New boss of EHRC on Laura Kuenssberg tomorrow (Sunday December 14)

Yes and where it's kept clean I don't think this is an issue. I wouldn't want to see it in larger venues though.

Most/many small venues and cafes already have single ocupancy unisex loos.

I too don't like gender neutral toilets but accept they are a necessity in some circumstances where space is limited. I used the toilet in Starbucks recently, two toilets, one I had no idea what the symbol was supposed to represent so went in the disabled. It was disgraceful. Poo everywhere. Feel sorry for the disabled people having to use this toilet. If we are having gender neutral toilets then the venues need to ensure cleanliness.

Yes, when people are confronted with the fact that women have established protections too...many seem stunned. It is as if they have never really considered this angle before.

For those who didn't watch her interview performance for the Women and Equalities committee, rest assured she's very firm when it comes to protecting sex based rights, but she also has to work with the protections of other groups too.

The TRA committee members ( most of them) actually tried to get her removed; complaining about supposed bias, and the government had to insist that she got the role.

In circumstances like this, there is zero detriment to anyone from relabelling.

Yes there is, the detriment is to women.

Secret filming in toilets is a real issue. Gender neutral toilets makes it much easier for men to plant cameras.

More mundanely, men make a mess of toilets - they piss on the seat and the floor. Why should women have to put up with stinky unhygienic toilets?

@Shortshriftandlethal let's hope so. Let's hope that the onus isn't just left to women to implement the rules. Let's hope public recognition includes men, venue owners and all people regardless of how they identify to follow the rules of adhering to single sex spaces. It also shouldn't have to be a "regular" issue to be highlighted as a problem.

She's definitely gender critical (look at her support for Allison Bailey) but she's having to soft pedal her message. There was a bit of sidestepping and fancy footwork, because she knows if she bluntly says that "transwomen aren't women" out loud there will be screaming headlines the next day and calls for her head.

I liked her coolly stating that we expect most people to follow the law. It reminded me of responses to John McDonnell's testerical tweet asking if TW would be dragged out of the Labour Women's Con.

She's not saying that, though. Where do you get that idea?

Allowing some men into women’s spaces because they want to be in there is extreme.

Allowing men (or women, for that matter) to falsify documentation to suit their fancy, fetish or belief is extreme.

Deciding that women are service humans to make sad or shouty men feel happier is bog-standard misogynistic patriarchy.

The ‘new arrangements’, ie common sense, compassion and safeguarding, need to include recognition that it is not extreme to recognise the above.

But she's not saying that males should be permitted into women only single sex spaces. She's saying that it woukld be totally unrealistic to have guards on every facility in the country; and that such matters tend to work through public recognition and acceptance of the 'rules'.

Once a new normal has been established, and organisations and venues get used to the rules then they can find a practical and sensible solution to meeting the requirements of those rules.

Because you don't find a resolution to conflict from either extreme. Once what has always been normal and expected is re-established (ie if designated single sex then that is what it must be) then the new arrangements will be able to settle into place.

Laura Kuennesberg is looking for a gotcha because she has bought into the narrative from TRAs that they will be left with no facilities, unable to leave the house with their mental health in tatters. The reality is that in most cases alternative provision can be provided. They just don't want to use third spaces.

Yes, she hasn't grasped that it's not the facilities that the TW are interested in, it's the women using them. Either for validation ("Look at me, I'm a real woman, in there with all the other women"), or in some cases for the purpose of indecent exposure or voyeurism.

They don't want third spaces, they want access to the women in the women's spaces.

Its Laila Cunningham who is a Reform councillor. I think she is also a lawyer by profession. I agree that Mary Anne Stephenson was sitting on the fence to some degree although that is the nature of the role. Hopefully she will be effective working with the relevant committees and politicians.

Why not? Where sex is relevant it is essential that people respect that.

Most trans-identifying people do not pass as the opposite sex (admittedly, men are more likely to be deceived, but that’s because they are at less risk from the opposite sex so are less likely to pay attention). I do not see why society should be expected to pander to the few who have chosen to undergo extreme body modifications.

I was getting the sense that in recent months the pendulum had swung a bit so that if you do now challenge a bloke being in the ladies changing rooms or toilets then now it is less likely to be a case of being shouted down, called a terf and being told why can’t you just be kind. The law has clarified that single six relates to biological sex. And whilst it does depend on all parties being reasonable, there is now redress against those who aren’t . And like with many situations where it is against the law but it isn’t monitored by the law makers(eg abusive behaviour on trains) then the onus is on the populace to report it and get support .

I'm prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt, for now. She knows what the law is, and I don't get the impression she is trying to undermine it, but is looking for practical ways forward. I think she is trying to avoid being painted as an arch villain, the way Baroness Faulkner was, because that is not going to help the situation. Remember who she is having to deal with on the Women and Equalities Committee. She is having to tread carefully.

So her take on the Sandie Peggie case seems to be that alternative provision should have been available for DU (that is how I'm interpreting her comments anyway). So if back on day one when BU started working there, if he had been given somewhere private to change rather than being given access to the female changing rooms, this whole situation could have been avoided. The same with the Darlington Nurses.

The NHS doesn't have the problem that a small cafe has. They managed to find an alternative space for an entire group of women in Darlington, rather than just find somewhere for the one transwoman. Finding a third space for the TW is the common sense solution that most of the general public will be on board with.

Laura Kuennesberg is looking for a gotcha because she has bought into the narrative from TRAs that they will be left with no facilities, unable to leave the house with their mental health in tatters. The reality is that in most cases alternative provision can be provided. They just don't want to use third spaces.

I've just watched her and unfortunately I think she very much sat on the fence and wasn't clear enough. Social conventions have worked in the past because women would be allowed to challenge men coming into their toilets, but if we challenge a trans woman we will be labelled anti-trans and terf. It's not the same as previous social norms.

My take is that she's trying to avoid unnecessary polarisation by appealing to reason.

I'm not sure why you are saying this? Her role is as an equalities one. She has to show and explain how everyone can have their rights protected. You cannot realistically and practically expect people with trans identities to only ever have the option of using the facility for their sex. You have to be reasonable.

Wer're looking for a solution to protecting the category of 'Sex', we're not trying to rub everyone's faces in it.

I thought it very telling that, when asked who was legally in the the right when a tw enters a female loo and a woman challenges, she totally fudged it.

I think she's just trying to give a real life, practical solution to a very particular type of situation to illustrate that this is not the huge headache that is being made out.

Happily for me, bars and music venues are no longer places I frequent. But I can well imagine the state of such facilities.