Keir Starmer and Bridget Phillipson have been urged by more than 140 feminist and LGBT+ organisations to protect trans-inclusive spaces

Aren't some of those signatory orgs just the same few mardy blokes operating under different names?
Some of the others are redundant by virtue of being umbrella orgs, a few are limping towards a winding-up/ compulsory liqidation. Most rely very heavily on State funds one way or another. Foolish of them to let GIRES & so many Pride orgs sign, very much a hostage to fortune vibe.
All in all a rather silly flex

It would be interesting if those writing in who worked from home truly went for the standards that are in place for unisex toilets in offices and public places. The loos have to be capable of being opened from the outside quickly and the door hinges capable of being reversed so you could open the door outwards. There would need to be minimum width dimensions, a standard height toilet bowl, fire alarms - ideally visual as well as audible, hooks, washable walls, doors resistant to sound, sanitary bins etc. They need a hand dryer - a blower or paper towels and a separate bin for that. They ideally have to lead out onto main circulation space too, like a hallway. High quality CCTV outside the toilet room sometimes retrospectively shows the lurkers faces and who’s been in and out for misuse (sex, drugs, hiding cameras) so you can catch them. Obviously ventilation rates have to be considered and some sort of mechanical ventilation is second best if natural can not be achieved.

A public toilet may only last a few hours before it’s vandalised though. Estimates put the cost of running a council public toilet at 15k per year. And if they really go for it on safety recommendations, clear bin bags within toilet rooms are used in high-risk terrorist locations.

If they had an incident in the toilet room whilst at work, they couldn’t sue themselves for not being up to standard. Perhaps they could have a radar key fitted? That was an attempt to stop misuse in the original mixed sex private toilets (the disabled). However you can buy one for a couple of quid on the internet so bare that in mind.

Home toilets aren’t upto the health and safety standards of public toilets.

If this government had a realistic plan to make men female and therefore allowed onto womens single sex spaces, they'd have anounced it by now.

If TRA had a logical reason why men should used the incorrect single sex space, they would have announced that by now, too.

"Im planning to get, or have a piece of paper', it turns out, isnt enough.

It doesnt matter if they write to the government every day. They will always be men.

The only thing they could do it try to push to remove SSE, or make single sex spaces rarer. But single sex exists for a reason, and that reason doesnt go away because its inconvenient to their fantasy.

140 organisations that think men should be allowed to get undressed in the same place as women and young girls getting undressed are lobbying to change the law to allow this.

It's funny what happens when you put it into plain English in a factual way.

Love that phrase 'curtains of outrage' @MrsOvertonsWindow

I don't see how women who argue/advocate for men to be in women's spaces can call themselves feminists at all. Silly me- I thought feminism was about standing up for women! Not men.

Reading about Girl Guiding, the WI etc pandering to men identifying as women has things 'backwards way round' as my mum used to say
When will it end FFS

Tbf the business has a legal obligation to provide a toilet (for their one employee to 24 employees) they still had to provide the required one unit with toilet [(edit) running🦧 i dont think it has to be mains connected a bottle/tank works ) water and a lockable door.

Aaaand the installation of a bolt could be expensive if you opt for the £5 brass one and buy a screwdriver
😲

I remember that other letter from all the "trans inclusive businesses" furious at the cost of providing legal single sex toilets in the face of the SC. Outside of some student unions, the majority turned out to be single person sole traders working from home but self identifying as major corporations. Not a shared toilet between them 😅

As usual, when you look behind the curtains of outrage - it's just a rag bag of entitled people who've never been told no.

I think government are very used to mass letter writing now. That’s why the EHRC had to use AI as they were filtering out the identical protests.

It was interesting when you do a deep dive into the toilet consultation in England. Most of the replies mentioned one specific paper from Stonewall that wasn’t focused on toilets. It completely skewed the results which was recognised in the analysis.

'LGBT+ organisations' ?

More accurately 'T+ organisations'.
The bolting on of the T to LGB has caused harm to the lesbian and gay community, as we get dragged along on the ideological coattails of the T+.

LGB✂T

And in reality, this isn't about the need for "trans inclusive spaces" to exist at all.

If that was really all this was about they'd not give a monkeys that the only restriction on such spaces is that law says such spaces can't be called "women only" or "men only". They'd be out there creating them under new names.

What they are really demanding is that not that trans inclusive spaces can be allowed, but that single sex spaces must not be allowed.

It's not enough for to give support to trans people, they must take all sex-specific support away from female people or as far as they are concerned it doesn't count.

What they are really angry about is not, in reality, trans inclusive spaces or the protection of trans people, it's that women are being allowed to identify as not the same as trans women.

This is really about forcing women to accept being redefined as types of personality. It's about writing the legitimacy of female experience and the recognition of social, physical and economic consequences of being female-bodied out of cultural and political discourse.

Evil, nasty people.

Same. I'm surprised the Guardian hasn't been all over this (or have they?)

I’d seen it but tbh all these mad open letters blur into one.

…to protect trans-inclusive spaces

And what does ‘trans inclusive’ actually mean? Is that code for we menz want to go wherever we want including female single sex spaces? The sheer entitlement. Like toddlers holding their breath and stamping their feet.

Ah, fair enough! Unfortunately! 😁

Soz i meant in the Labour Party

as we know menz would rather fruitcakes and dangerous men were all categorised as women.

Would they, though? I think if that proposition was put to the male population as a whole, most of them would say, fuck me, no!

What is more laughable (not) is that the labour leadership are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I think the political advisors to the leadership know that changing the EQA by legislation would be a bad idea electorally speaking , but going full on TERF as in line with the FWS ruling is also not an option. as we know menz would rather fruitcakes and dangerous men were all categorised as women.

sorry (not)

So what are they to do eh?

i dunno sit on the issue until it goes away ….which it will not.

I am an inactive member of the Labour Party i dont know anyone else in my locality

I think i need to get of my arse and make some noise.

Anything else risks forcing businesses, charities and public services to police everyone’s gender

Translation when give a choice to be law abiding or law breaking we assume trans IDing individuals will opt to choose to break the law
😬

Hmmm. Not many signatories with either feminist or woman/women in their title. Lots and lots of LGBT, Pride, Queer, and Trans though.

It's a nonsense letter setting out their nonsense world as if it were real. (Déjà vu?) A land where trans women are automatically included in all women's spaces. And all the women are delighted to welcome in their trans 'sisters', and no woman has ever, ever been harmed as a consequence.

From the letter:

"Trans people being included in services and spaces for their lived gender is the norm up and down the UK, and service providers & employers want to protect their ability to keep operating in line with their values. This is how the Equality Act has always worked: exclusion is the exception - not the rule.

Anything else risks forcing businesses, charities and public services to police everyone’s gender - with reports suggesting that the EHRC recommends this be done based on looks, putting all women at risk of misogynist abuse. This would be dangerous and unworkable.

We know where this leads: ‘bathroom ban’ policies in Trump-supporting US states have caused untold harm to trans people and to anybody who doesn’t conform to gender stereotypes, without making a single woman safer."

No evidence of course is included in support of this twaddle. Just a few dodgy 'sad times' quotes from selected Aunt Lydias and the laughable Hampstead Ponds 'consultation'.

They've lost. The law is clear, trans women are men under the Equality Act 2010. TW are out of women's spaces & GRCs are irrelevant. TW can choose the men's or a unisex/gender neutral option. That's it. The sooner TRA organisations accept the law and reality, the sooner they can give sensible, practical, & truthful advice to trans people.

Feminist groups, ma arse!

Indeed. And its a bit misleading to say "140 feminist and LGBTQ + groups" I saw a total of 3 groups that used the word "woman" (I might have missed one I suppose) all the rest were trans groups/local prides etc.
Never heard of most of them either. I'm guessing tiny local groups with 3 members each make up the bulk of these signatories.