Bridget Philipson- TW should use toilets according to biological Sex.

I'm sorry. That must be so hard for you.

Main headline at the BBC.

Just replying to send you a hug. You are in an impossible place - I have been there, and it is indeed very dark there. Stay strong and be kind to yourself - I’m sure you are doing the very best you can in a horrible situation.

There used to be a tagline for a company that read ‘life comes at you hard’

i fully identify with that idea because I (and I’m sure lots of other people on this forum) have been trying to calm our trans identified son down and thus isn’t the end of the world

and just for added flavour, we think this whole thing is rubbish. Women are born not worn. But life takes you to strange places, and it’s pretty dark here

So he brought up transmen but then made that comment about transwomen without thinking about hard it would be for transmen to pee into a bottle if they were on the men’s ward?

also - did he say ‘single gender spaces’? What on earth is one of those supposed to be? Other than single occupancy ones, I suppose.

The problem was and is the GRA and the Scottish Government trying to bring in the GRR and self-id. If anything needs to re-written (or repealed) it’s the GRA.

He is a lawyer & in a technical sense he was correct as a man with a GRC & a penis was regarded as a female but this now been clarified by the SC.

I personally don't think now is the time to be pushing people to say they were wrong. I think that will come in a public enquiry a few years down the line.
Just be happy they are now accepting sense rather than doubling down.

The sad sound of an empty stable door shutting.😂

I think people are being very generous to KS and Labour. I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them. The only thing that makes me worry less is knowing that organisations such as Sex Matters are on the case.

This is a very important issue, KS said a woman can have a penis, he hasn’t admitted he was wrong to say that and it was shockingly disrespectful to women.

This has happened to me fairly frequently my whole life for the same reasons - attire and the fact i nearly always wear a baseball cap. It's folks not actually looking at me (i have a feminine face for example), just a glance at my overall appearance. Nowadays if i'm going into a public loo dressed like that I sing, put's everyone at ease.

That should have said STOP asking him ( not start) obvs.

I meant I think he is desperate for people to start asking him what a woman is, and how many women he now thinks have penises! I think he wants this whole issue to go away now!

No. My husband had to use one in a private hospital room, and even then he insisted the curtains were drawn just in case a nurse walked in.

I totally agree.
Except where you say Starmer is hoping to shake off looking the idiot for not knowing what a woman is. Once exposed as an idiot how can any woman see him and Labour as anything but idiots?

I 100% agree with this.

Statements by KS and BP are really positive, regardless of what you think their internal motivation is for them.

They are exactly the statements we needed to hear to know the Government was taking seriously the SC judgement and will work with EHRC to produce guidance to see the SC ruling is implemented, thus undoing the past decade of false information TRAs had fed into public and private organisations.

BP and KS statements show that TRAs have lost their influence in government. And the guidance will mean they have lost it in public bodies too.

Its not over yet, but I really don't think things could realistically be much better for us than they are now. Things are good.

Do men routinely use urine bottles in multi occupancy wards without drawing the curtain?

The men's ward will have bed pans as well, men need to use one for at least half the time.

It's really scrapping the bottom of the barrel time, for excuse making.

I don’t have a problem with banning discrimination against people who present as a different gender (even though I would prefer the whole idea of ‘gender presentation’ to be a non-issue I recognise men in dresses would get discriminated against), and neither do I think it’s a disability. The only issue is that people tried to conflate sex and gender, which the act doesn’t do, and never did, as the ruling confirms.

I think they have both realised its unpopular and that the TRA arguments don't hold together under scrutiny. Starmer became a bit of a national joke with his previous comments on this issue, with those comments becoming an ongoing news story in their own right. I think he wants to shake that off .

Over the years, more and more real life cases of the problems that arise when you allow men to say they are women, have hit the newspapers. This has made the public realise its all nonsense, and dangerous and unfair nonsense to treat men as if they are women in all and every circumstance. They've realised that more was being asked of them than being polite to unhappy men who said they were women, and they don't like how its actually affecting real women and girls.

Furthermore the country is in a mess and many people are living under financial stress and very unhappy. Everyone feels there are big issues the government needs to address. They will be seriously pissed off if the Government now wasted time and energy trying to change legislation to give men rights to be women instead of sorting out the large structural problems that are making life harder for many citizens, whether housing, health or COL.

Finally the supreme court ruling gives the Labour government a way to escape the mess they got themselves into by saying they are just following the law.

Basically I think Labour have finally realised that most of the public are fed up of this nonsense and want it to end.

I have always wondered whether the 1st XV at Cambridge are supposed to choose the toilets where they feel most comfortable when they go on a pub crawl, or whether some men are supposed to know that they are still the wrong kind of men, and would be thrown out.

(apologies for stereotyping rugby players. For all I know they don’t drink these days).

The suggestion that if we all allow transwomen to use women's facilities, all this confusion will magically evaporate is utter nonsense.

Genderists posit that anyone should use any space they please. Yet they also require spaces to be pretendy 'single sex' in order to 1. allegedly keep the special males safe from other males and 2. satisfy the validation requirements of men who want to feel womanly.

The reason women have been challenged in women's spaces is precisely because they claim that males are able to use women's spaces.

The social contract has been undermined and damaged.

The SC judgement is the first step in reparation.

If it’s inwards opening and big enough to push a body out the way to get in I suppose that’s ‘acceptable’? In all toilets nowdays you should have a mechanism to get in, whether it’s a key or reversing a hinge.

There so many different and historical designs out there. Document T was written to try and bring some order. However it was sabotaged by a Stonewall campaign. Firstly they got a big letter writing campaign going for the consultation - fair enough, but it skewed the conversations away from the other protected characteristics. But then the commission (by a private company) that should have looked at design for people with long term health problems -based the evidence to enclose some designs on what transactivists liked. That private company won a Stonewall award.

There should be equality and impact assessments done on toilet design based on all the protected characteristics including invisible disabilities such as diabetes, heart conditions, epilepsy. None of which regarded the ‘gaps’, as far as I can see, and I have really looked hard, in the documents leading to Document T. Door gaps were never discussed other than transactivists preference for enclosed designs.

My comments for the consultation were never published or acknowledged although I did write into the consultation with evidence. As did others.

The above is all a bit rushed as I am out at work so sorry for typos.

Just a reminder that in workplaces employers are legally required to provide single sex facilities under workplace regulations - which is why we can expect to see the forthcoming humiliating collapse of the Fife & Darlington nurses cases where nurses have been punished by their NHS Trusts for complaining about having to undress in front of men. Presumably major compensation for these women forthcoming.
Also Kemi B introduced new regulations for building new non domestic buildings specifying that:
"Changes to building regulations will mean that new non-domestic buildings, including restaurants, shopping centres, offices and public toilets will be required to provide separate single-sex toilets for women and men. Self-contained, universal toilets may be provided in addition, where space allows, or instead of single-sex toilets where there isn’t enough space".
Presumably the government are stymied if they wanted to introduce women unfriendly changes as they're under so much scrutiny now.

There was no need to introduce gender reassignment as a protected characteristic particularly in such loose terms. Those with genuine gender dysphoria are protected under the PC of disability.