Civil service union’s turmoil over toilets for transgender staff

On this and the other thread you saying what the law should be interpreted as while the HSE has a webpage is telling the general public that a workplace has to have a minimum number

https://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/toilets.htm

The HSE staff involved in enforcing the law clearly should to have some legal basis for putting a number on "sufficient" otherwise its foolish for them publish the numbers or to seek an enforcement notice.

However the page fails to say how they came up with their numbers.

All I am doing is trying to source where the numbers came from. Its not personal to you or some kind of challange its trying to find the Act or SI or court case which resulted in the number ratio.

No reason whatsoever for the UK to betray women by amending the Equality Act 2010 to allow trans-identified men into our single-sex-spaces, services and sports. Just because other countries have allowed themselves to be manipulated or browbeaten by mostly male activists into favouring trans identities over natal sex, is no reason for this country to do the same.

As for 'outing', if we are being honest in our debate, passing is very largely in the eye of the individual before a mirror, rather than in the eye of the beholder. Humans have a highly developed ability to recognise the sex of others, which has been honed by many millennia of evolution as a survival trait. There are so many clues which can't simply be disguised by clothes and hair.

I think the best legislative outcome is to remove any suggestion that trans-identifying people have a right to keep their sex secret. I’m not sure there is any such right at the moment but it is often claimed (under the guise of you can’t do that because it will “out” me).

All issues of rights and equalities are solved when people can be forced to confirm their sex.

I have never seen any cogent explanation why someone’s sex should be so private a matter that it can be concealed in a legislative universe that distinguishes between men and women in various important ways.

No, that’s very clearly not what I’m saying.

According to the 1992 building regulations the number of toilets for any premises that were subject to the Factories Act 1961 has to be 1 per 25 men, and 1 per 25 women. The number of toilets in all other premises has to be “sufficient”.

You are in this and another thread making a lot of straw man obviously incorrect obviously goady suggestions as to what I’m saying and challenging me to justify them. I don’t know why but it’s clearly not done in good faith. I may not respond to you further.

I see someone's bored again this morning.

Good question. How about you clarify exactly what slurs the mods should ban, @BeeSourianteAgain

Im guessing it won't be "cis".
Although it can be useful to see who uses that word and judge accordingly.

Which slurs you have seen here would you ban?

Reckon Nige is going to amend the EQA do you?

or is it more likely the GRA is repealed?

I know which I’d put money on….

1. I guess the UK will just have to live with the "shame" of upholding women's rights and clarifying the law, despite what the rest of western Europe thinks.

2. "now without the rights to protect them" - what rights were those?

For completeness (although I'm quite sure I'm the only person who cares) the one toilet per 25 people rule is in part 2 of schedule 1 to the Workplace Regulations 1992 and, per 20(3) of those same regulations, it applies only to premises which prior to the coming into force of the 1992 regulations were subject to the provisions of the Factories Act 1961.

Are you claiming that any business which fails to fall with in the Factories Act 1961 has no obligation to provide toilets for staff?

I was saying earlier that it's kinda inevitable that there will have to be an amendment to the EqA at some point.

I think this is the appropriate thing to campaign for, certainly much more honest than refusing to obey the existing law or claiming it's unclear.

What exactly would you campaign for? Some men want to use the Ladies loos, come what may. In the past those proposing to "Change sex" i.e. have surgery, had to "live as women" for two years. Which seemed to mean putting on a dress and slapping a load of make up on and then use women's loos. Are you going to campaign for those to get a free pass? Are you going to bother to ask the women? How are you going to exclude the voyeurs and perverts, who have no intention of having surgery?

Unless you can identify which men belong into which category, the only safe rule is to keep all men out. And until about 30 years ago, that was pretty much the accepted rule and "Gender" outside the world of languages and grammar was nonsense.

For completeness (although I'm quite sure I'm the only person who cares) the one toilet per 25 people rule is in part 2 of schedule 1 to the Workplace Regulations 1992 and, per 20(3) of those same regulations, it applies only to premises which prior to the coming into force of the 1992 regulations were subject to the provisions of the Factories Act 1961.

So now you know.

I was saying earlier that it's kinda inevitable that there will have to be an amendment to the EqA at some point.

I think this is the appropriate thing to campaign for, certainly much more honest than refusing to obey the existing law or claiming it's unclear.

I don't think it's a vote winner though; now the topic is live with the public rather than happening by stealth I think it would be really unpopular to legislate for men in women's toilets. And that's very much how it will be framed and seen.

Three logical fallacies in one is quite impressive really.

1) Straw man: Misrepresenting people who wish for single-sex bathrooms as "hating" trans people.
2) Ad hominem: Attributing hatred to the person rather than addressing their reasoning.
3) False analogy: equating support for following the law regarding bathroom allocation, with support for a racist hate group.

”Women who don’t want men in their loos and changing rooms are just like the Klan, man!”

Quite!

I guess they’ll have to if their employer makes the ladies’ loos and changing rooms off limits to them? Not my problem if they can find some sort of third space solution, I’ll only be complaining if there are men in female spaces.

Even for single occupancy fully enclosed toilet & sink? My workplace has always had single room unisex toilets for staff and visitors use, one of which is wheelchair-friendly.

Happily, very little pissing on the seat or general grimness. That's not always the case when I visit unisex loos in public though 😷

You not going to come back and chat on the thread you started about your mad website bee?

‘Trans people can’t be expected to obey the law silly!’

Actually, given where I am, there's a chance that you do 😂

Also, reading some of what people write on here, I see it's super important that there are trans voices in this 'echo chamber'. Shame that the mods don't ban certain slurs and whatnot

Or, men will just have to use the men’s loos and changing rooms with the other members of their sex. The very few that genuinely pass as women will probably be able to deceive people, but not so much in the workplace where people are likely to know. No need to change the Equality Act, but that’s probably on the way out tbh, not that that’s in any way a good thing for anyone.

I was saying earlier that it's kinda inevitable that there will have to be an amendment to the EqA at some point. We're now so far behind the rest of western Europe that once the moral panic has subsided somewhat, it's going to be a constant point of shame for the UK.

I said before, no trans person is going to 'out' themselves and put them at risk of violence and harassment for the sake of a bunch of social conservatives who hate trans people and as it turns out, nobody is and just carry on as normal, but now without the rights to protect them.