𝗤𝘂𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿-𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲

"With respect to W***** C*****, do tell how you suggest anyone could police access to the loos?

(1) FYI, it is not an offence for anyone to use any public toilet for the purpose intended, i.e.,

• Enter
• Shut the door.
• Pee, poo, wipe, then flush
• Leave
• Wash & dry hands
• Go

The CPS have confirmed this principle in their guidance to police services & prosecutors.

(2) Nobody is required by law to carry any document affirming their sex as assigned at birth.

(3) it would be...

A) A criminal assault if a desperate person was made to show their genitals before being given access to a toilet (and you might think you could tell the difference, but I can assure you, in many cases even clinicians cannot ‘see the difference’ in the genitals of a post-operative trans patient until told by their patient)

𝗔𝗻𝗱/𝗢𝗿

B) Any repeated demand would amount to harassment under the provisions of the Prevention of Harassment Act.

(4) The EHRC code of practice does not require ANY service providers of loos to be trans exclusionary.

(5) The principle remains that a service provider decides what, when and how to provide a service and to whom they provide it, so long as they do not provide it in a way which, arbitrarily and to the detriment, discriminates because a person has any of the nine personal characteristics protected by the Equality Act.

(6) A defence is only afforded in the case of a complaint of discrimination being brought if the Service meets the requirements as laid out in the Equality Act, i.e., they are a provider of a genuinely single or separate sex service, or otherwise mixed sex accommodation where services for washing or bathing may not be shared if they would not afford privacy and dignity.

Very few (if any) ordinary public loos would meet those legal requirements.

(7) The Supreme Court in For Women Scotland only addressed the status of those people with legal gender recognition and hence those people with a new birth certificate recording their affirmed gender (and thus their sex according to the provisions of the Gender Recognition Act) as their birth sex.

The Supreme Court gave a decision which has been interpreted by extremists as reaching far beyond what the Court (IMHO) was asked to determine, i.e., did the Scottish Government have the power to decide if it was able to count those women with legal gender recognition as women when it came to the meaning of ‘woman’ in section 2 of the Equality Act?

(8) IMHO the decision it made – that the word 'woman' in the Equality Act refers to a ‘biological woman’ – is arrant nonsense. The definition of what they meant by the phrase ‘biological woman’ (or man) was lacking. Most people are biological, & any idea that I'm not a ‘biological man’ would be far outweighed by the many biological masculine aspects of my body’s current biology.

(9) The incorrect assumption made by ‘sex realists’ that it means a person with a specific form of gonads, chromosomes or genitals would have a reversion to the decision in Corbett v Corbett CA [1971], which was overturned in its entirety by Goodwin v UK ECHR [2002], since confirmed by the ECHR in numerous case law (including cases in which the UK has been the respondent).

The Gender Recognition Act came into force to meet the legal obligations the nation has as a member of the Council of Europe and, as required by the Convention of Human Rights, to respect those decisions handed down by the Court.

Since then, new birth certificates have been issued to those who obtain legal recognition, 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗔𝗟𝗟 𝗣𝗨𝗥𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗦. But there is no obligation to carry that or show it to anyone.

So ask me for my birth certificate when I need a pee, and I’d tell you to 🦆 off, except in your case I would show it to you if you could demonstrate a still-functioning, legally trained brain cell to me."