Trans toilets

Businesses that do this risk a claim for indirect sex discrimination against women because the men can use any toilet but women can't use urinals and therefore have less provision.

They also can't start ripping out the urinals and replacing with all mixed sex cubicles or fully enclosed unisex toilets because that would constitute building work and would not meet the requirements of Approved Document T:

The objective of this requirement is to require toilet accommodation in non-residential buildings to be separate single-sex toilets, with single-sex shared or individual hand-washing facilities. Universal toilets can be provided in addition to single-sex provision and where space allows. Where there is not sufficient space to provide single-sex toilets, fully enclosed universal toilets should be provided.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67167c02d100972c0f4c9b38/ADT_2024.pdf

As I understand it, pending the full guidelines, the judgement means that only biological women can use spaces that are designated and signed as being for women only.

When the statutory code comes into force it will say the same because what the judgment says is the law. If the code and the law conflict in any way you go with the law.

Businesses just need to get on with it now.

As I understand it, pending the full guidelines, the judgement means that only biological women can use spaces that are designated and signed as being for women only. Some settings might, therefore, find it easier to get rid of or suspend single sex toilets/changing rooms altogether if they don't yet have unisex alternatives. I've already seen this once recently - somewhere that used to have separate toilets now only has unisex and has signs on them saying 'cubicles' or 'urinals'. I imagine they will eventually provide male, female and gender-neutral.

But businesses that do this are absolutely risking being sued in the interim if they turn a blind eye to trans identifying men using women’s single sex spaces. I find it WILD that they are willing to risk it when the law is so clear cut.

While not all men who identify as women want to use female single sex spaces, the ones that do are very aggressive, threatening, loud and influential. These are exactly the kind of men that women do not want in their changing rooms, hospital wards, refuges and so on. When Stonewall began pretending that these men had a legal right to coerce women into sharing spaces and were enabled by employers and the state, they started a war on women that has ultimately ended in a Supreme Court judgement in order to clarify what the law has always been. Some people want to continue to want to defy and break the law. That is up to them, but women will now have the confidence to report those people, which is as it should be.

But we're not, we're only talking about the trans people (of whom there are many) who do breach those boundaries. We shouldn't have to "Not All Men" it every single time because, of course, it doesn't apply to the transpeople who don't use the wrong spaces for their sex. We have no issue with them.

This is the point I'm making though - I'm not objecting to the need for single sex spaces. I'm saying that when we have debates about this, we shouldn't make sweeping statements about trans people. Such as saying 'all trans women want to use female spaces' when they don't. Legislation needs to be clear, yes of course. But the statements about all trans women wanting to access female only spaces are divisive and unnecessary.

"Why do you want to treat people with a trans identity as a sacred caste?"

I don't, any more so than I generally don't assume all black people, or all disabled people or all women think or feel the same way. The language around this matters and when people make these statements it makes an already emotive debate even more heated and I don't think that benefits anyone.

The vast majority of transwomen, like the vast majority of the general public are law abiding and although they might not start using the men’s they will look out for places with unisex toilets, there are lots around, anyone who does break the law is putting themselves in the dangerous position of being accused of doing something like voyerism or worse in the women’s toilets.

Wtf is wrong with people?
It’s so simple.
🧍‍♀️or 🧍‍♂️= biological sex only
👫 = anyone ( must be a lockable cubicle with a basin inside)
I imagine that trans people will continue to use the toilet of their imaginary sex so eventually all facilities will be👫
So no more validation but a much higher cleaning bill I would imagine. Yuk!

Some people seem to genuinely believe that women being recognised in law as a sex class seperate from men, is discrimination against men.

I don't think that all men who want to 'become women' are predators - they just want to be accepted as women. Unfortunately for them, it causes problems in the loo department because we can't, as the pp said, allow the "nice" ones into women's spaces without also letting in the "nasty" ones. So I'm thankful that the law has been clarified and only biological women are allowed into women's spaces.

And where's all this handwringing been for women? With all this, 'well it's just too hard to keep entitled men out so we shouldn't bother!', what about the women who can't use mixed sex services including the women who self excluded from rape crisis services?

As long as the men don't get hurty feels, right?

But what is a single sex space other than a blanket statement that the opposite sex are not allowed?

We are making a blanket statement about male people and saying that that blanket statement should apply regardless of any particular male person's feelings.

OP your boss needs to learn how to google.

Work places have by law to provide
• spaces for men which have no women
• spaces for women which have no men
when the employer provides a shared area for two or more employees.

So if that pub owner has emoloyees she needs to provide a fully serviced lockable single unit which only one person can use at a time or provide single sex provision.
The Pub owner can choose to break employment law and but if she falls out with current or ex-employees they have a case winable or not it will be avoidable expensive management time.
She is also waving an Audit Here flag to any tax inspector etc. because people who ignore the law in one area tend to do so in all areas.
Public house license laws normally have a catch all Obey the Law too.
And Insurance companies love a Get Out of Paying breach of T&C.

And Primak and its mixed sex changing room is gaining a reputation for non contact child sex abuse images but that may change as the new CEO is trying to expand their US market.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/20

Sanitary conveniences
20.—(1) Suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences shall be provided at readily accessible places.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), sanitary conveniences shall not be suitable unless—
(a)the rooms containing them are adequately ventilated and lit;
(b)they and the rooms containing them are kept in a clean and orderly condition; and
(c)separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside.
(3) It shall be sufficient compliance with the requirement in paragraph (1) to provide sufficient sanitary conveniences in a workplace which is not a new workplace, a modification, an extension or a conversion and which, immediately before this regulation came into force in respect of it, was subject to the provisions of the Factories Act 1961, if sanitary conveniences are provided in accordance with the provisions of Part II of Schedule 1.

And wa wa wa bla bla bla to anyone trying to say that the word woman in that body of that legislation is some how different to the word woman in the EA

PS urinal provision is lawful provision only for men.

Good point, Safeguarding is all about making blanket statements about certain demographics. We know not all men are a risk, but we know men are most likely to be a risk, so we keep them all out. That doesn't mean there aren't tons of lovely men who would do us no harm. It's the same with transwomen.

The relevant Act was passed in 2010.

Single sex spaces make blanket statements about men, though, don’t they?

Why do you want to treat people with a trans identity as a sacred caste? There’s now stackloads of evidence that doing so hasn’t worked out well.

Yes, I know a few who don't use women's spaces either, but lots do, and I don't see why we just have to put up with it or why because it'll be hard to keep them all out, we just shouldn't bother. It's the ones who breach women's boundaries who are making life harder for us all. It would be nice if they accepted this and stopped.

No the point I'm making is that blanket statements shouldn't apply to trans people just as they shouldn't apply to any other cohort of people. ALL trans people are not desperate to use the ladies and shouldn't be represented as such. SOME do.

There are plenty of trans people who do this though. None of the trans people I know invade female only spaces apart from trans men who were born female. In fact the trans women I know will avoid trying clothes on in shops and won't use any toilets because they feel uncomfortable doing so and unsafe in the men's for obvious reasons.

Of course it’s the point you’re making. I’m sure there are plenty of decent men out there - doesn’t mean that we can tell the bad apples from the good, so we keep them all out of our spaces where we are vulnerable.

A man who wants to use (aka invade and colonise) a female space is, de facto, a predator.

And this is a massive stereotype and tbh part of the sensationalism around trans issues. Obviously there are a handful of trans people who are very vocal and determined and have a clear agenda, but I certainly don't think this applies to the majority. I know a number of trans women and trans men, a lot of the trans men still use female changing because they feel safer around women than men.

And a lot of trans women actually shop online. I'm a tall biological woman - I do all my shopping online- when was the last time you saw a decent tall section in real life shops? I'm the same height as an average uk man. I think we need to be really careful to seperate out people who are harmful and malicious from trans people in general when having these discussions. And before someone jumps in with "but how can we tell who's malicious or not", you know that's not the point I'm making.

How would the staff normally deal with a man trying to use the female changing area?

So it will affect about 99% of trans people then.

The idea that trying keep male people who wear women's clothes out of women's toilets is going to primarily affect female people who wear men's clothes is quite hilarious. I can't think of two groups of people who look less alike.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could simply trust trans people to abide by the law, do the right thing and not invade spaces they have no entitlement to?

That is a very male mindset, isn't it?

Your manager has to comply with the law though. And it's easier to enforce in a workplace than anywhere else because if someone is trans your employer will know about it and they can take disciplinary action against them if they insist on using the wrong toilets.