There is. Regulations. You have to have correct signage.
Document T has a big section on it.

Exactly. It's pointless talking about this here because people have no idea what theyre on about. Its disappointing.

You can be NB and femme or masc. It just means you don't identify as a man or woman. If you're going to take part in these conversations, you need to be informed.

Just like a woman can be masculine. Or a man can be effeminate. Someone NB can be masc or femme so they'd be very much included and also be on board with this and so would their allies. That's even more people against single sex spaces.

Schools? How do you explain these unisex toilets then? Secondary schools have had a variety of unisex toilet designs for a couple of decades now (not that they should but they have).

Not public spaces and there is also the question of policing. While it might be obvious that someone is a man in the woman toilets presenting as a woman, if the establishment say they don't think that's the case, then there's nothing you can do about it as a member of the public. A colleague doesn't have to share their trans identity with you either. You'd have to prove the person was trans to make your case.

These are all things those of us who are involved in creating single sex spaces are acknowledging and trying to work through atm. Not what we wish and what our mates on mumsnet think.

Schools & workplaces are required to provide single sex toilets & changing rooms. Single sex means biological sex i.e. sex at birth.

Because i work on initiatives around creating single sex spaces so I have more idea about what is actually being said by whom. I know people want it to mean certain things, but it just doesnt mean those things.

I know that most women don't care enough to actively support any campaigns or protects because I help run these campaigns and protects. Not just speak about it online

There's nothing to say that you have to have single sex toilets or label them unisex. It says IF you have single sex spaces, it has to be labelled this way. Someone can just say that it isn't a single sex spaces, it's for women and transwomen. Nothing stopping it.

@DustyWindowsills
(looks guiltily at cobwebs on opposite windowsill)

Single sex provision is legally required in work places and in schools.

Furthermore, where they already exist they cannot be made unisex without considerable re-organisation and expense - because they then have to be fully lockable individual cubicles with integral washbasins.

I'm with you on a and b, but think there's no route through c. That's because the "women only" part is discrimination on the basis of the protected characteristic of sex. For that to be legal you must demonstrate "proportionate means to a legitimate aim". But that is impossible because if you let any males in, you give up that argument. That's what the EHRC guidance says anyway. For the same reason you can't legally discriminate on the basis of "PC 1 or PC 2" but you can do "PC 1 and 2" (i.e. 'gay women' yes, but 'gay or woman' no).

(That's also why I'm a bit puzzled about how the logic of the law squares with allowing young boys in, but in practice that isn't at issue here).

That's what I thought! Probably why it stuck in my mind. When all the useful stuff just dribbles out 🙁 like something I can't bring to mind at the moment.

Isn't there a danger it would run down one leg? 😮 And that's why we squat? (When out hiking, obvs.)

I can't believe I'm actually typing this ... 😳🫣

Who is your MP?

I don't think a facility for women and "trans-women" is necessarily illegal if; a) there are single sex facilities for employees; b) it is not claimed to be single-sex; and c) the proprietors claim a proportionate means for reaching a legitimate aim. I could see this being justified in the very special circumstances of a club aimed particularly at trans-sexual people. It would at least be an arguable case in court?

Reminds me of a female side character in Pat Barker's Regeneration trilogy, set during the 1st World War, who'd 'straddle her legs and piss like a mare' (or words to that effect. The context suggested it used to be a common way for women to relieve themselves. Helped by the voluminous skirts worn at the time.

I don't know if this was actually a thing or if it's something she made up. I'd doubt if it was the latter. I wonder if women who did this didn't bother with under clothes or if they found a discreet corner to remove and replace them.

Anyway, sorry for the derail.

Interestingly, if I'm not mistaken, müssen and must mean the same, but not in the negative, so muss nicht means don't have to but must not means something quite different. I am remembering German lessons from the '70s so I'm open to correction!

I think there may be subtle differences in usage between sollen and should. Certainly in English the context and the tone of voice can make a difference, with the latter meaning that written communication can be easily misunderstood.

It's not surprising is it? The reason things got so skewed in the first place is that a small, noisy minority got themselves strategically placed in key committees and then pretended that all "equality" initiatives were about increasing access for just trans people, rather than for everyone.

Now there's been clear guidance to the contrary, they're desperately trying to prevent changes, whether by misrepresentation or emotional blackmail.

In my organisation, I'm making a point of countering every question that starts "In light of the SC judgment, can we confirm we will protect trans rights by..." and pointing out the importance of women's rights, and that third spaces are the solution.

The challenge is spotting where all these conversations are happening and making it clear that someone is keeping an eye that they're following the actual law. They're less likely to push something through if they know they can't do it secretly, or under pretence its OK.

Almost blinded! Crikey!!

Posie

This is interesting. My employer is also ‘waiting for the full ehrc guidance’ before implementing new policy. And running a lot of ‘listening sessions’ and signposting counselling resources etc. There weren’t any of those when they brought in the policy making all the toilets and changing spaces mixed sex

Unfortunately, all organisations claiming to be waiting for the full guidance and allowing TIMs to use the women's facilities are breaking the law, as it stands.

If a gang of unqualified Internet spoons are able to discern this, with a modicum of research and reading, organisations with legal departments are acting very strangely.

Who is the 'Houses of Parliament' in this instance? Who has put out this message about ignoring the ruling?

😬 hmm I better not.

However safety and privacy have always been an issue.
Women = needing safe toilets to be part of working life.
Men = doing things in toilets other than what toilets are meant for.

This quote makes me laugh but it must not have been great at the time: “some Gentlewomen in our gallery, not being able to hold their water, let it run on Mr Dodington, and a Scots member who sat under. The first had a white duffel frock spoiled, the latter almost blinded”.

It’s from this:
historyofparliament.com/2024/01/16/the-smallest-room-the-house/

This from 2020:

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-2020-0056/

'Women-only facilities have been subject to debate in recent years. For example, the Royal Society for Public Health, in a report on public toilets, called for “equality of access to toilets”, noting this was important “particularly for women who take longer and cannot use urinals”. This, it added, “leads to the long queues familiar in many public toilets”. The report called for ‘potty parity’ to ensure equality of access, with more unisex toilets, more toilets for women and taking into account the needs of transgender individuals.

Some critics maintain that gender-neutral toilets, and also changing facilities, are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities. Others have said that while gender-neutral toilets should be commended, labelling single-sex toilets as gender-neutral, even if they contain urinals, may ultimately mean fewer facilities are available for women to use.

A report by Stonewall showed that almost half of trans people asked (48 percent) do not feel comfortable using public toilets. Stonewall defines ‘trans’ as being an umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth. Proponents of more gender-neutral facilities note that gender-neutral toilets can be used by anyone and would stop trans people feeling isolated and distressed about going to the bathroom.

The issue of toilets in public buildings was subject to a series of parliamentary questions tabled by Lord Lucas. He asked about changes to toilet facilities in the Department of Education’s London offices to make them unisex. The Government responded that changes were to “make the office environment as inclusive as possible” noting visitors who do not wish to use, or may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral facilities, are able to use other toilets in the building.

The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination, for example in employment or the provision of public services, on the basis of protected characteristics that include age, disability, sex, and gender reassignment. However, the Act allows providers to offer single-sex services in permitted circumstances. It also outlines the limited circumstances where gender reassignment discrimination might be permissible, but it must be a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.'

https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/women-parliament-and-political-space/

'Facilities for women in Parliament

This change in the law was swiftly followed by debates about the need for female facilities in Parliament, as the structures and surroundings of Westminster ‘were largely man-made’, and at the time, did not adequately cater for women (see footnote 4).
Discussing women’s admission to the House of Commons in 1918, a memorandum produced by the Office of Works stated that:
‘In connection with the Motion which has been passed that women should be eligible as Members of Parliament, it is necessary to make certain arrangements, which are rather difficult at the present time owing to the fact that the numbers of women who are likely to be returned to the House are not known.’
Memorandum titled Houses of Parliament. Admission of Women to the Legislature, 1 Nov 1918, WORK 11/237

Various proposals were submitted concerning provisions for female bathrooms and a woman members’ room. The idea of a woman only dining room was also discussed, although it was suggested that ‘perhaps in many cases the women members would use the same Dining Room as the existing members of the House’, although this did not materialise (see footnote 5).
It was proposed that a woman’s bathroom could be provided where the blue coloured room is on this diagram, as ‘all that would be necessary would be the taking out of the urinals in the lavatory and making provisions on further W.C.’ (see footnote 6).

Furthermore, a woman member’s room was suggested and is coloured in pink at the bottom of the diagram, its name highlighting the perceived strangeness of MPs who were not male. This space provided a place for women MPs to work in between Parliamentary debates.
As more women entered the House of Commons during the interwar period, female MPs across the political spectrum shared the woman members’ room. The room became known as the ‘tomb’ as it was cramped and poorly furnished (see footnote 7).

Nonetheless, the woman members’ room helped to foster a degree of solidarity between women MPs, especially as they were excluded, both directly and indirectly, from other spaces open to male colleagues such as the Strangers’ Dining Room, the smoking rooms, and the bars, all places where informal political work took place which disadvantaged women.
...

Over time, women MPs began to challenge the masculine structure of Parliament. When the Labour MP Ellen Wilkinson was elected in 1924, she decided to enter the smoking room, but was stopped by a male police officer who told her that ladies did not enter such a space. To this she replied, ‘I am not a lady – I am a ‘Member of Parliament’, before opening the door’ (see footnote 18).
Wilkinson continuously drew attention to the limited accommodation for women MPs in the House of Commons. This, she told the press in 1928, was because ‘women MPs are regarded as a mere political accident’. She went on to say that ‘the authorities really ought to face up to the question of providing permanent and satisfactory accommodation’ (see footnote 19).
The passing of the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act marks an important moment in history for women’s rights. However, rather than Parliament trying to adapt to integrate women into Parliamentary spaces, separate spaces were created for women, which had a significant impact on how female MPs would experience Parliament. Nonetheless, the challenges that women faced brought about a sense of solidarity between women MPs across the political spectrum.'