Thread 2: Why can't people respect the rules around toilets!?!?

[Underbudget]

Darn it the thread filled and I wanted to ask @tandora a question. Is this within site rules to start another to do this as I don't seem to be able to tag her? Feel free to report/delete if it is.

Previous thread here: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5372111-why-cant-people-respect-the-rules-around-toilets?page=1

'Tandora · Today 07:51

Eh? Mental health is everyone’s concern that’s why we have a health system.

No one’s rights come “first”- we need to find solutions that respect everyone’s rights.

There is no “female suffering” involved in respecting and including trans people. It will have virtually no impact on your life whatsoever.'

I wondered @Tandora if you'd read my post earlier on that thread, where in my head, children's rights come first? As the basic premise of child protection?

My post (in response to a different poster) if you missed it, was this:

Underbudget · Today 00:51

Slow to reply and expect thread has moved on, but surely you can empathise with a girl victim of csa feeling terrifed at finding themselves alone with a very male bodied person in a public loo between them and the door? Why does that child's feelings mean less than the adult males?
And what if that particular male bodied person WAS a rapist? That people saw entering from the outside but didn't want to "offend" by challenging them. And a child was born from a child as a result?
Doesn't a child's right to safety and protection come before ANY adult's feelings? Especially when a child can be born from rape as a result? As could ONLY happen to a female?
Fellow survivor of CSA here so I can understand you may have issues in thinking around this. I have spent years in therapy due to being overtrusting because my boundaries were fucked.'

I genuinely want to be in a place where all rights are respected, but I can't personally process this risk in any way that makes sense to me. I simply cannot agree with or process that allowing a male bodied person, unsupervised access to a child victim of CSA in a vulnerable space, whether a real or a perceived risk, does not harm that child. As a male, they are not being discriminated against on the basis of their sex, as ALL males are excluded from that situation, rightfully so. No right minded person believes all males are rapists, just as and no right minded person believes all transwomen are. But some of both ARE and that's a fact. I accept that a trans person may feel excluded from having their social transition recognised by not being allowed in the single sex spaces of the gender of their choosing, but equally, a girl in that situation also feels distressed. Why does that adults discomfort trump the discomfort felt by the child? A trans person deserves somewhere safe to go to the loo, but that's not in the women's loos. If that protects just one single child from reliving horrific trauma or worse, then that's what has to happen.

I would truly like to understand your view, ideally in a way that acknowledges the trauma of a child in this situation.

Always a dead giveaway that we are not dealing with someone with legal knowledge. You get a ten minute lecture on why it's "judgment" and not "judgement" on the first day of law school.

Haha. You can’t do this, quite simply, because it’s not there.

It is as tested in law as it is ever going to be. The Court of Appeal will never give anyone permission to waste the Supreme Court's time on this point in another case when the answer they have already given is so clear.

It doesn't need to be tested in law, it has been the law since 2010. Organisations who misinterpreted the law (deliberately) were breaking or encouraging others to break the law.

The law hasn't changed.

It doesn’t have to go back to the SC to be tested in law.

It def will be tested in law as we certainly haven’t seen the end of the law suits on this.

I can't do it without getting my laptop out, searching for the relevant paragraphs and writing you out a ten point answer explaining why the cumulative impact of points X, Y and Z mean that you can't have trans women in a female only space, no.

And I'm not going to do that because I'm getting ready to go out for the day, I need to have a shower and get my children ready, and most importantly, the last couple of times I did exactly this for you, you completely ignored my answer and continued to spout the same crap you are still spouting.

It doesn't matter what you think because you don't make or enforce the law. Your opinion is completely irrelevant. You're not a lawyer, you're not in a position of power as far as I am aware, and in the unlikely event that you are in a position of power and you infringe someone's sex based rights, you can have your arse handed to you in court. You're not worth engaging with.

And the biological reality based side will win all of them.

There, I just saved you a LOT of time.

The lower courts have to follow the Supreme Court.

I don’t want a 10 point answer with all your “cumulative impact” interpretations / logics inserted in. I’m very familiar with your “cumulative impact” logics, you like to shout them in capitals at me on repeat across any thread about trans issues.

I want a reference to the part of the judgment that specifically states that it is unlawful to have trans women in a female space. You are not able to provide this because the judgment doesn’t say it.

The end.

Take the signs off the doors and make the toilets unisex. That would solve the problem.

OK, let's try something easier and see if we can figure out where you are going wrong.

Would you mind answering some questions for me?

We'll start with two.

1. What is Dr Upton's sex? Male or female?
2. Is a changing room with both Beth Upton and Sandie Peggie in it a single sex space? Yes or no?

For the purposes of both these questions, the definition of sex is that used in the Equality Act, i.e. biological sex (per the Supreme Court).

Have you actually read it? I know, I know it's 88 pages so a bit tricky, but might be a good idea.

All of the judgement states it. I could copy and paste every single paragraph but it would be quite tedious to read.

From the judgement discussing the bizarre idea that a piece of paper gives some men access to provisions legally allowed to a group who share a protected characteristic over and above what another group of men without that paper are allowed to the judgement having to explicitly point out that self id/a piece of paper doesn't actually change your sex

The judgement doesn’t say it at all. You have interpreted it from what the judgement says based on your GC informed “cumulative impact” logics. Which is why you can’t reference your claims in the actual judgement. If the court intended to say that they would have said it.

Aye OK hen.

I'm sure someone on Blue-sky can do a wee summary if the judgement is too tricky for you.

They did say it. The Supreme Court doesn't always say things in a way that is easily understandable by the average lay person, but luckily for you, you have actual lawyers here on this thread trying to help you understand it.

Can you answer the two questions above please?

1. What sex is Beth Upton?
2. Is a changing room with both Beth Upton and Sandy Peggie in it a single sex space?

This is the point where Tandora vanishes in a puff of smoke.

I’m still staggered that she can look at the Upton/Peggie case and think “oh, poor Upton, told by a nurse that he’s male” rather than being appalled at the witch hunt he subjected Peggie to.

He claimed she put patients at risk, for God’s sake. He tried to destroy her career.

No he didn’t. And the hospital had no right to say he did. Read the room mate.

For example, relevant paragraphs of the judgement are copied in italics below. In each case we can see the clear intention of the judgment, which was to clarify that it is not unlawful for providers to exclude all trans women from female spaces or to provide spaces for women based on the a single characteristic 'birth sex' .

The court clarifies this should be allowed/ permissible in law. They clarify that providers should not be required to admit trans women to female only services even with a GRC. They wish to make it simpler for providers to justify single sex provision on the basis of birth sex excluding all trans women.

None of this says that it is unlawful for a provider to opt to provide a service for both women and trans women, or that providers are required to exclude all trans women from single sex spaces. If the court intended that, these italicised paragraphs copied below would be written differently. The first paragraph I have copied, 225, would say, for example, "the plain intention of these provisions is to require that wherever separate or single-services for women are provided they must exclude all (biological) men (or vice-versa)". That's not what it says. I understand these distinctions are subtle (not a strong suit of GC logic) but they are important.

225 the plain intention of these provisions is to allow for the provision of separate or single-sex services for women which exclude all (biological) men (or vice-versa). Applying a biological meaning of sex achieves that purpose.

231 To require such associations or charities to reconceive of their objects as targeting a group that does not correspond with their original aims, and to allow trans people with a GRC (of the opposite biological sex) to join would significantly undermine the right to associate on the basis of biological sex

247(6) Single-sex and separate sex services: Service-providers are sometimes permitted to offer services to the sexes separately or to one sex only. For instance, a hospital might run several women only wards. At present, the starting point is that a trans woman with a GRC can access a ‘women-only’ service. The service-provider would have to conduct a careful balancing exercise to justify excluding all trans women. A biological definition of sex would make it simpler to make a women’sonly ward a space for biological women.

You really need to read the full judgment. But here you go for some key paragraphs.

As part of their reasoning, the SC expressly considered (and rejected) the argument that trans women with GRCs can be allowed into women’s spaces:

”213. If sex has its biological meaning in this paragraph, then a service-provider can separate male and female users as obvious and distinct groups. For example, a homeless shelter could have separate hostels for men and women provided this pursued a legitimate aim, which might be the safety and security of women users or their privacy and dignity (and the same for male users). By contrast, if sex means certificated sex, the service- provider would have to allow access to trans women with a GRC (in other words, biological males who are female according to section 9(1)) to the women’s hostel. The following practical difficulties would arise. First, it would be difficult or impossible for the service-provider to distinguish between trans women with and without a GRC because, as we have explained, the two groups are often visually or outwardly indistinguishable. Secondly and more fundamentally, it is likely to be difficult (if not impossible) to establish the conditions necessary for separate services for each sex when each group includes persons of both biological sexes. For example, it is difficult to envisage how the condition in paragraph 26(2)(a) (a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective) could ever be fulfilled when each sex includes members of the opposite biological sex in possession of a GRC and excludes members of the same biological sex with a GRC. In other words, if as a matter of law, a service-provider is required to provide services previously limited to women also to trans women with a GRC even if they present as biological men, it is difficult to see how they can then justify refusing to provide those services also to biological men and who also look like biological men.”

This was part of the careful reasoning that led them to clearly conclude that:

”266. For all these reasons, we conclude that the Guidance issued by the Scottish Government is incorrect. A person with a GRC in the female gender does not come within the definition of “woman” for the purposes of sex discrimination in section 11 of the EA 2010. That in turn means that the definition of “woman” in section 2 of the 2018 Act, which Scottish Ministers accept must bear the same meaning as the term “woman” in section 11 and section 212 of the EA 2010, is limited to biological women and does not include trans women with a GRC.”

As part of their reasoning, the SC expressly considered (and rejected) the argument that trans women with GRCs can be allowed into women’s spaces:

No they didn't. Read what you have copied and pasted here. I'm really glad you posted this as it helps clarify.

The court did not consider or reject the argument that a trans women with GRCs can be allowed into women’s spaces.

They considered and rejected the argument that a "service-provider would have to allow access to trans women with a GRC" into a woman's space.

"By contrast, if sex means certificated sex, the service- provider would have to allow access to trans women with a GRC (in other words, biological males who are female according to section 9(1)) to the women’s hostel. The following practical difficulties would arise. "

There is a very large and important difference between you CAN do something and you HAVE to do something. This is the distinction you are missing.

Barrister here. If the SC says “it is likely to be difficult (if not impossible) to establish the conditions necessary for separate services for each sex when each group includes persons of both biological sexes”, it would be a very foolish service provider that tried to let trans women into any female spaces!

"225 the plain intention of these provisions is to allow for the provision of separate or single-sex services for women which exclude all (biological) men (or vice-versa). Applying a biological meaning of sex achieves that purpose."

The provisions allow for single sex services because the starting point of the Equality Act is that you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex it is the single sex provisions that allow you to discriminate.

So either you don't use the single sex exemptions and offer a mixed sex service or you use them to have a single sex service.

There's only two choices for a communal space

Mixed sex by default or

Single sex as allowed for by the single sex exemptions

@Tandora:

1. What sex is Beth Upton?
2. Is a changing room with Beth Upton and Sandie Peggie in it a single sex space?