This.
This in theory it should be discriminatory to force transwomen to not use male facilities. Anyone who harassed or otherwise distressed a transwoman in male facilities should be the one being legally dealt with as transwomen should have equal unfettered access.
Yet this has somehow been twisted into saying that transwomen should have access to female facilities because the male ones are unsafe and it harms transwomens' privacy and dignity.
Without addressing why female facilities were separate from male ones in the first place and ignoring the paradox that males in female facilities undermines female safety, privacy and dignity and the fact that you CAN discriminate against the opposite sex in employment when providing services and access to spaces which are single sex and access may result in undermining safety, privacy and dignity even if they are a GRC holder because this is a legitimate purpose and it risks disproportionate harm.
Harm is generally measured in law in terms of benefits versus costs based on seriousness and scale.
Therefore you would look at potential harms to women: physical safety, mental safety, dignity and privacy, level of risk and numbers effected v the same for transwomen. Keeping in mind here the legal right of transwomen to use male facilities equally free from harassment and fear (which actually doesn't exist for women who might use male facilities in the same way).
One single transwoman using female facilities has a potential effect on ALL women who use those facilities. Both directly and indirectly.
Starting with the indirect, transwomen using female facilities open up female facilities to not just transwomen but all men because women fear challenging them or feel socially unable to. Social convention not law is generally what keeps men out of female facilities. By breaking this convention you make it easier for all males to do so. Women don't unite to kick them out because of blurred boundaries and fear of judgement from other women. Transwomen can pass but equally they can be 6' 2" pot bellied hairy bikers. This physicality is also psychologically intimidating as well as a physical risk to women who can't match the stature and strength of males. (And one of the original reasons for female only facilities being established in the first place). This means when calculating risk, you can not just look at the risk transwomen create, you must also factor in the 'chancer' element.
In terms of privacy and dignity we have other protected characteristics we need to cater for and acknowledge. Notably religious sensibilities. In allowing all males into female facilities by breaking the social convention rules, we make many of these places off limits to women from these religious groups because this is at odds with their social conventions and are unacceptable. They therefore self exclude. This clash of rights needs to be addressed in law. Do women from religious groups have the same rights of access to single sex spaces as other women? Arguably if they are unable to access them due to the presence of men being facilitated the answer is no. (Remember here the transwomen have protected rights to male facilities).
Then there is the element of privacy and dignity. We see in the exemptions for rape crisis centres, transwomen CAN be legally excluded for a job even with a GRC if there is a legitimate aim (to stop the harm of mental distress to a more vulnerable person from a person in a position of authority over intimate and personal matters). We have established the physical differences between men and women and that we need to assess risk not based on the risk of transwomen but on the risk of the broken social convention which allows access by all men. The legitimate aim of single sex facilities is to protect the privacy, safety and dignity of each sex - so what is their point if you allow the social convention to be broken? How does this affect privacy, dignity and safety? Are women more or less vulnerable by breaking the convention? Is this an equal situation for men / transwomen? Remember legally transwomens' sex is male so whilst you consider their position separately to men you also need to consider the position including them with men. Is it sex discrimination to disadvantage women's safety, dignity and privacy and access to public facilities if you allow males to break social convention? Is there a risk of causing distress or worse? If a woman is flashed by a penis this is regarded as a sexual offence. So what's the situation when it's a transwoman in a female facility? We regard the act of flashing as distressing and causing harm in one scenario in our society but so why not the other? It's legitimate for any woman to feel threatened in this situation for this reason. It is not something you can just dismiss as prudishness or bigotry. The role of intent is important, however if you were unintentionally flashing your neighbours by undressing by your window, you could well get a visit by the local police for distressing your neighbour. And we actually can't eliminate that there is an intention to distress women and to get a sexual kick either. This remains important and can not be ignored.
In terms of privacy and dignity of transwomen, there is an argument to be had about how being in male facilities may affect them. But this doesn't override female dignity and privacy. In law, BOTH must be considered.
And when you consider impact, and the point about social convention allowing access of all males not just transwomen you hit an issue. It's. NOT proportional to allow access. It should not be being done and facilitated by work places.
Work places should be instead making 'reasonable adjustments' to accommodate the privacy and dignity of transwomen. That's the provision of gender neutral facilities IN ADDITION to but NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF one sex over the other. Therefore you can't convert one set of women's toilets to gender neutral but not the men's because women lose. Equally if facilities are gender neutral they must cater for the needs of both sexes taking into account privacy and dignity. Therefore in theory all gender neutral spaces must be closed cubicle with no urinals (transwomen using the urinal whilst arguing about their privacy and dignity are taking the piss quite literally - if they are willing to do this in full view of any member of staff in one changing room but not the men's you have a worrying issue). So you shouldn't be just converting the males either - you should be removing urinals from gender neutral facilities whilst maintaining (at least) equal facilities for women (women need more toilet provision than men - this is recognised to the point that portaloo hire companies factor male:female ratios when calculating appropriate numbers for festival - this should be being done when building new workplaces but it's not.).
The above also applies to transmen but the impact is lesser (go through the steps above applying to transmen and you work out why - I'm not going to do it here) but still exists.
Saying you 'just want to pee' is a way of deliberately down playing all the above considerations and saying the right to privacy and dignity of others is not something I respect.
Think about that. Someone saying they don't respect the privacy and dignity of others whilst demanding their own. Does that strike you as consistent with the Equality Act right there in that one little statement?
The government really needs to tackle this head on.
We absolutely should not have situations where women can not request a female member of staff for intimate health care. They certainly should not be told they will not be treated. This is discrimination and the response is not proportionate. Employee rights don't trump rights under the Equality Act.
I actually hope we get a test case against leisure centres at some point because we desperately need one.
It's really not cool how the law has been misrepresented.