Islington Council slams 'botched' single sex spaces guidance

having gays and lesbians in their bathrooms.

When I have gay and lesbian guests I have them in my bathrooms.

I'm sure when they use single sex services no one actually knows what their sexuality is.

A man coming in the women's though, like Robin White?

@AidaP , The cases you mention such as Bellinger, Goodwin have been superseded by Supreme Court 2025.
Stop living in the past which was a fairy land anyway.

Or is this based on the "we can always tell" that gets tons of cis women misgendered on the regular?

I'm taller than the average British man, rarely wear make up, can go days without brushing my (sometimes short) hair and yet never ever have I been mistaken for a man. Weird how misgendering "cis" women has become a thing since the SC ruling.

Section 28 was not "Section 28, which was strong ban on gays, lesbians, intersex and transgender people. Literally people were "not comfortable" with having gays and lesbians in their bathrooms".

It actually prohibited local authorities from "intentionally promoting homosexuality" or "promoting the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". It also prevented the publication of materials in schools with the intention of promoting homosexuality.

As one of the many lesbians who opposed Section 28 at the time while navigating teaching in schools, it's infuriating to see men co opting this fight in order to further their niche demands to access single sex spaces for women and girls.

This is nonsense isn't it, no one gets access granted by the receptionist.

Banning bathrooms.

Well this is the UK so no-one cares about banning bathrooms.

Brava 👏👏

I didn’t make fun of anything.

I described lived experience and triggering situations, which you don’t want to hear.

You lot have been lied to

Bagsy being the first to spot this new reversal for the bingo card

This is the consequence of this group of men never being told no before. And now caught up in the whole mess are countless young people who've been gaslit by these cynics that their bodies are flawed but a sex change will cure them.

Fortunately the law is clear and welcomed by the majority of the population. Those so socially incontinent that they're unable to comply with the law will eventually be caught up with as the allegations of criminal sex offences (indecent exposure and voyeurism) will eventually catch up with them.

That's from Goodwin vs United Kingdom 2002 my dear. The judgement you lot here make fun off, but not one person actually read.

@AidaP
Could you list the source of your quote so I can check it?

thanks

It's funny how you all opposte things without realizing that the arguments you are trying to make are copy/paste from the 90's that were made in support of Section 28, which was strong ban on gays, lesbians, intersex and transgender people. Literally people were "not comfortable" with having gays and lesbians in their bathrooms.

And all of this was settled, over 20 years ago, if you dare to actually read some law, indulge me in this little quote that addresses your issue:

"""
The Court does not underestimate the difficulties posed or the important repercussions which any major change in the system will inevitably have, not only in the field of birth registration, but also in the areas of access to records, family law, affiliation, inheritance, criminal justice, employment, social security and insurance. However, as is made clear by the report of the Interdepartmental Working Group, these problems are far from insuperable, to the extent that the Working Group felt able to propose as one of the options full legal recognition of the new gender, subject to certain criteria and procedures. As Lord Justice Thorpe observed in the Bellinger case, any “spectral difficulties”, particularly in the field of family law, are both manageable and acceptable if confined to the case of fully achieved and post-operative transsexuals. Nor is the Court convinced by arguments that allowing the applicant to fall under the rules applicable to women, which would also change the date of eligibility for her state pension, would cause any injustice to others in the national insurance and state pension systems as alleged by the Government. No concrete or substantial hardship or detriment to the public interest has indeed been demonstrated as likely to flow from any change to the status of transsexuals and, as regards other possible consequences, the Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.
"""

This is still valid and applicable law, one that now will have to be tried against FWS to see what the law actually is. But that's level of consideration this echo chamber hates, as for them "it's all so clear", a position not held by any actual legal scholar. Even EHRC already had to retract half of it's guidance as, by it's own counsel, they got the law wrong.

You lot have been lied to, I'm sorry to say, especially about FWS being "clear" or it banning bathrooms.

massive support from the population

I feel like I've had to re-post this a lot recently🤔
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51545-where-does-the-british-public-stand-on-transgender-rights-in-202425

'Now a new YouGov study, the fourth in a series reaching back to 2018, shows an increased scepticism towards transgender rights across the board – and particularly in the two and a half years since our previous wave of this study.
Notable in this most recent study – conducted in mid-December – is the growing resistance on transgender rights among those groups that are typically more permissive on the issue, like women and young people.
In fact, the only question on which women now take the permissive view on transgender rights is saying that people should be able to change their gender socially, although at 55% this still represents an eight point drop since the 2022 survey.' etc etc etc

@AidaP, you know that the law says you should stay out of women's spaces right? You can use unisex or male facilities.

If you're saying you're going to barge into female spaces despite being told that this is unacceptable behaviour, you're making our argument for us.

If you said: 'well this is going to feel weird, I've been led to believe for years that it was OK to use women's facilities & I'm going to be scared now using the gents, how can I avoid that?!'...then multiple apps exist to help you find public toilets, changing rooms etc which have unisex provision. Some women would no doubt have sympathetically guided you in this respect.

Given that is not your approach, you are simply a man without boundaries who needs zero sympathy & a firm 'no, you can't come in women's spaces. Not our problem to fix'. Skirt & all.

As long as you are aware that a sizeable chunk of the female population are not comfortable with you in there, you are causing them stress and anxiety, and that it is against the law, then I guess it is between you and conscience how you act.

Few women are strong enough to challenge a man in an enclosed secluded space.

It’s very much a statement of your selfishness that you will act according to your own preferences and fuck over everyone else.

It's very easy to implement and should be implemented and enforced in the same way that we enforce the illegality of driving without a licence/driving without insurance.

Everyone knows its illegal. It is completely understood as illegal by anyone with any sense at all. But no one has to carry their driving licence and insurance documents with them at all times. Civic society assumes that everyone is law-abiding. Receptionists are not expected to be gatekeepers for each admittance. In the event of any kind of incident (eg women reporting harassment due to male people in a supposedly single sex space, etc etc) the person in question is required to bring their documentation to the police station within 7 days to show they were actually assigned female at birth (if they bring a falsified birth certificate issued under the GRA this can be checked against the register) and if they cannot or refuse to do so, then that is what triggers the legal action.

Nobody wants receptionists to be checking birth certificates or groins. The law is the law and the people who won't abide by it are clearly not to be trusted and should be deprived of their liberty for the protection of society, but if we are a society of free and generally decent people we are able to operate day-to-day without having to prove our bona fides to go about our business.

I find it shocking that so many TRAs are saying its unenforceable. Are they admitting that trans people are by default untrustworthy and not law-abiding?

It's on you to be honest.

Surely, the very vast majority of trans people will be honest about their biological sex and obey the law accordingly?

Oh.

Thats a shame

Well in that case before we go, I will remind everyone of something we established in another thread recently

ITS NOT ABOUT YOU POTATOES!!

You can have as many handmaidens as you like. You still shouldn’t be using female single sex spaces

Thanks for confirming you don’t give a fuck about women and our rights, dignity & privacy Aida but then we knew that

Very big feet indeed! And trans tums.

To a point I do indeed, as despite transphobic government and FWS, transgender people continue to live happy lives in the real world, with massive support from the population showing at the rallies, protests, parades and so on, while transphobes keep hiding their views due to backlash and alienation, and still cannot crack 100 person rally, something we get at a 2 day notice counter-protest, and it's mostly cis people there.

And all that while under constant barrage of anti-trans mass media on top.

i expect aida/the monitors to report us for being big meanies and this thread to be zapped very soon

Every time I see a post like this it persuades me even more that the GRA needs to be scrapped. I started off thinking that maybe we could keep it with some sensible and necessary revisions but that was quite a while ago now.

As a trans woman you know your biological sex is and always was male.

If you take it on yourself to enter spaces, or use resources, reserved for biologically female people, you may not always be challenged.

That does not make it ok to deceive women and appropriate our resources.

Whether women always know or not, you always know. You always have the choice to treat women-only - which the SC confirmed means female-only - spaces with respect.

Every trans woman who, like you, knows this yet still considers what he wants from women to be more important than what we want for ourselves is demonstrating exactly why we are right to say no to you.

Women have all the experience in the world of men who believe if they can argue a logical case for our consent, or for why our boundaries are invalid, we are required to agree and acquiesce.

Those men fundamentally misunderstand their position.

Women are the sovereigns of our own bodies and our own boundaries. Our lack of consent is not a theoretical proposition you can argue away. It is our own to give or not and you have no moral power or right to compel it.

Only the most craven misogynist would consider his obligation to respect the consent of women depends on his accepting they have a valid case to withdraw it.