Transmen

I've been pondering this. If they can be denied access to women's single sex spaces does you think the reverse is likely to apply? I.e if TW can be denied access to male single sex spaces on the same basis? (Providing they passed to at least somewhere of the same extent). I don't think I read anything about it in the ruling, but I could be wrong.
I don't think trans people using single sex spaces that correspondence with our birth sex pushes us out of society and public life providing we have protection from discrimination, abuse, harrassment in the law, as some TRAs are suggesting, but the possibility of being denied access to both without an alternative available could potentially result in that.

But wait, I thought you lot wanted people to use the toilet of their birth sex? Bit hypocritical to want to have it both ways now you're realising some of the consequences to your actions.

I suppose nobody predicted that trans men would potentially be shut out of both male and female spaces. Personally I couldn't care less if a bearded woman turned up in the ladies but I suppose where a TM is undistinguishable from a male it is likely to cause consternation. Third spaces already exist in most places and many places only have a single unisex toilet or there will be a accessible option if all else fails.

I know a number of tradesmen - who I didn't even realise weren't 'cis men' - God what a vile phrase. I think them using male toilets is fine. Them using women's toilets would have women clutching their pearls, but then there is as far as I know no campaign for 'men' only space.

It's definitely not common for men to use a toilet cubicle without shutting the door in my experience, though it does happen sometimes if he's just peeing. My personal view is that I don't want transmen in the gents with me; it's uncomfortable (if I think there's a woman in there with me), but I will cope. The people I really really don't want in the gents with me are the aggressive men in inappropriate sexualised clothing, but it's fairly easy to avoid the sort of places where they are likely to hang out. Obviously it's even more inappropriate if they go into the ladies' toilets. They are dressing, in my opinion, to offend and intimidate.

As Maya Forstater said a couple of days ago: 'There are often unisex options. Not being allowed into the mens by rule does not mean you have the right to go into the ladies (and vice versa). That may seem unfair, but these are life choices people make. If you make extreme efforts to look like a man don't be surprised if you are denied entrance to ladies.'

I'm happy stand with her on that. I

They could campaign for their own spaces and, if they had done so originally, would probably have them by now.

Sorry I misread your OP (the dangers of skim reading!)

But it was never the original objective to create a male toilet, it is just a result of having created a female one. So on that possibly dodgy reasoning, would it be legal for a service provider to provide one female toilet and one mixed sex toilet?

I think it would be challengeable to provide a female toilet and a mixed sex toilet with no provision for men. Men have different needs to women (urinals) and also have a right to dignity and privacy. I think going forwards they will just need to provide a third space for the minority of trans people who don't want to (or can't) share with their own sex.

From the Judgment...

"221. There is nothing in the wording of this provision to indicate that paragraph 28 was directed specifically at those holding a GRC, nor is there any basis for concluding that this is its likely context as the Inner House suggested at para 56. (The example given in the explanatory notes at para 740 also does not distinguish between transexual people with a GRC and those without: “A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful”). We can see nothing to support the Inner House’s conclusion that “the importance of this paragraph is that it provides the only basis upon which a person might be permitted to exclude a person with a GRC from services which are provided for their acquired sex”. Nor is the EHRC correct to assert that paragraph 28 is redundant on a biological interpretation of sex. On the contrary, if sex means biological sex, then provided it is proportionate, the female only nature of the service would engage paragraph 27 and would permit the exclusion of all males including males living in the female gender regardless of GRC status. Moreover, women living in the male gender could also be excluded under paragraph 28 without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination. This might be considered proportionate where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example, because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken in the context of the women-only service being provided. Their exclusion would amount to unlawful gender reassignment discrimination not sex discrimination absent this exception."

Ha ha I started this exact thread yesterday and no response. My understanding is that trans men can be excluded from female spaces if they’ve gone to great lengths to masculinise themselves. The basis for exclusion is the gender reassignment exception (Schedule 3 para 28). Seems harsh that TM could be excluded from both male and female spaces but I suppose there is usually unisex available in most places now.

My understanding is that it is legal to provide separate single-sex toilets, but not (except in certain circumstances) a requirement to do so. When a single-sex service is provided for one sex, the other sex must not be disadvantaged by the lack of single-sex provision for them.

For women, single-sex toilets are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim: safety from male sexual aggression and dignity while carrying out female bodily functions away from the male gaze.

Pairing women's toilets with unisex toilets therefore seems legitimate.

OTOH men have those same rights. But do men actually need safety from female sexual aggression and dignity while carrying out male bodily functions away from the female gaze? Safety from female aggression - obviously not. Men are not at risk from women. Dignity - possibly. I would want to say yes, as I believe in treating others the way I would wish to be treated, but given the way men pee in public, and use toilet cubicles without shutting the doors, does it actually bother them? Do they even care about that aspect of personal dignity? I know it does for some men. So would unisex toilets disadvantage those men who would not pee in public?

Either way, a trans-identified woman who had proceeded so far with physical body-mods that she actually passed enough to deceive women would also deceive men. So the men would not lose their dignity.