GRC and Toilets

SarahAr
What if that man says that he 'identifies as a woman'?

BTW 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.

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.

What makes you think that no man can be challenged post self id? Men in women spaces today can and should be challenged. Post the GRA nothing changes.

It's interesting that Amnesty International thinks that single-sex facilities are important for women and girls:

Women also reported having to use the same bathroom and shower facilities as men. One woman told Amnesty that in a reception centre in Germany some refugee men would watch women as they went to the bathroom. Some women took extreme measures such as not eating or drinking to avoid having to go to the toilet where they felt unsafe.
Tirana Hassan added:
“If this humanitarian crisis was unfolding anywhere else in the world we would expect immediate practical steps to be taken to protect groups most at risk of abuse, such as women travelling alone and female-headed families.
“At a minimum, this would include setting up single sex, well-lit toilet facilities and separate safe sleeping areas. These women and their children have fled some of the world’s most dangerous areas and it is shameful that they are still at risk on European soil.

www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/women-refugees-face-assault-exploitation-and-sexual-harassment-journeying-through

If women would be naked or if they might see a transwomen's penis, the likelihood of the exception applying is increased. Hence where there are cubicles these issues disappear.

I'm just back from the gym - I've been using gyms for more than 20 years now and all have had the same type of layout in the women's changing room: a large central area with benches and a few cubicles. You can use a cubicle to dress/undress, but to access the showers you must, of course, walk naked or wrapped in your towel through the communal area.

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.

I mention this for all the 'just use a cubicle' people.

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.

It is ridiculous to demand that a woman predicate her degree of embarrassment and anxiety on the man's subjective expressed view of his internal self at the time

I'd call it patriarchy. Or male supremacy.

It is ridiculous to demand that a woman predicate her degree of embarrassment and anxiety on the man's subjective expressed view of his internal self at the time - if he says he's a man, she can get upset as she wants and demand he leaves, if he says he's a woman then shame on her for feeling that way.

The subjective experience for the woman is identical however the man identifies.

It's like that ridiculous quote about 'why won't lesbians accept that my female penis will feel completely different inside them than a man's penis would, and accept me as a lesbian sexual partner!'.

The 'it's been happening since 2010, it's already law so get over it'/ The GRA revision will change nothing it's just a paperwork exercise, nothing to see nothing to see, shut up, stop looking, move along' is just another version of no debate. An attempt to shut women up and avoid them getting into public view where the general public will realise the full picture, go 'what the actual fuck?' and the political establishment will panic.

The one time I’ve used a gender neutral toilet was in a quiet provincial art gallery. I walked in and there was one other person in there, a man. I was acutely aware of the fact that he could very easily have dragged me into a cubicle. It didn’t feel safe at all.

Cubicles do not guarantee safety. Quite the opposite if an ill intentioned male person follows a female in there and locks the door.
Cubicles, in my opinion, are a complete red herring.
A young family member works in a refugee camp. The women were asked what would be the thing they most desperately needed.
The unanimous request was for segregated toilet and showering facilities for women and children. So the volunteers got on and built them.
Common sense.

I am curious as to what the legitimate aim of single gender services could be

It varies. For toilets and changing rooms it is likely to be privacy and dignity. For rape counselling it is likely to be whether men using the service would discourage women from access it. etc

I can understand how privacy and dignity are afforded when provision is segregated according to sex/sexed bodies. People with vaginas are not exposed to people with penises when undressing/ in a vulnerable state. What privacy and dignity is afforded when segregation is based on gender?

No wonder it is all a bit of a muddle.

Yep. And Citizen's Advice goes against what our friend is saying on part-timers....

That's horrible Clairetree1.
The university's acceptance is equally vile.

I note that Ann and the other women clearly couldn't challenge the aggressive males in the toilets. A bit like the poor woman in Paris.
Aggressive, large males in our spaces leave us vulnerable on so many levels. My 16 year old niece has SN and wouldn't know what was going on.

@bowlofbanelfish xpost

The cubicles argument is unjustified.

I have to use a cubicle with the door open, due to having a baby and toddler. Whether that’s to poo, pee or change my tampon. Although it’s uncomfortable and embarrassing to do, other women will understand as plenty have been in the same position. I will not be doing it if men are given the legal right to use our facilities because they ‘feel’ like it.

It varies. For toilets and changing rooms it is likely to be privacy and dignity

Not safety? How can privacy and dignity be maintained in unisex facilities?

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

Citizens Advice stuff on this has been heavily based on material and guidance from trans lobby orgs actively campaigning against women's rights. Worryingly the EHRC advice and practice also gets the law wrong in TRAs favour and orgs campaigning against women's rights wrote government guidance that negatively affects them too.

No wonder it is all a bit of a muddle.

Hence where there are cubicles these issues disappear

No they do not. What would you say to a Muslim woman adjusting hijab in front of the mirror in the communal area?

I had a horrendous experience in a "gender neutral" toilet, where a group of men, including at least one transwoman, had removed the sanitary bins from the cubicles, and were standing in a line by the inks with the bins hidden behind them.

Anyone who wanted to put a used sanitary towel or tampon in the bins had to approach them, and they only let you past if you showed them what was in your hand.

This was at a university open day. The university staff said there was nothing they could do about it.

This resulted in one prospective student changing her mind about applying to go to university

I am curious as to what the legitimate aim of single gender services could be

It varies. For toilets and changing rooms it is likely to be privacy and dignity. For rape counselling it is likely to be whether men using the service would discourage women from access it. etc.

Seeing as all single sex provision has to meet the proportionate means to meet a legitimate aim, I think everyone providing single sex facilities/provision should be forced to declare what the aim is. Then everyone can see whether they think it is legitimate or not.

I am curious as to what the legitimate aim of single gender services could be.

How do you come under the characters it of 'gender reassignment' then? What things do you need to have undertaken

As MsBeaujangles says, "protected characteristic of gender reassignment relates to those who are considering reassignment through to those that have transitioned". It is not clear exactly who is covered. But it excludes part timers, cross dressers, drag queens, bi-gender, non-binary people etc.

Doesn't the cubicle thing show that it's not about the safety/privacy of transwomen as is often argued (surely it's either proportionate for both the men's and women's or for neither) but about validation

The legal position is that you can't discriminate against trans people. There are probably many underlying policy and legal reasons for this. But an exception is allowed in particularly sensitive areas. If women would be naked or if they might see a transwomen's penis, the likelihood of the exception applying is increased. Hence where there are cubicles these issues disappear.