How to approach the 'TW in a work loo' issue

I just don’t think it’s anyone else’s business.

🤣

Course it is !!!

Field you think trans people are likely to lie about their sex? Why?

I just don’t think it’s anyone else’s business. For someone just getting on with life, their medical history or ‘birth sex’ if you like, is no one else’s business. And certainly not where toilets at work are concerned.

They've since transitioned

At what point in transitioning does a man "become" a woman?
As for a grc ( I think it's still same rules) you are required to "live"as a woman for two years. Now no one has yet come up with how anyone lives as a woman but assuming it's a thing that can be defined, that's at least two years before a man can call himself a woman legally.
So as weeks have passed not two years, he cannot be a woman.

And as always you have to explain what you intend to do with the displaced females who also need the right to use a female toilet. But can't unless it's female only.

There's no point posting selected bits of advice and saying 'thems the rules'. The whole point of this discussion is that its a totally messed up, confused conflicting muddle of a law, badly made and badly executed, that tries to avoid facing that these are conflicting needs.

Where employers already offer gender-neutral toilets and changing
facilities, the risk of creating a barrier for transgender people is alleviated*

Gender neutral. Aka mixed sex. Fantastic. Designate one block of toilets to be mixed sex and leave all other single sex. Employer done their job, everyone happy. Right?

I would suggest one of the mens. As it is proven women as a group need relatively more cubicles than men, it fixes that problem as well because now women who want to, can use the new mixed sex (ex mens) toilets.

How are work places to be 100% sure? Should HR departments now be arguing with people over what sex they are if they suspect someone is transsexual?
How would you actually prove it?

Oh yes, the old “you can’t stop me” argument. So convincing and reassuring.

That is possibly a different matter. Particularly if they ‘transition’ in the work place. I think each situation has to be dealt with in an appropriate and proportionate way. But I know there are likely to be different ideas of what that is.

Well, quite. It gets a bit tricky trying to work out who is 'trans enough' to use the facilities of the sex they wish to use, doesn't it? The trouble is that 'gender' is a nebulous idea, based on vague ideas about stereotypes that are, at base, meaningless.

Sex, however, has very real effects on us all. Sex segregation is the only definition that really makes sense, which is probably why it's been observed for - well, forever.

We just can't have 'toilets for people who like long hair and make up' and 'toilets for people who smile less' and 'toilets for people who can't make up their mind'.

We (women) need somewhere to bleed. To put it bluntly.

Brilliant posts @Ereshkigalangcleg @CharlieParley @Datun
This transperson is known to colleagues- wouldn't they support their continued use of men's facilities: surely they'd be safe??? But it's validation isn't it? and I say
No thank you

And to the posters saying 'non trans women' - that's women. Fixed it

Field you think trans people are likely to lie about their sex? Why?

But the OP and this thread are discussing a 'transgender' person, who is quite likely to have changed nothing but their pronouns.

That is possibly a different matter. Particularly if they ‘transition’ in the work place. I think each situation has to be dealt with in an appropriate and proportionate way. But I know there are likely to be different ideas of what that is.

Are you suggesting that a trans person who has only been known in a job as their transitioned sex and using facilities for decades in line with that transition should now be stopped? How are work places to be 100% sure? Should HR departments now be arguing with people over what sex they are if they suspect someone is transsexual? You’re not a woman! Actually I am. No you’re not. Yes I am!

How would you actually prove it? “Well I think you look like a man!” And just for toilet use? I think what you’re suggesting could become absurd.

This person could use the accessible facility.

I can't understand why they would not do that.

Yes I know using accessible is rubbish if you don't need it but they've always by used by men who want a shit in my office so that point is a bit moot really.

And those who vary gender during the week use whichever one they feel on that day.

And being trans requires no changes to anything about how you look present at all.

Rightyho.

Women denying access to males on the basis of their sex is not the beginning of a negotiation.

There's no, what about this one, how about if we do that, show me the studies that prove this.

The answer's no.

Sorry. No, thank you.

Where employers already offer gender-neutral toilets and changing
facilities, the risk of creating a barrier for transgender people is alleviated

And instead, insuperable barriers are created for female people.

It's been explained over and over again on this thread why this is a problem, so either you're not reading the thread or you're not able to comprehend the issue.

The whole world does not revolve around male people, their wants, their needs, their feelings and their rights. Female people have rights too. Including to have access to toilets.

[quote Wroxie]@ArabellaStrange that link is to a page from a "gender critical" lobbying group and their takeaway from the studies have been clearly disputed - it's one small study and the outcomes are not at all clearcut.

You clearly agree with their lobby, but if you want to convince people who don't agree, or who are undecided, you need to learn what an unbiased source is.[/quote]
Should I post the link to the review of the studies published by Joanne Harper that draws similar conclusion to that of Drs Hilton and Lundberg that testosterone reduction in post pubescent males has relatively little affect on their strength and power? That is research by a well known trans activist.

This means that even if it was just a 'few' males who entered the female toilets who had malicious intent, the females in that toilet have less chance to overpower that male and get to safety. And that is even ignoring whether these males have suppressed their testosterone (which we are also told by researchers is very varied in success) in any way.

That and the undeniable fact that the proportion of males who identify as women being imprisoned in the UK for sex offences is so very much higher than female sex offenders.

So..... tell us again why safeguarding principals should exclude this subset of males please. Why, since this subset do not lose the ability to overpower women, yet demand that they are not impeded access to women's single sex spaces, should society be ignoring this retention of strength and power?

To be kind? Because like magic the words 'I am a woman' has removed the male propensity to commit sex offences as well as dramatically reduced their ability to overpower women?

"Use of facilities – a trans person should be free to select the facilities appropriate
to the gender in which they present. For example, when a trans person starts to
live in their acquired gender role on a full time basis they should be afforded the
right to use the facilities appropriate to the acquired gender role. Employers should
avoid discriminating against anyone with the protected characteristic of ‘gender
reassignment’. Where employers already offer gender-neutral toilets and changing
facilities, the risk of creating a barrier for transgender people is alleviated."

[quote Wroxie]@ArabellaStrange that link is to a page from a "gender critical" lobbying group and their takeaway from the studies have been clearly disputed - it's one small study and the outcomes are not at all clearcut.

You clearly agree with their lobby, but if you want to convince people who don't agree, or who are undecided, you need to learn what an unbiased source is.[/quote]
That's hilarious given how trans activists are determined to stop studies in their tracks.

Frankly, I don't give a monkeys if reduced testosterone turns a man into a purring kitten. Women don't want men in their private spaces. It's an instant boundary violation. The very desire to do it, should immediately preclude anyone from being able to.

And you only have to look at sports to realise that reduced testosterone does nothing, absolutely nothing, to dent the entitlement and male privilege exhibited by those who've gone through it.

Strewth. Women do not consent. Get used to it.

Shall we discuss the current statistics for the male trans people in UK prisons and the proportion that are in prison for sex offences compared to females then?

There can be little dispute about real statistics showing the prevalence for committing sex crime at a rate that looks nothing at all like female crime rates.

That's not common at all. And it shouldn't be seen as a a condition for anything because it's massive irreversible surgery with no going back.

And yet it’s ok for schools to set children on course for massive, irreversible medical interventions in the name of being trans affirming.

you need to learn what an unbiased source is.

Because trans activists are so good at providing unbiased sources.

@ArabellaStrange that link is to a page from a "gender critical" lobbying group and their takeaway from the studies have been clearly disputed - it's one small study and the outcomes are not at all clearcut.

You clearly agree with their lobby, but if you want to convince people who don't agree, or who are undecided, you need to learn what an unbiased source is.

I've said for some time that the Girl Guides, for example, fought very hard against considerable pressure, to remain single sex. Once they have capitulated and let trans mtf people in, I can well see a case being brought to demand access for boys/men because the Girl Guides (and any other organization that claims to be single-sex but allows males in with special identity claims) are discriminating against men by requiring a special identity they don't require of women.