Single-sex lavatories to be mandatory in all new public buildings

That is exactly why they have worded it as it should not be at the expense of "female provision".
Toilets should be unisex, including (male men, non-binary and transwomen) and female (women, spilt arses, menstuators, child bearers, womb owners) call us what you like

Clarity on the fact that females should have separate toilets.

@DadJoke

There are no loos in the UK which are single-sex in the EA 2010 sense, and no prcedent for such a regressive step being "legtimate and proportionate."

You have no basis to make this statement.

1. Very few organisations specify that their toilets are gendered but not sexed. Most toilets are assumed to be single sex by users and the people who put them there (hence the signs saying male/female and the urinals only present in one of them).

1. Single sex toilets have been the norm for a century or more. Personally I find it inconceivable that a court would overturn this but there is no case law specifying either way. Trans men have challenged when the single sex exemption has been rigidly enforced by a particular premises (for example GAY nightclub) but it's never reached court, presumably because it would have failed.

1. This doesn't affect passing transsexuals so you are talking about an interpretation of the equality act where (for example) male-presenting men who are 'trans' can use women's loo's but male presenting men who aren't trans can't. The law just doesn't support this.

And incidentally, why this never ending demand that female people put male people's interests first and selflessly be kind and do what male people need and want ?

But no reciprocal requirement at all that male people should consider the female people they're displacing and ordering to 'reframe their trauma' and abandon their cultures and religions or just deal with exclusion?

This is wholly sex based thinking isn't it? That male people get and have no responsibilities for others, while female people give without expecting in return.

Which kind of proves no one actually believes that TWAW at all, and therefore this is solely about male people's dominance and freedoms over female people's rights. And fuck off with that.

If it's about tolerance then the TQ+ lobby need to have a major word with themselves about managing to accept that other people have needs too, and not everything can be all about them.

Again - what do you plan to do with the females currently excluded from everything so that male people can have their preferred choice of everything?

Not giving a fuck I'm afraid is not an option. Inclusion and accessibility aren't TQ+ only. Nor is male supremacism an ok way forward.

So telling isn't it.

Having to hide behind a loose interpretation of equality law, where it was never considered necessary to be more specific because they thought decency would prevail.

And now Kemi has seen that decency did not prevail and so she's having to take steps to make these few self entitled males behave appropriately.

'I don't have to be decent, because the law isn't yet forcing me' is not much to crow about.

if you are male, and use female toilets, please stop.

Second this. Women do not consent to males using female spaces.

There are no loos in the UK which are single-sex in the EA 2010 sense, and no prcedent for such a regressive step being "legtimate and proportionate."

From your username DadJoke (and your male-centric perspective) I presume you are a man.

Why would you describe women having access to single sex spaces when they are undressed and vulnerable as a 'regressive step'? What's your agenda?

There is, I'm afraid. Women are saying no.

Kemi is making it quite clear that these toilets are for women only. Hence offering a mixed sex option, too.

if you are male, and use female toilets, please stop.

That's my point - thank you . Transgender people have been using the correct facilities, perfectly legally, for decades. Insisting on single-sex facilities makes no difference. There are no loos in the UK which are single-sex in the EA 2010 sense, and no prcedent for such a regressive step being "legtimate and proportionate."

Correct. Because under the EA people with the PC of Gender Reassignment do not have an absolute right to access spaces reserved for members of the opposite sex.

There is no law designating sex in toilets. There is only culture and societal acceptability.

Kemi understands that forcing mixed sex facilities on women and girls is unpleasant and detrimental, and is saying so publicly.

No one wants mixed sex toilets, but they have been intimidated into not saying so. Kemi making a stand is going to stop that intimidation.

To be clear, this provision will not affect the right transgender people have to go to the facilities which match their gender identity. Toilets are not single-sex in the EA2010 sense.

Really, why would single sex female toilets be open to males? Surely any decent male person would not intrude on the privacy and dignity of the opposite sex? The Equality Act also makes clear that males who identify as women are not considered to be members of the female sex class and can be excluded from single sex provision. They also , because of their male sex, don't lose their rights to do certain jobs assigned only to men nor their right to an aristocratic title assigned only to first born males.

To be clear, this provision will not affect the right transgender people have to go to the facilities which match their gender identity. Toilets are not single-sex in the EA2010 sense.

“The Government is also aware of broader concerns that women’s biological differences are being ‘erased’ in public life. It is important that women’s biological needs are respected and taken into account in the provision of facilities such as toilets.”

questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2022-07-04/hcws172

I have read it as providing male and female toilets plus disabled. And then if there is room a unisex toilet. Because trans women want to go into womens toilets it aims to steer away from a creeping default to have mens toilets and “everybody else” toilets

"Separate unisex or universal toilets should be provided if there is space but should not come at the expense of female toilets"

What do you think that statement means if it doesn't mean female & unisex?
Protecting female means transwomen are in the unisex. I really doubt buildings will be built with 4 sets of toilets.
Female, Male, Unisex, Disabled.

I don't think that's what it means, but it it does, I don't think it's acceptable. Men don't necessarily like having their privacy invaded either and there are men who can't toilet where there are women, just like there are women who can't where there are men, because of their religious beliefs.

What are you talking about, those aren't mixed sex, they are single occupancy, which is not the same at all.

Good on you Kemi Badenoch!

Shows how far we’ve gone down the rabbit hole that this is even considered controversial or newsworthy.

OT there's a good talk by town planner Dr Clara Greed about the provision of public toilets and the phenomenon known as "bladder leash," or being constrained in where you go by the availability of adequate facilities.

Thanks, Embarrassing - that was an excellent talk. Simultaneously informative, witty, and making a series of important points.

Does anyone know if this applies to Scotland too? Or just England?

If there is anyone such as that reading here: they need to be aware that the bullet will have to be bitten in not only ensuring that there are female only toilets too to ensure that all female people are not excluded in the progress to provide TQ+ suitable provision, but also that it will have to be very firmly stated and insisted on that these female only provisions are respected by TQ+ and if their own needs are met that they permit female people to have the needed resources to have equal access.

It is not just a case of providing female only toilets in addition to all the others; it is requiring that society moves on from the entitlement expressed on this thread of 'if TW want to they can and will and sucks to be a female who is excluded'.

Mutual respect and a major sea change in the attitudes of the TQ+ political lobby is going to have to happen. Because just expecting female people to give up on access to anything at all is not 'kind' or 'inclusive' or even basically acceptable, and Westminster are finally (finally!) catching on to this.

Is this the BBC only now getting round to writing on this?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62034932

Mean revisited= MEN resisted (parliament and the like)