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.

Discomfort for who?

You can’t say because it’s bullshit. There is male provision available for the transwoman so they should not be in the ladies, it’s that simple.

No one can be guaranteed to be 100 percent safe anywhere.

For everyone

That TiM blatantly masturbating in the cubicle in a women’s changing room was the first thing that sprung to my mind too.

What’s the point of laws if they won’t be enforced?

But it does cause discomfort to the people who legally should be there. Many people have told you this.

I think you must be in the U.S? We don't use the word 'break room' in the U.K.

The arguments and the accompanying actions that coincide with the preservation of sex based protections are already far more advanced in the U.K than in the U.S.

The manager is a woman and she would have back us up if we said no.

Not for me. I can’t cope with a man on the other side of a door. And trans identifying men still sound like men.

Unless you also work with a bunch of incredibly violent men who need security to go to the loo with them to ensure they don't randomly chin a guy for not washing his hands, I'm sure the men at your place of work would be happy to prove they are trans allies and offer to accompany the man you work with to the gents as he's obviously so scared of the likes of Dave in accounts.

But unless he is actually disabled he should stay the fuck out of that toilet as well.

And none of that means men can use the women's toilets.

Have you let the SC court know that some women at one work place have had a quick vote and decided it OK for a male person to use the female single sex provision so they need to alter their ruling?

Why does your company continue to employ men they regard as so unsafe another male can't be alone in a room with them?

But they do... The gents. The risk assessment was done by an idiot. If the men at your place of work would not be safe for another man to pee next to then that needs sorting out by management. The answer is not to say Gary can use the disabled or the womens.

What do you mean sound like men?

Also. If these men you work with are so dangerous, they shouldn’t be working with women at all surely?

when they speak. The way their footsteps sound.

I thought what I said was pretty clear.

Tough. I'm sure they'll get used to it.

'relieving bodily fluids' doesn't always mean what you think when it comes to some of these guys

Voice training is a thing, and footsteps is just ridiculous

Nope, men walk differently and voice training rarely leads them to sound like an actual woman, but it’s nice to see you dismissing an actual woman’s experience and her trauma while being oh so concerned about men’s discomfort of having to pee with other men.

I'm reading your posts with amazement, Theotheruser, because you seem to be working off some odd version of the law, workplace regulations, the Equality Act - you name it, and you seem to have a different version of it from the real version.

There are laws and regulations around the provision of toilets and changing rooms in workplaces. Some of the workplace regs say that there have to be separate men's and women's facilities. If your manager doesn't know that, they aren't equipped to manage because they aren't up to speed on the relevant regs.

If there are separate men's and women's spaces, as the workplace regs require, they may only be used by people of the appropriate biological sex - biological males in the men's, biological females in the women's.
That was made clear by the highest court in the UK - when the Equality Act says 'woman' it means a biological woman, when it says 'man' it means a biological man - however they identify, however comfortable or uncomfortable they feel.

It's just not on for a manager to pop their head around the door of the break room and ask whatever women are there if they'd like to over-rule the UK Supreme Court.

I don't know of any research, actual proper research, that shows that transwomen are in any danger in the men's toilet. If by any chance they are, that's for men to sort out, not women. They should be campaigning to make men's toilets safe spaces for all kinds of men, including transwomen.
It's not up to women to make men behave nicely towards each other.

The simplest solution is the obvious one: women use the women's; men use the men's; and all able-bodied people, including transpeople, show a bit of respect for disabled people and leave the accessible toilet free for people who really need an adapted toilet.

That's the way it worked until very recently, when a tiny number of men started claiming that they had a 'right' to use women's facilities because they were trans. That was never a 'right' at all, as the Supreme Court confirmed - men of any kind, no matter how they identify, have never had the right to use women's spaces.

If some of them have been getting away with it in the past, they need to get up to speed with the reality of the law as it is, not as they'd like it to be, and stop using the women's facilities.

They could start a campaign for safety in the men's toilets for all men of all identities...

Voice training doesn’t work. Not in real life.
I can spot à man from behind - it’s gait, hip shape, hand size. Front on it’s even easier.

im glad you don’t have my experiences to make you fearful. I have rights and I’m not giving them away to please any man

Also GDPR. Special category data being shared without a lawful basis or a S9 condition.

A few men have spoken about trans politics not in a good way. Safety to use the disabled and women’s if the disabled is out of order.

Gait, hips and hands. I nearly have bingo

They clearly have no experience of hypervigilance, that’s for sure.