What right to a single sex space do I have and how?

To use the phrase "therapeutic facility" is clearly intended to be inflammatory.

You have the right to hold that opinion but I am not going to respond to such a loaded question.

To go back to the OP, at a guess I think a woman would have to be unable to use a service due to the presence of a male in what she would reasonably expect to be a female only space, and then take the service provider to court for indirect discrimination using either the protected characteristic of sex or religion.

Thanks @Cailleach1 - as I suspected - "GCs think trans people are disposable" is from the same phrase book as "GCs commit literal violence" etc.

@Leafstamp, I don't think anyone used that phrase except the poster you quoted themselves. It is not so much hyperbole as it was completely manufactured out of thin air. You cannot talk about women. Others always have to be centred.

The predominantly male legislature imposed this situation on women. They sure remembered binary sex is immutable when they put in the discriminatory caveat that women couldn't identify as male to inherit in a man's stead.

No, we're not anyone's therapeutic aid. Even if the predominantly male legislature thought our rights were not deserving of any respect and dismantled them so easily. We now know we need to stop the erosion of our single sex spaces. And sports, etc. To preserve our own safety, dignity, privacy and fairness.

I made sure to copy Datun's earlier link to FairPlay for women and single sex provision. To have a gander at later, in case for some reason it goes!

Women don't want to be assaulted by males

Neither do I.

Why are you here, BlueLipstickRocks? What are you hoping to achieve?

Am I wrong when I am being told that many women want to be able to have reasonable discussions?

Or would you rather I left so you can decide for me?

Why are you here, BlueLipstickRocks? What are you hoping to achieve?

Unfortunately access to female spaces goes much further than toilets. How am I progressive, if my desire to help one group means a female prisoner is forced to share a cell with a stranger whom she perceives to be a man, a sportswoman has to cede her spot in the Olympic squad to make way for someone who is not of her sex class and a female bedridden hospital patient has to pretend that the stranger in the bed next to her is not a man?

So, Blue or any other transsexual out there, can I ask, if there was a nice, fourth mixed sex additional space designed for people who would be happy to use a unisex space, (so parents out with their young opposite sex children, trans people, people who are not bothered about needing a single sex space) would you use that in preference?

Waits ..

In other words anything that gives some women what they want without compromise.

And this too. Ask yourself why, exactly, women need safe spaces away from men and then frame it again as 'what women want'.

Women don't want to be assaulted by males. None of this is about what women want.

From what I have seen women can generally spot a mile off who is a risk and who isn't.

I can't take this seriously any more. Blue, you know nothing about women's lives.

Not only can women not tell who might assault or kill them, they regularly fall in love with, and marry them.

Dear lord.

I wasn't offering a solution, just asking whether it was a potential viable option that was worth consideration. I'm not sure why my musings and asking questions equates to me taking anything back without proper process.

I'm not disabled and so am acutely aware they are not my spaces to give away. I also don't know how an additional 5000 users would impact current provisions for disabled people

In other words anything that gives some women what they want without compromise.

We already have a law. You may not like it and are free to seek to change it but until then the law recognises transsexuals with a GRC as legally female with certain rights that brings.

So many offering "solutions". We already have one. It's not a brilliant one but it's the law and you don't get to take it back without proper process.

From what I have seen women can generally spot a mile off who is a risk and who isn't.

^

This sentence took my breath away. As a woman who has since a young girl been taught to look over my shoulder in the street, and even been assaulted at work and on public transport by a random stranger, you can't make out that it could be women's fault for not assessing who is a threat.

In fairness I don't think bluelipstickrocks is claiming transpeople suffer from dysphoria and draws a distinction between transsexuals and transgendered individuals.

But that's never been acceptable.

You say "women don't want them"... surveys have shown that the majority of women accept post op transsexuals and refuse self ID

The issue is how many of the trans women currently invading women's toilets, or campaigning for the right to invade them are post op?

And many, many transpeople do not suffer from dysphoria. In fact there has been a concerted campaign for being trans not be seen as anything medical.

*But women are not therapeutic aids"

And transsexuals are not disposable

Legally, if the stipulation to invoke single-sex exemptions has to involve a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" could businesses not use third mixed-sex spaces alongside single-sex spaces and fulfil that criteria?

If the argument is that the number is far too small for businesses to convert facilities then for provisions such as toilets for example, would the "far too small" group not be able to used disabled toilets? I'm talking just of those who hold a GRC, not everyone under the trans umbrella.

I'm not disabled and so am acutely aware they are not my spaces to give away. I also don't know how an additional 5000 users would impact current provisions for disabled people so it might be a complete non-starter but in theory might that work?

This may be very simplistic but if there are so few GRC-holding people that not everywhere will be able to accommodate for them (and others who wish for mixed-sex spaces - I don't mean solely as

But women are not therapeutic aids