Best tweet ever on trans madness

"I think there are plenty of laws governing behaviour so that if something untoward were to occur in for example a changing room, this would be covered by other legislation."

If these laws were effective, we wouldn't need single sex spaces in the first place.

birds you're saying "why aren't women's views important" as if all women hold your view. They don't.

I'm glad that the law is trying to prevent that from happening.

How will changing to a system of self-identification prevent discrimination against trans people?

From what I can see there is a defence that where single sex services can be shown to be required in a circumstance, that it then won't count as discrimination under the law.

The trouble is almost everyone is already too afraid to use these exemptions and, as well as the current proposed changes to the GRA, Miller's report recommends removing the exemptions anyway for anyone with a GRC (which will soon be a simple matter of filling in a form).

I'm not generally too bothered about transgender people using changing rooms, toilets or refuges if they need them. I think there are plenty of laws governing behaviour so that if something untoward were to occur in for example a changing room, this would be covered by other legislation.

Why don't we just let all men in then?

I'm quite shocked that you're not bothered about who women in refuges have to share with. What about hospital wards? Prisons? It's not all to do with safety, either. Privacy and dignity matter too.

I'm happy to accept the assertion that gender can be a spectrum rather than two definite and separate boxes on a form.

There are two definite and separate sexes though.

I am very happy for you robin. Why do your views trump mine? I want female only refuges, prisons, changing facilities, sports I am not happy for people who have a penis to be in those places. Why are woman's views not important.

I do think that there may be an argument in a workplace, that if Bob from accounts decides he is now Barbara, then it might NOT be reasonable to keep him out of the ladies toilets. You need to show that your sex distinctions are reasonable.

Obviously Bob who has been working for 30 years is a bit different in status to a public swimming pool with naked people getting changed.

And in a (almost certainly male) court then generic arguments about predators and whatever else may well fall down when put up against an actual transperson saying they need to use the ladies otherwise they will wet themselves etc.

You have to be able to show that your separate sex provision is reasonable.

I'm happy to accept the assertion that gender can be a spectrum rather than two definite and separate boxes on a form

I think everyone accepts that, but gender is not the same as sex.

" The claim again and again was that it referred to "single-sex" and "sex based" - it doesn't. It simply says "men" and "women""

No, the Equality Act refers to sex-based exceptions. So it's completely and utterly wrong to say this is about 'men' and 'women' and that somehow including transmen and transwomen. The basis for exclusion is on the basis of sex.

And the law provides for GRCs as the procedure to change sex. There is no other statutory provision for this.

" as shown again and again by the law"

No, as above there has only been one non-binding case in a county court where the transperson was banned altogether from the pub.

"Like I repeat: please anyone reading this, actually talk to your union representatives and human resource departments and avoid getting yourselves into trouble at work."

No doubt this a minefield and it's easier to roll over, it still doesn't make it law.

"For workers who are transitioning,the employer and worker should agree the point at which the use of single sex facilities should change from one sex to the other. This will usually be the point at which the person begins to live permanently in the gender with which they identify. "

Also this clearly isn't law, the EA protects people from the moment they even begin THINKING about gender reassignment. So there wouldn't be any process of 'agreement' if it was not legal to exclude transgender people from the toilets - they would just be able to turn up one day and use the opposite toilets.

These are 'best practices' but very obviously do not constitute law.

If you have a GRC then you are recognised as your new sex. If you do not there is no process in law of recognition.

I think that transgender male to female women are very likely to suffer discrimination and I'm glad that the law is trying to prevent that from happening.

From what I can see there is a defence that where single sex services can be shown to be required in a circumstance, that it then won't count as discrimination under the law.

I'm not generally too bothered about transgender people using changing rooms, toilets or refuges if they need them. I think there are plenty of laws governing behaviour so that if something untoward were to occur in for example a changing room, this would be covered by other legislation.

I'm happy to accept the assertion that gender can be a spectrum rather than two definite and separate boxes on a form.

pisacake: no, it is deliberately misleading to suggest that this is somehow a barrier to transwomen gaining access to facilities, as shown again and again by the law and the union guidelines. The claim again and again was that it referred to "single-sex" and "sex based" - it doesn't. It simply says "men" and "women". And as already established, "transwomen" count as women legally for the use of the facilities, hence all union guidelines.

Like I repeat: please anyone reading this, actually talk to your union representatives and human resource departments and avoid getting yourselves into trouble at work.

I do agree that it's a brave person that ignores these guidelines, which are obviously written in the interests of minimising the risk of discrimination cases, but it doesn't make them binding law whatsoever.

What do you think about other single sex spaces and services, robinR?

"You seem to think you know more than lawyers who have successfully proved time and time again that it is unlawful to discriminate against transpeople who are in the process of transition. Workplaces, services, pubs, whatever get fined if they do not allow transpeople to use their chosen toilet."

Time and time again? There is literally one non-binding case in a county court against a shitty pub.

Unison etc. guidelines in no way constitute law. Please make reference to actual legislation, cases, Parliamentary statements, etc.

"whereas separating men's and women's toilets is not only reasonable but specifically required in workplaces that have non-private bathrooms."

No, there is nothing that has found this reasonable discrimination. As shown above, it is in exceptional cases, and not allowing transitioning-transwomen to use single-sex toilet facilities is not "exceptional cases" whatsoever, except in your own opinion.

Like I say, I'd refer anyone to talk to their Human Resources Departments, Union Representatives, or Legal staff before trusting what someone is saying online (that includes myself). They will give you the actual facts of the matter, not a personal interpretation. I have posted the union guidelines here, but those who want to look again just simply have to search for Unite or Unison or NASWLT or NUT transgender workplace guidance to find the truth. Unions actually HAVE to follow and comply with the laws in their guidance, as they have to make sure members have legal representation.

I'm not suggesting they use the disabled facilities. Im suggesting all toilets become individual gender neutral ones.

Anyway like I say, I don't really get the obsession with toilets.

Puresummer, it's literally in the link you provided. Are you deliberately being misleading?

"Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), sanitary
conveniences shall not be suitable unless –
(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. "

"Does the legislation (any/all of it) recognise a difference between males / females and TIMs and TIFs though?"

The law allows you to separate things by sex where it is reasonable to do so. So for instance, separating girls and boys in order to subjugate the girls at a co-ed Islamic school recently was found not to be reasonable, whereas separating men's and women's toilets is not only reasonable but specifically required in workplaces that have non-private bathrooms.

In general the law refers to 'sex', however most sex-based distinctions will be discretionary, so it's not necessarily the case that you CAN'T have men in a women's prison.

In the case of a provider that WANTS to provide different (or no) facilities based on biological sex then that is legal IF that is a proportionate aim. Obviously the interpretation of 'proportionate' is tricky.

If it's NOT deemed proportionate, then it will be gender reassignment discrimination.

And if the person has a GRC, then you can't exclude them at all, they are legally of the acquired sex.

Separate sex changing rooms very specifically are proportionate.

data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/transgender-equality/oral/24014.pdf

"The Act allows trans people to be excluded from single-sex
services in some situations. How certain are you that those provisions are used proportionately, appropriately and fairly?
Nicky Morgan: I suspect overall they probably are. I am not sure that we have necessarily evidence. There are certainly examples. I have some here:
female victims of sexual assault; public changing rooms; bathing facilities and toilets, which I know is a huge area; and certain procedures in hospitals where it would be appropriate to have single and separate sex services. We should be very clear this is not a green light for discrimination. There is a line between discrimination and legitimately offering single-sex services. We are aware of only one case, which relates to a pub in Halifax, which was heard at Halifax Crown Court last year. "

www.lawcentres.org.uk/policy/news/news/kirklees-law-centre-wins-landmark-transgender-discrimination-case

The transperson had lived as a women for 20 years and had had GRS (although it's never clear what GRS actually means).

It was a very low level non-binding case in a County Court and it was not clear if the pub had adequate legal representation, nor whether the case was decided on going to the wrong toilet (possibly justified) or being banned from the pub (not justified)

robinR: I totally agree. Especially as they've already had the right to use our toilets for years.

There are so many other battles to fight, yet some people are desperate to put all of our energies into fighting a battle that was lost years ago, however much people want to think otherwise.

The current situation is that if a woman is unhappy with a transitioning-transperson using their facilities at work, they can get themselves into trouble by complaining about it. Currently if a male-bodied and male-presenting person uses the women's toilets, that is a fine complaint to make, but if it's against a clearly transitioning transperson then that can lead to a disciplinary if the person keeps it up after having it explained to them. Suggesting otherwise here is putting people's jobs at risk currently. You might want to discuss it with actual lawyers, or union officials, or Human Resources Departments as opposed to just posting your own interpretations of laws.

"Where facilities are single sex,transgender workers should be able to use them according to the gender in which they attend work.

For workers who are transitioning,the employer and worker should agree the point at which the use of single sex facilities should change from one sex to the other. This will usually be the point at which the person begins to
live permanently in the gender with which they identify.

It is not acceptable to insist on transgender workers using separate facilities from other workers for example a unisex wheel chair accessible toilet. "

Unison guidelines (for those that have trouble interpreting the law). If you're suggesting that Unison forces companies and employers to break the law without being challenged, that's a delusional position to take.

I suppose I'm just wondering what the obsession over toilets is. For some reason it always seems to come down to toilets! It seems so unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

The current regulation that people are protesting is an attempt that self-declaration is all that is needed to declare yourself a woman, without committing to a transition process. So men with beards and male presentation etc in the women's toilets. It is NOT to allow people in transition the rights that they've already had since 2010. That is farcical to suggest.

DJBaggy

Did I miss a bit about filming? Who is filming??

I would expect Romany, Jewish etc women to ask for a female only space if they need one to eg adjust headscarves or whatever. I can't actually imagine what else they need one for but I don't know anyone who is Romany or Jewish so I accept that's my own ignorance

The solution to me seems to be to have only individual gender neutral toilet facilities, a bit like current disabled facilities or those in smaller places which are just individual bathrooms. That seems to solve the who uses what issue.

Not at all pisacake, it totally does. The regulation you speak of isn't there if you read up, as posted earlier.

Likewise, there is ONLY the ability to discriminate against transpeople in very limited circumstances: "A service provider provides single-sex services. If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your acquired gender. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment."

Employers are not allowed to ask for GRC additionally.

You seem to think you know more than lawyers who have successfully proved time and time again that it is unlawful to discriminate against transpeople who are in the process of transition. Workplaces, services, pubs, whatever get fined if they do not allow transpeople to use their chosen toilet.

But of course, delude yourself otherwise. The fact of the matter is that men who are transitioning to women are allowed to use the toilets of their choice under the law. All unions (from Unite to Unison to the teaching unions etc) fight to ensure that workplaces accommodate this.

There are very limited circumstances where we can discriminate against transpeople currently. Toilets is simply not one of them, and to claim otherwise is to spread an untruth that could get women into trouble if they acted on them in the workplace.

And as stated earlier, the thing you claim that exists in the Health and Safety At Work Regulations (Regulation 20) simply isn't there any more: www.hse.gov.uk/pUbns/priced/l24.pdf

obviously it's nonsense and stupid to say the EA 2010 makes GRCs obsolete, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to pass the current legislation.

Does the legislation (any/all of it) recognise a difference between males / females and TIMs and TIFs though?