#ManFriday have rewritten the City of London Consultation - without bias

Done it. I often visit Westminster government offices. Bloody hate the floor to ceiling partitioned gender neutral toilets they have. I'm a diabetic, if I have a hypo and collapse in a locked cubicle is anybody going to notice? It is an issue for me particularly in those offices as I've had to get up early to get there, then rushed across London and then been sat in a long, usually stressful meeting where I am being grilled and can't eat properly.

No pun intended.

I intend to be a politician so should be treated as one.
I intend to rule the world so should be treated as if I do.
I intend to get to peak fitness so should be treated as an award winning athlete
I intend to get a Phd so should be awarded a doctorate

Uh, we're talking about taking a piss. You might be overegging things.

The law has created special rights for a class of people the moment they express an intention to transition. They are then entitled to use whichever facilities they choose.
People should take the time to actually read the GRA and the EA. It will open your eyes.

If I could get legal protection and rights for everything I have said I'd like to do, Is be over the moon

I intend to be a politician so should be treated as one.
I intend to rule the world so should be treated as if I do.
I intend to get to peak fitness so should be treated as an award winning athlete
I intend to get a Phd so should be awarded a doctorate

The madness of this legislation plus its implementation ahead of any legislative change needs challenging on the basis of common sense and jurisprudence.

In fact the original survey doesn't directly address inconsistent or non-binary identities, though the unisexification of facilities would cover it without trying to triangulate its users' identities.

Nice manly dudes !!

excellent

Done. My one comment about the original has led to me being found by trans campaigners on Twitter, called a bigot and blocked by one. New territory for me.

I think you've misunderstood gasping. What they're pointing out is that both (services for men) or (services for women) would become open to non-binary identifying people if the proposals went ahead.

So it's not about unisex facilities?

Is it "Services for {men or women}" or "Services for {men} or {women}" ?

Was the term 'unisex' nixed?

Done! Thank you. My blood pressure remained the same throughout (this cannot be said for my blood pressure when filling out the dreadful original...)

That made so much more sense than the original.

Thank you manfriday. Done. Mentioned risks to safeguarding a lot.

I think you've misunderstood gasping. What they're pointing out is that both (services for men) or (services for women) would become open to non-binary identifying people if the proposals went ahead. That's correct yes? The part you quote was clarifying what the impact would be on currently single sex provision, all three parts of it, as regarding transmen, transwomen and non-binary/other gender respectively.
Services for (men and women) are unisex. There's a different question later about whether currently sex-segregated services should become unisex.

Thank you ManFriday. Done.

The law has created special rights for a class of people the moment they express an intention to transition. They are then entitled to use whichever facilities they choose.
People should take the time to actually read the GRA and the EA. It will open your eyes.

You should have read the original survey!

I did, cheers.

The question implies that only people with ambiguous and/or non-binary gender ID will be able to access unisex facilities, so not cis people or consistently FTM or MTF trans people.

Come with me on the formal logic bus. You're all over the circular logic of "trans women are women." This is just a stop further really.

What does "Services for men or women will be open to anyone who states that their gender identity is neither male nor female, or both, or sometimes one or the other" mean?

Precisely!

It is the new way of saying that some people are such broflakes, they don't know what gender they are likely to be at any one time, and as such are so special that nobody can tell them 'no' and how do you feel about that and by the way, nobody is allowed to say anything about it.,

You should have read the original survey! Word mince.

I just wanted to recognise the time and effort whoever it took to restructure this survey to be more balanced and open in the questioning.

(Most likely you were spreading out on your sofa and scratching your man balls whilst doing so)

Thank you, whoever you are within ManFriday, for spending the time to show what a more balanced survey looks like.

No, the third part of the question was about unisex facilities and is a muddle that implies they won't be open to men or women.

Unisex means suitable for both sexes

The question was about people who think they are both (unisex) or neither or sometimes one or the other (unisex)

So it also covers people who are neither

Or at least thats how i read it

Sorry...was quoting Shakespeare there! Not just a pretty face!😛

It is so obvious I'm wondering why you cannot seem to see it? 'Seems, Madam? Nay, it is! I know not seems.' 🤨

The question is simply asking if you think men should be in one section and women in another. Ffs!!🤬

Excellent job chaps

Gasping, it means that non-binary identified people would be able to access all/any of the facilities. Seemed clear in context to me.

GaspingShark it is clear to me! But then I'm used to using men and women to describe people

It implies that "Services for men or women" will not be open to men or women. It's written by callow idiots.