in the gender for years, wearing feminine clothing, GRC will not be prosecuted for a sex offence in court.

A transgender woman going to the toilet for a pee doesn’t tick the boxes in (b) or (c) or (2)

I really expect Reform or the Tories to make it a crime - good news eh. Also…

This is wishful thinking.

No one is saying every trans-identifying male who walks into a women’s toilet will automatically be arrested on the spot. But the claim that they “will not be prosecuted” is simply false.

The Supreme Court clarified that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. A GRC or altered documents do not make a male person female for Equality Act single-sex spaces. So men with trans identities do not have a “standard use” of women’s spaces. They are male people entering spaces set aside for women.

Women’s toilets and changing rooms are not just plumbing. They exist for privacy, dignity, safety, modesty and consent. A woman or girl undressing, washing, changing sanitary protection or using the toilet has not consented to share that intimate space with a male person.

If a male person enters a female-only space and refuses to leave, staff can remove them, ban them and call the police. If there is watching, filming, exposure, intimidation, aggression, repeated behaviour, or deliberate distress caused to women, criminal offences can plainly arise. Voyeurism, exposure, public order and harassment laws do not stop applying because someone identifies as trans.
The immediate legal challenge may often be against the service provider or employer for failing to provide a genuinely single-sex service. That is true. But that does not mean the individual male has immunity. It means providers need to enforce the law properly, and decent people should obey it.

Nor do women need to “prove” someone’s sex before they are allowed to object. Women and girls are allowed boundaries. They are allowed to complain. They are allowed to say they do not consent to male people in female intimate spaces.

So the answer is: yes, trans-identifying males absolutely can be removed, excluded, banned, sued around, reported and, depending on behaviour, prosecuted.

The law does not give males a right to enter women’s spaces because they say the magic words “standard use”. Women’s rights to privacy, dignity, safety and consent matter too.

Read 2 again.

You are aware that the word penny begins with a P? The derivation is apparently from "piss", but it's still the wrong fight for this thread.

You know what? It really doesn't matter, does it? I don't think it's going to affect "our fight" one way or the other. Nor is focusing on minutiae. It was just something I noticed, and I've never once heard a native-born Brit use either term.

I'm just wondering when the OP will provide evidence for his many confident assertions, but, going by his last response, there isn't going to be any forthcoming. I'm definitely not surprised.

I doubt staff or management will police single sex spaces. Policies for shoplifting for staff is don’t tackle or stop. Staff will not stop transgender women.

Clearly you have no evidence, and are not posting in good faith. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!
Well, not wasting any more time on you. Thanks for the laughs.

To prosecute a transgender woman for the sexual offence 71 (a)(b)(c)(2) must be ticked to a reasonable degree in law.

Do you have documentation of convictions in the sexual offence 71 to see how the court will know the (2) reasonable person?

If the same man goes in twice to a single sex space where I am, that will be harassment. Because be assured, I’ll tell him he’s not welcome.

Can you explain to me why men dont just obey the law?

Individuals who persistently flout the rules, knowing full well that they are doing this, can also have action taken against them for sexual harrassment.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a criminal standard. It doesn't apply to civil disputes. It simply has to be "more likely than not".

In reality official documents..

There are no official documents that assist anyone to know what sex someone is. They can't and shouldn't be used.

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

Actually, it wouldn't. If you genuinely believe someone is a man and it's reasonable to do so, it's not discriminatory to treat them as a man.

I'm sorry. I don't know wny I want to get involved in this thread that appears to have been started by a pigeon.

I doubt staff or management will police single sex spaces. Policies for shoplifting for staff is don’t tackle or stop. Staff will not stop transgender women.

Shops don't get sued by the other customers when people steal. Management will face discrimination claims from women for failing to police single sex spaces.

Given women were organised enough to arrange and win all these expensive court cases - why do you think k a national campaign to do just this is beyond them?

It will not be harassment. You will have to prove the person is transgender.

Transgender women have been transitioning for years and transgender women have got use to using women’s spaces.

Transgender women on medication will be threatened with violence going in the men’s spaces.

Transgender women will use women’s spaces for their lives. Transgender women will not care about being prosecuted. It is persecution in the public eye.

Exactly, and the more these men write how they don’t give a fuck about women, the more it looks more like harassment and creating a hostile environment when they invade our spaces. So carry on lads, it’s useful.

Read the room. The world is not at all on your side.

They will if enough women complain about men persistently breaching the boundaries, especially in workplaces where the same men repeatedly do this.
Most workplaces will install a single occupancy 'gender neutral' facility - so there will be absolutely no excuse.

Venues that take no measures to provide compliant facilities will also be subject to negative and unwanted attention at the very least.

I've never once heard a native-born Brit use either term.

I'm UK born & bred & I'm astonished that you have never heard one of us using the terms having a pee or having a poo. We used those terms all the time with our kids when they were tiny.

Women will object to men using their spaces. Every time there is a poll, people have even less patience for their entitled nonsense. Women can take legal action against service providers and insist they make it crystal clear that so called “transgender women” are not permitted to use women’s spaces.

You have it a bit arse about face.

I won’t have to prove anything. The trans identifying man will have to prove he is biologically female. Cis woman, as it were.

it’s very unfortunate that these men feel that other men are a risk to them. Why is that women’s problem to solve?

Exactly. There are a number of places that this “ill do what the fuck I want, fuck women and their privacy and dignity” simply isn’t going to fly, because employers have a duty of care towards women, as much as any other protected group.

They're going to have to, or women will just be constantly taking them to court and they won't have a leg to stand on. Their insurers won't be impressed either. It won't as a policy get past legal advice.

Your approach here OP seems to be 'abandon hope women, men will do what they want to you and no one cares'.

It's a bit of a spiteful and heavily misogynist line to bring to a women's rights forum, and it's a forlorn hope at best.

Yep. We see you.

Well, they will have to get used to otherwise. They have been mislead, and at the expense of women and girls generally. If you are in a workplace then you will most certainly know who the trans identified employees/men are.

Any man who persistently violates the rules is by definition guilty of harassment. How these men have the nerve to say they have empathy or fellow feeling with women takes some nerve. It is all "me, me, me". Joss Prior, for example, is always photographing himself in women's facilities as if he is some kind of revolutionary hero who doesn't give a fuck.