EHRC Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations has been laid - here is the Code itself

Right, so now it's on Woman's Hour.

I think the voyeurism section would need to be looked at too. Now it seems that the washroom part is indeed private, and men aren’t allowed in women’s toilets due to their sex, it would seem this is relevant:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/67

It’s the complexity of what is sexual gratification. If it is an ‘indulgence’ then I think there is a case for voyeurism.

If he continually tries to use female spaces, yes, apparently we can challenge, but it must be in a "kind" way that doesn't constitute harassment. How we are supposed to judge that, well, that will be in the eye of the beholder, apparently.

So, we will continue to have to take legal action just to enforce our rights.

Nonnim you have asked this question twice, and I did respond to you yesterday, perhaps you haven't seen it:

"I do agree that on the face of it, it seems very unfair. The SC judgment I believe mentioned situations such as rape crisis counselling, and other such situations, as other posters have said.

However, I do feel that if you as a female are determined to be viewed , and believed, as a male, and have gone through as many administrative and even medical processes as you can to outwardly appear male, there will undoubtedly be social consequences. And, because we normally do not allow anyone under 18 to have these processes, women who choose to do this are adults, and must accept certain consequences as an adult.

My family member is one such woman, who now presents as male, and aside from the obvious " delusion " (my word for it) that she is now a man, also realizes that she probably will not be welcomed in female spaces, although she does not feel safe in male spaces. So she uses mixed-sex spaces or nothing at all.

It's very limiting, and she knows it, but she's an adult and made her choices. I worry for her, but it wasn't my decision to make."

Nonnim, you may not like the state of things (as I said, it's not ideal) but it is the law.

I understand your frustration, but continuing to ask us here how this can be justified will not get you a different answer. We cannot change the law here.

So, how will this be handled on Woman's Hour which is about to start?

They really don't like this subject at all and I can't imagine Anita Rani being happy if she had in mind doing one of her Fluffy Friday episodes.

On the contrary, I know many. And also a number of trans-identifying young men who are in their social groups.

It is fascinating to watch the body language and the level of cognitive dissonance, even distress, that the young women (and men) demonstrate. They may be able to deal if the word woman is used, but when the concept of the actual physical sex of the TiM comes into play - one example is when they decided to go wild swimming on the spur of the moment - it is clear that they are aware even if they cannot give themselves permission to express it.

I'm interested in this point.

When a TIM is now continuing to openly use women's facilities can they as an individual be challenged legally?

I feel like this guidance leaves transgender people liable themselves as individuals. It’s more clear that facilities designated single sex are exactly that, and you as an individual can be in no doubt whether or not you should be in there.

Is it not now entirely reasonable to make a claim of harassment against an individual when previously individuals would have said it was allowed on management policy.
Is there not now no justification for an individual to use the opposite sex facilities?

Ministers expects the guidance to be legally challenged? Bring it on. It will make a change for the TRAs to fund the court battles and face the slog of proving their case.

This IS based on the law. Sex = single sex and they still have their protected rights. If anything is unclear, it will be:

• how to appropriately challenge a transgression ( but service providers are permitted to do this in order to maintain SSS)
• how to accommodate transmen so they don't suffer detriment
• Reporting of sex for safeguarding and criminal investigations.

This has cost one hell of a lot of time, money, stress, individual careers and for too many women: targeted abuse including death threats. But, because we've played the long game we have:

• Dedicated grassroots csmpaigners
• Dedicated organisations
• Highly educated (and pissed off) minds across law, journalism, medical sciences, sports and schools fighting this mess
• A press who is not afraid to talk about penises to politicians
• A dedicated body of case law that's going to be very hard to overturn and undo.

It's not over but we can stop the gender juggernaut from going any further. I am worried that the Greens might get in as part of a coalition at the next election and demand changes as the price of their support. However, both the Tories and Reform have identified this as an achilles heel and it won't happen quietly.

Actually no, they were that sex all along.

Yes

Amol Rajan prefaced the chat with three key points that he stressed:

1. This guidance is not the law. The law is the law
2. It relates to service providers not employers.
3. Concerns can be raised in the 40 day period.

Believe what exactly - That someone has changed sex?

Their ‘sophisticated’ (their words) solution for schools in the KCSiE was for all toilets to be fully enclosed with all facilities (sink etc) inside. This is the only regulated design for mixed sex use. Firstly cost?! Then space - far few toilets to use. Then the fact they are more dangerous. As a design they have to all lead out of to a corridor/ circulation space. How’s that going to work in a pub? No one would be going to the toilet with anyone. They’d be hanging around the doors to the unisex rooms.

Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson is about to be interviewed on Radio 4.

You clearly don’t know many young women. I have student age 18-25 relatives who hand on heart believe it with every fibre of their body.

Because in GLP world, trans people’s feelings will always take priority over everyone else’s. Nobody else’s feelings matter. Even if they are given alternative spaces and services, according to GLPs logic that will never be good enough, because being a woman or a man is just about some ‘inner feeling’ and has nothing to do with actual sexed bodies.

The same can be said about people with hidden disabilities who use the disabled toilets.

whats so different about trans people’s feelings?

The chair of the EHRC will be on the Today programme on Radio 4 at 8.10.

As a starting point, is unlikely that a transman will want to attend a female only service. Furthermore, if the service is in response to VAWG, it is likely that a passing transman would need specialist intervention - they identify as a member of the group that is deliberately excluded from the service for therapeutic reasons.

Raped and abused females with male identities need access to support and intervention but lumping them in with non trans females is problematic for both parties.

Transmen may need to access 1:1 services or mixed sex provision. This is one of the often unconsidered consequences of choosing to masculinise a female body.

I’m confident GLP will mount a rearguard action to firm it up by losing a challenge to it somehow. 10% is for administration fees, you know.