I will protect trans people in single-sex spaces row, new human rights chair says

Discrimination is not in itself a bad thing

we accept it when jockeys are forced to carry weights
or boxers disqualified for being too heavy for their class

Exclusion is not in iself a bad thing

height limits on amusement park rides
age limits on who can start school
age limits on getting a bus pass

This means protecting single sex spaces whilst also protecting the pc of gender reassignment... Third spaces are the most obvious solution that many reasonable people have been advocating.

But protecting the PC of gender reassignment means protecting people from unfair discrimination, harm and persecution on that basis. It does not mean having to agree that anyone is not the sex they actually are, or give them any special rights on the basis of what they say they are or their unevidenced beliefs.

Just as a Christian should be protected from persecution and unfair discrimination on that basis - but religion being a PC doesn't means that everyone has to agree (or pretend to agree) with the Christian about their beliefs, or let them influence policy. A Christian might think praying is effective, but you wouldn't let a Christian airliner engine safety checker just pray instead of doing all the right checks, in case they feel upset that you don't share their beliefs.

Likewise the PC of "gender reassignment" protects the person, but it does not validate the beliefs. If it does, it's out of line with the other PCs and discriminating unfairly against them.

This.⬆️
As the regulator there is a responsibility to uphold the law. This means protecting single sex spaces whilst also protecting the pc of gender reassignment.

Third spaces are the most obvious solution that many reasonable people have been advocating.

Newspapers and other media make their money by creating conflict. Headlines that skate very close to misrepresentation are very common as they are designed as click bait.

One key skill I believe we are losing is the ability to critically assess information. FWR is one place I find posters do critically assess.

But there is a suggestion that men with gender are going to be protected as 'non men'. That is, they cant possible use the male toilets and need other facilities.

This is promoting the idea that men with a GRC or PC of GR aren't male. And that isnt good for women and children.

I might be wrong, and the protection might be to tell men to not to be mean to other men in toilets.

I agree.....but that is irrelevent in the court of public opinion. Public opinion ( and the law) tends towards common sense and fairness; and is not interested in validating egos.

Discrimination is not a bad word, though, or necessarily a negative process. Being able to discriminate means being able to tell different types of things apart from each other. It is a fundamental skill that is naturally used during the process of categorisation. Categorisation is how the brain functions and makes sense of the world.

If something is designated 'single sex' then the act of discrimination has already occured, and this judgment has been made for a good reason.

That falsely assumes everyone doesn't already know their actual sex or 'trans status', which is pretty unlikely.

The assumption is that it is discrimination to use the correct sex facilities needs to be challenged.

Its as if the GRA and the PC of GR have made a class on 'non male, non female' people. These men arent female so can't use the ladies, but aren't male either so can't use the gents.

But for safeguarding, we need to knoe everyones sex, not promote the myth that a group of self declared men aren't male.

Everyone who hasn't already bought 'invisible women', your task for this year is to buy it and read it AND then lend it to everyone OR gift it like crazy to everyone possible.

Likely less than that because a fair few of the older original ones will have died.
(Tribunal data only lists certificates issued, not those still extant)

I don't see any issue with what she's said. Obviously there has to be measures to protect people from discrimination due to a protected characteristic. And while GR is a PC, there will need to be measures to protect people from discrimination on the basis of it. Nothing new there. And certainly no suggestion the protection will involve allowing people to access facilities intended for the opposite sex.
This interpretation has been manipulated by the headline.
Her comment that a GRC will not be useful in gaining trans people access to opposite sex spaces, but could be useful 'in other ways' is important too.

I understand. Toilet designs have been a free for all for a while. Back when the 1992 work legislation was introduced, the standards for factories, offices etc was single sex cubicles within a single sex room. The cubicles had door gaps - it was stated for ventilation, cleaning, prevention of misuse and supervision (for things like medical emergencies). That’s why mixed sex toilets were stipulated to be enclosed in a separate room. There weren’t supposed to be the main design.

All of the above was for health and safety. Mixed sex design is for privacy, and health and safety is reduced.

I agree with your points, and I don't want gender neutral facilities as the default.. However, thinking of organisations like the one I work for (very large, public sector), third spaces is what they are going to propose if they ever get around to updating their policy. They are another one that can't follow the law until the EHRC spells it out for them.

Alongside (supposedly) male/female facilities, most of our offices also have some single occupancy toilets. This is what they will tell trans-identifying people to use. They are not going to tell TIMs to use the mens. It's just not going to happen. And I think that most people (except for TRAs) think this is a reasonable solution.

All this for 6,500 men who have GRC.

’third spaces’ are detrimental to women, children and anyone having a medical emergency. Adding them as the blanket solution will come with additional risks to these groups.

Rod Liddle wrote about the Russell Brand case: ‘It is also alleged that he frequently used the disabled toilets for reasons other than those for which the BBC intended them to be used. Hmm. As far as I can remember from my time at the BBC, the disabled toilets were used almost exclusively for amorous trysts of a semi-clandestine nature. There were loads of these installations and very few disabled people, you see..’

It’s not as simple as adding a private enclosed toilet in a mixed sex space and not risk assessing the costs to health and safety. A man was found in a council office toilet after 6 days recently. That’s unusual but a day of so isn’t. Several young people have died in private toilet designs in very public places recently.

Adding ‘third spaces’ isn’t something that is wanted by men who want to use the women’s and women who don’t want to use the women’s realise in certain situations they don’t want to use the men’s or the ‘gender neutral’ as they are scared and/or disgusted.

Third spaces can be an ‘unreasonable’ solution. It’s an enclosed sound resistant mixed sex space that has to be able to be opened from the outside for safety purposes. Is that really what people need? My research shows it is not.

I wonder when the idea of the right to keep your sex private crept into policy and legislation. We don't get to conceal our age when it is relevant, and it's often relevant multiple times a day.

Even within the GRA there are multiple examples of when a GRC can be ignored. The recent decision that a woman's intent to become pregnant does not preclude her obtaining a GRC also demonstrates that the purpose cannot be to conceal sex.

I think the idea comes from the belief that being trans or gender non-conforming is so shameful that it must be concealed - but surely that isn't a foundation on which to build policy and law?

I suppose it's also because LGB and T have been linked, but sexuality doesn't make much material difference to everyday life, so it is a private matter in a way that sex isn't.

The biggest advance society could make in 2026 is to drop the idea that it's 'toxic' to talk clearly about somebody's sex.

But it is our problem if the solution is compulsory mixed sex and voluntary single sex. The priority will be mixed sex.

While the GRA exists and the government think its necessary to issue men with female id, its irrelevant that we say we can tell, the government are pretending that we cant.

Yep. They want it because they can.
It's as simple as that...

Then we have to keep pointing out that they're not being 'outed' because everyone knows. They are, however, being reminded that what they claim to be is a lie and a fantasy, but that's their problem not ours.

I wasn't actually thinking about them being 'outed'. My comment was about the TIMs who insist on using women's spaces (because they have women in them) even when everyone knows that they're TIMs. There was one incident where India Willoughby made a big show of refusing to use the unisex toilet which was right next to him and walking miles to a women's loo.

They don't want unisex spaces because they're not validating and they're not full of unconsenting women who think they're in a women-only space. It's nothing to do with being outed.

Oh god!
Will it never end?...

That's because they're men....

The argument TRA are making is that going to a unisex toilet when they have been using the womens previously will out them, especially at work.

The 'right to a private life' has been used to before to hide a mans 'trans history'.

This is going to go on for years unless someone in government starts prioritising women.

Single sex spaces aren't compulsory. They may be claims against providers who dont provide single sex services for women in certain circumstances. But to make a claim, a woman has to already have faced discrimination.

We know lots of mixed sex spaces are dreadful for women snd they still exist without single sex options.

The solution is going to be - single sex services may be offered as before, and unisex will be compulsory to avoid discriminate against the men who claim to have gender.

Its the men who claim to have gender that will have the the right to space, women will not.

Men with gender are exactly the same as men without - they are happy and safe using unisex spaces.

Promoting a third space for these men isnt a compromise, its priotising men.

A third space could simply be an additional unisex space. Anyone could use it, and it wouldn't necessarily be 'outing' someone with a trans identity - because it would not be meant solely for their use but for anyone comfortable with that facility.