Don't know how to explain how I feel about the SC decision

Unfortunately women and girls are more likely to be sexually assaulted in mixed sex toilets and changing rooms. I'd be interested to know what your friends actually fear - violence from males towards a transwoman (who is also a male) in public toilets? That seems quite unlikely to happen - do you have any stats on reported offences?

Sadly there are multiple transwomen who have been convicted of sexual & violent offences - look up Katie Dolatowski or the Borders transwoman who kidnapped and repeatedly raped a young girl. In order to reduce male (including transwoman) perpetrated violence against women and girls they have to be kept out of women only spaces.

So because you don’t care everyone else shouldn’t care either. Right.

If your transmem pals want to continue to use the men’s they should. Men haven’t made any noises about not wanting to share toilets with them as far as I’m aware. If they have any problems they can speak up.

It's not about washing your hands. It's about being in a place you're quite vulnerable (pants round your ankles) or that are quite isolated in some places and feeling like it's a safe space.

In reality there's nothing stopping a man following a woman into a public female toilet and assaulting them if they really want to. But by making all these spaces mixed means that there's much more opportunity, making women feel (and actually be) less safe.

You carry on not giving a shit about it for yourself. But don't pretend you can't understand why women may not want to share these spaces with completely unknown men.

Honestly, I have never given the tiniest shit about having female toilets. I don't care who I wash my hands with. Other countries have always had mixed toilets. It's a weird British thing.

Also all of these responses assume my friends are transwomen. I work with transmen, all of whom pass as men. The idea that they are now going to using women's toilets is crazy.

OP, I suspect your discomfort stems somewhat from your female socialisation to take responsibility for the needs of others and put them before your own. To erase yourself in order to centre others, who are probably mostly male. To endure discomfort yourself rather than allowing others to experience it, especially if you feel that you have personally done anything to cause that discomfort, or not specifically gone out of your way to protect them from it.

This is one of the very many reasons why we needed to have this verdict in law. To remove the responsibility for moving over, making room, smoothing ruffled feathers, managing male emotions and entitlement from women's shoulders. To establish clear legal and social boundaries.

We're allowed to want our own spaces. We're allowed to know who we are and what has shaped our experiences and the way we interact with the world. We're allowed to use our own voices to speak up for our needs and not apologise. It's important to you because it's important, full stop - not some niche, extremist view. Women are the most marginalised, oppressed, victimised demographic in the history of human existence. We don't need to feel ashamed of wanting to have human rights, or apologise for being given them.

^This.
How many trans people does anyone on this thred actually know? 0-1 is probably the most likely answer.

The SCs decision doesn't take away any trans rights, it just protects women's rights, which needed protecting.

Trans rights also need protecting, just not at the expense of a different cohort of people. The next step is making sure those are protected without taking away anyone else's.

Third spaces are absolutely an equitable solution.

However, your dismissal of female people's needs of single sex toilets and changing rooms remaining as they were always supposed to be, single sex, is an opinion that I don't believe is equitable to female people.

You want to get rid of single sex toilets? Because your friends feel that they cannot use the toilets that correspond to their own sex?

Single sex toilets offer female people greater usability than mixed sex only. There were and are still very valid reasons for having single sex toilets. Just because you, personally, don't see the point of them doesn't mean that they are not the best solution for other people.

They can go to the toilet for their own sex and yesterday’s clarification confirmed that they have the legal protection to do so.

Had Stonewall etc lobbied for wider provision of properly designed unisex facilities instead of making millions by traducing legislation and following their stated aim of removing sex based provision entirely, trans individuals wouldn't now be in this position.

Whilst men continue to avail themselves of women's facilities I can't and won't spare any emotional energy on ttans identified men and their wants.

We haven't won anything yet. In many ways the real hard work, getting Stonewall Lore, gender ideology put of schools, NHS, corporations and organisations etc starts now.

Of course they can use a toilet. They are protected from discrimination using a male toilet, which is correct for their sex. You can’t advocate for the abolishing of single sex toilets because your trans mates don’t want to use the males. That’s absurd.

Luckily, you don’t have to pick a side.

The SC has clarified that women have rights and that trans people have rights. They are distinct rights and neither supersedes the other.

There should be nothing controversial or upsetting about this, unless you really object to one of these groups having rights.

I'm conflicted about it - the interpretation of the law needed clarifying, but if that now means that my trans friends are terrified of leaving the house because they can't nip into a toilet, that's grim.

I'd like to campaign for the eradication of all single-sex toilets and changing rooms, personally! Or make it compulsory that if you have them, you need a unisex space as well.

Whatever view I take, I understand that it's such an emotive topic and just the wording used can cause upset.

This is why I no longer tend to discuss the issue and how I feel about it under my own name unless I know the person I would be discussing it with holds similar views to mine. I find ways to avoid saying anything on the subject - a polite but distracted "mmm" and finding something else to do/talk about/somewhere else to be, is my strategy.

The safety of 51% of the population must come above the desires of a fractionally small number of men.

What you're talking about there is bullying behaviour in the workplace. There isn't going to be a way of expressing your perfectly reasonable views if this is the behaviour that is tolerated in your job.

As has been said, perhaps restrict your comments to the legal ramifications. If people can bear these to be articulated then you have a very serious problem indeed.

If the topic comes up with them, I'd just point out that the Supreme Court has confirmed that it is both legitimate and legal for women to have single sex spaces and services in which they are not required to include trans women, and that if they have a problem with that they are welcome to campaign for a change in the law. However, you think that men campaigning for women not to have these things is not a particularly good look, and if they care so much about trans people then campaigning to ensure that trans people have separate but equal access to equivalent spaces and services is probably a better use of their time and energy.

What I want to do is avoid a panic or situation where I upset someone through the misinterpretation of my words.

You sound as though you are bending over backwards to accomodate everyone else’s views and opinions without considering that your views and opinions are equally valid.

This is very tricky, especially given your subsequent update.

I think I would stick to discussing the legal implications of the judgment and try not to express your own opinion about it.

So you could say something like, "Now this point regarding the definition of sex in the Equality Act has been clarified, everyone knows where they stand. The judgment cannot be appealed, so this is now the legal position unless parliament repeals or amends the Equality Act. Our fight now needs to focus on ensuring that trans people's needs are met. For example, in situations where women are entitled to have single sex spaces or services, we need to make sure that trans people have separate but equivalent provision."

And I probably wouldn't shy away from pointing out that it is illegal to discriminate against someone for having gender critical views.

Sorry, pressed send too soon.

If your job is going to be jeopardised for expressing perfectly reasonable views that other people just don't like, then I'd consider that a huge problem.

If your i

I've just had a read of this. I notice he links to another guardian article to show that transppl are twice as likely to experience "violent crime" than cis, But
Then the article that it links to is talking about hate crimes, which is not just violent crime.It can also involve verbal abuse , online abuse etc. And The statistics for these type of crimes are especially influenced by how much they are reported. So That part of the article is misleading and incorrect.It just makes me distrust The whole article and this writer. And im quite sad because Over the last five years or so I ve just realized that the guardian is not what I thought it was.

Well this is horrendous. That's a highly problematic working environment, no?