GRC and Toilets

I come (ha!) to the conclusion that men's and women's facilities have need to serve very different groups due to biology (urinals / space for sanitary bins) and social / other stuff (women might need to leave the door open due to pushchairs, young men might "need" a bit of space to relieve an issue in the trouser department.

There is also the point that men take 50 million hours to shit and the queues are already long enough FGS.

Well googling brings up a LOT of porn!

And a survey carried out by a bathroom company in leeds which said that 1 in 7 men had wanked at work.

Sorry to @ you, @Clairetree1 - a couple of posters are interested to know which uni you had the horrible open day / GN toilets experience at. I am interested too.

I have a question that I have no idea the answer to.

I think it's fairly well accepted that young men can get erections at unexpected and embarrassing moments - do any of them alleviate this in the gents? I mean it would be understandable but I have no idea whether it is fairly normal for young chaps to deal with the issue in a cubicle? Which I think is totally fair enough -you've got to do what you've got to do - but not in a mixed facility.

"How for example is a Mum with a baby in a pram to safely and privately have a piss?"

Oh yes! Forgot about that. Many women with pushchairs wait for the end cubicle and go with the door open and the pushchair pulled in blocking the door - I know I did!

The things is that the people pushing for this have the needs that penis people have and still mostly penis people do not do most of the childcare. Also they could use the urinal with the pushchair next to them no probs. With a smaller baby that's no issue is it.

So there's a lack of awareness about
Period stuff
Baby stuff
Pregnancy stuff (URGENCY!)
Old woman stuff (again URGENCY!)

And then there is the smaller thing of how many women feel comfy doing the hair pat and makeup thing in front of men - especially men they work with? "Feminine beauty" as we on FWR all know is supposed to be something that is achieved seemingly effortlessly. Women tread a fine line between meeting the standards they feel they need to meet, and being derised for being "vain". Many men think that women try to "look nice" actively for the benefit of and and all men around them. The outrage at women putting makeup on on the train shows this up - it's supposed to be "private". I wouldn't feel comfy doing my mascara in the bog mirror and having dave from accounts wander in. + is dave from accounts whose just rocked in with the metro for his morning crap (on company time! I'm a winner!) going to feel comfy offloading his bowels while he knows I'm out there having at it with my lipstick.

Socially in the UK mixed bogs are just not what people want, men or women.

Clairetree1 that's awful, would love to know which university that was and why they felt they couldn't do anything about it

SarahAr sounds like you're saying to women that it doesn't matter what we do or how afraid we are some people who were recorded as male at birth are going to use the ladies toilets thus demonstrating they are going to ignore female's boundaries. Or have I misread something?

If cubicles are enough to give privacy and dignity to women when transwomen are using the toilets, why aren't they enough to give privacy and dignity to transwomen using the mens?

I, too, cannot see any reason for gender segregation, but sex segregation is very clear.

clairetree1, if you feel able, I'd love to know which uni thinks it's ok to let men picket the sanpro bins and intimidate women.

Dd is 16 and has just become a member of a local gym in order to get back into shape after GCSE's. She did a trial day at our local Leisure Centre but felt very uncomfortable there amongst all the males.

She has chosen a gym with a Ladies Only room and she loves it. She's been every day this week. She said to me yesterday that she feels like she isnt being watched/judged by men lifting heavy weights and she just feels safe.

Since Stonewall expanded their trans umbrella to encompass pretty much any man that has as much as looked at nail polish the lines are well and truly blurred. So it's useless looking at the current debate from a historical perspective.

This is where all the 'men with their dicks out in the women's can be challenged' etc stuff pisses me right off - the people on here claiming this must know perfectly well that self-id just opens up the women's spaces to any man who fancies going in there. The 'just challenge him' bit makes me honk with laughter - I'm frequently on my own in the gym changing room - that's a really easy thing to do if in future I encounter someone doing a JB in there, isn't it? Challenge him?

*All this guff about nothing has changed since 2010 is just that. Everything has changed in that 8 year period.

When the law was created it was for gender reassignment which at the time was understood as being for transsexual people who for the most part intended to transition fully and in relatively tiny numbers (around 5000 I believe).

Back in 2010 based on the number of people transitioning vs general population the chance of encountering someone who reads as the opposite sex in public facilities was very low.

Since Stonewall expanded their trans umbrella to encompass pretty much any man that has as much as looked at nail polish the lines are well and truly blurred. So it's useless looking at the current debate from a historical perspective.

The current thinking that is pervasive from all the orgs and many in government positions is basically you are what you say you are. This is why it's an issue*.

Thank you, Ova. As ever, someone has articulated my "but that doesn't feel right but I can't explain well enough" beautifully. Thank you.

And an answer to how Muslim women, orthodox Jewish women, Romany women and women of no particular religion who want to have a piss with a baby in a pram and the cube door open would be lovely.

everyone has to use facilities in accordance with their gender assigned at birth.

This makes no sense.

Nobody is assigned a sex at birth, never mind a gender.
Intersex people are not assigned a sex at birth either - they have a sex observed like everyone else. If their sex isn’t certain from a quick visual inspection they are physically and genetically examined. You don’t just whack an ‘oh not sure’ on a birth certificate 🤦🏻‍♀️

Do you mean people should use the toilets associated with their biological sex?

It's on shaky ground though. I can see why activists want it codified into law either in the GRA or EA.

TRAs want protection for genderfluid and non binary people which is not currently specifically codified into law. This was recommended by the Miller Inquiry who wanted to change the EA protected characteristic to "gender identity" and specifically mention genderfluid, non binary etc which was rejected by the government. The fudge that they said to placate them that these people were already de facto covered by the EA under "perception".

Yes I agree with you, heresy.

Sure, I think that's what they're saying. However, if that player says his name is "Nancy" and he "identifies as a woman" on Saturdays, insisting that he be referred to by "she/her" pronouns and use the ladies' facilities - how can one challenge this gender identity? What are the women in the pub going to say when "Nancy" walks into the female restroom? If "Nancy" insists "she" is a woman, then I do believe "she" could technically be covered, as these people are currently interpreting "gender reassignment". Trans ideology completely accepts gender fluidity, and mind-reading isn't a thing, so we would have no idea as to "Nancy's"motives. How would "Nancy" be different from Pips Bunce? Or Travis Alabanza?
Currently, I feel there is some hope for us to reassert the importance of biological sex and argue the importance of single-sex spaces. That we at least have some way to challenge people who don't really belong in a female space. But if the GRA is revised to become self-ID, what happens to the ability to question "Nancy" if she changes "her" legal status?

I read the Citizens Advice stuff as meaning that if the rugby club goes out every Saturday evening and there is a tradition that one of the players wears a dress for the evening then they are not regarding as having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (even if the same player repeatedly ends up wearing the dress because he has butter fingers and keeps fumbling the passes)

Referring to this case barrister Claire McCann, who specialises in this area of law, notes that the exceptions were not argued in Brook v Tasker and speculates "Perhaps this was because it was so unlikely that providing separate toilets for men and women and not allowing the trans female customer to use the ladies toilets was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"

As you say, she speculates. "Proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" is a subjective test subject to changing public perception. Women don't want obvious males in the women's toilets. They will object.

Challenging men tends to go really well for women, doesn’t it?. Look at how that woman in Paris got punched in the face for challenging a man. Lots of other women saying that similar has happened to them.

Fuck me that's appalling Clairetree.

Of course, to get into a cubicle, toilet or shower you must always enter the communal area, in which any person could be naked. If they were (in future, post self-id) a predatory man taking advantage of the fact that no man, however he looks, can be challenged in the women's spaces, he might be sitting indulging his fetish or perversion and you've no choice but to see it.

Indeed.

Men in women spaces today can and should be challenged

Ok let's take Jess Bradley for instance. Jess Bradley is obviously male. Sometimes doesn't really wear feminine clothing from what I've seen. Should women all challenge Jess?

the best way to have men in the women's toilet is to require that everyone has to use facilities in accordance with their gender assigned at birth. This would put trans men in the women's toilet. And it would be followed as sure as night follows day by men claiming they were trans men.

If alternatively the policy was biological sex, then as well as the trans men you would also have some intersex men in the women's toilet

I think it is unacceptable to require people to use single sex loos. This would be distressing for people with gender dysphoria - be they males or females. This is a separate issue to that of who should access single sex loos. Clearly, only those of the sex they are designated for should be entitled to use them.

All females should be able to use female loos, no matter how they identify. Someone pretending to be female, who isn't female, to access provision they know is not for them should be held to account for doing so.

There will always be people who abuse laws. This doesn't mean we shouldn't have well thought out and well considered laws.

As you know Sarah we couldn't require that without a DNA check. So why not keep to sex as it's always been, and the vanishingly rare trans people who pass as the opposite sex will be able obviously to use the opposite sex loo without anyone realising. The others won't.

Because many of us care about trans people more than you care about women, I would suggest a third solo accessible cubicle for the use of trans people and disabled people alike. In addition to the disabled only one.