"Misandry is the root of all trans fear. Men’s fear of other men. Women’s fear of all men."

Already answered. No less favourable treatment. Anti discrimination requires a disadvantage be present for an exemption.

https://goodlawproject.org/resource/faqs-trans-inclusion-after-the-high-court-decision-on-the-ehrcs-interim-guidance/Is

"Some organisations have claimed, following the Supreme Court decision, that allowing e.g. trans women to use the women’s toilets would amount to direct discrimination against men. The High Court emphasised that where service provision is equal and separate for both men and women, this is unlikely to be true:
[61] …In a case where the provision of separate lavatories labelled male and female was materially similar in terms of the extent of the provision, location, and so on, I consider there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the “the female” lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex…

This means that service providers may lawfully provide, for example, women’s toilets which both cis and trans women are permitted to use, but from which cis men are still excluded."

https://goodlawproject.org/resource/faqs-trans-inclusion-after-the-high-court-decision-on-the-ehrcs-interim-guidance/Is

"I'm simply making the point that sex on its own isn't a qualifier for single sex spaces rather context is."

I mean your own words confirm that it's sex-based. Which means gender has got nothing to do with it, so how is it relevant what your gender identity is to access single sex spaces?

Many organisations ignore the law in relation to reasonable adjustments for disabled people. Many organisations ignore all sorts of discrimination. What’s your point? Many organisations don’t really care about their employees or customers? Well d’uh.

Reddit is a bizarre place. Useful for some things, far more censored, hate-filled and unhinged than MN though, despite what its fans here seem to believe.

But that’s what we’re all saying. The single-sex spaces that now exist and are expected by social convention in this country (and supported by the vast majority of the public in polling) didn’t just appear one day by magic. Those spaces were fought for and with good reason. The urinary leash was real. Elizabeth Fry worked long and hard to prove the need for women’s prisons. Statistics still demonstrate that the vast majority of sexual and physical violence against women is by men. In order to facilitate privacy, dignity and safety and thus full and meaningful lives for women outside of their own homes these services are now provided on a single-sex basis. The exceptions have all been proven over the course of history.

I don’t know what happens in men’s toilets, besides “we just want to pee” and abusing transwomen who try to follow the law, but women have more and potentially messier bodily functions than men, and particularly in public we need a private space to deal with those with some level of dignity. Periods mean that we may emerge from even a closed cubicle with blood on our hands, or we may need to rinse stained clothing. I have previously had to use the loo with my baby’s pram half-in-half-out of the cubicle (I.e. with the door open) because there was no other way of doing so while keeping an eye on him. We’re not just hanging out in there giggling and sharing tampons, whatever the Reddit crowd thinks. And our regular poster KeepToiletsSafe can regale you with statistics of why individual self-contained toilets are less safe for everyone.

People who argue that there is no need for these spaces to any longer be single-sex remind me of anti-vaxxers, who have never lived in fear of their child dying from measles or diphtheria or being permanently damaged by polio. They don’t (or won’t) see that our current state of relative safety (still not nearly safe enough as regards women from men) is specifically because of the systems and provision that others fought for.

I'd love you to explain the answer to @stealthtroublemaker's question: why someone’s “gender” should allow them to access single sex spaces of the opposite sex and someone else’s “gender” should exclude them…. thanks.

Your hoped-for test cases can only ever conclude that a space can be single sex or mixed sex.

That Reddit board is very bizarre. Total echo chamber.

indeed. Instant red flag either way tbh

I think you understand very little.

It’s caused mass confusion because in the mass ideological capture of the public sector globally but for example in the uk (as JKR refers to in her updated essay) no one has ever bothered to consider whether women have important rights too. See: Forstater, Bailey, Peggie, Darlington nurses, Jennifer Melle etc etc etc.

I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.

It’s a throwaway comment mate, I’m not writing a scientific paper about it. I’m sure you tell your friends they pass.

At yet so many organisations are openly ignoring the ruling.

Its a mixed bag & why wouldn't be. The law is yet to be tested & its caused mass confusion because either way discrimination can be alleged either way.

Exactly.

Why are you posting Churchill 😂

I always have two thoughts about those types of men;

1. Is this just a twisted ‘Bros before hoes’ 2.0?
2. What are this guy’s particular peccadillos?

It’s likely going to be one or the other.

There are no “qualifying criteria” that matter until someone starts a discrimination claim. Single sex spaces are for the members of that sex, not the members of that sex plus random members of the opposite one.

Who is arguing for sex segregated workplaces? No workplace is. SSS.

Sex is the characteristic that identifies whether someone can be excluded from a space. If it’s single sex it meets the definition of being proportionate, or the provider is confident it would meet that definition if tested in court.

I think it's a case of 'women's spaces were fine when we could invade them, now we can't we want them abolished'.

According to you after the fact of revealing they are trans? Please, do better.

Like the workplace for example.

Exactly and the WI would have had exactly this test case but they told the TIMs to take their ball and go home. See the several threads by the MNer wife of a man who started a legal challenge against them on exactly these grounds. It wasn’t necessary in the end. They changed their policy, entirely coincidentally, I’m sure.

The qualifying criteria is sex. I can explain it to you but I can’t make you understand as a very rude person Said recently.

Nah mate. You’re just desperately trying to justify your stance that women’s rights don’t matter snd some men should be allowed to ignore the law cos reasons. You still haven’t explained why someone’s “gender” should allow them to access single sex spaces of the opposite sex and someone else’s “gender” should exclude them….