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.

The Equality Act is already law. The Supreme Court judgment is already law.

The EHRC guidance cannot contradict existing law.

Can we start with you telling me what was offensive about my language? Genuine question. Because being told I have been offensive without being told why, is another barrier to communication. Just saying 'that's offensive' is scolding and shaming and a bit reminiscent of the no debate, compelled speech times, which did more harm than good.

Right so I would disagree.

Because-

If trans people are a third/ separate group/ subset group of people then when we consider what is reasonable and proportionate as a policy arrangement, we need to consider their specific needs as a third/ separate/sub group, that cannot be simply flattened into the whole.

So now we have to look at the position of trans people. We have to first understand what it actually is to be trans, and then we have to understand what would be the impact on trans people (in the context of that understanding) of forcing them into spaces according to their 'birth sex', or requiring them to always use a 'third' or 'other' space.

I'm not scolding or shaming you, I'm just stating a fact - it's language that will cause offense to trans people and to those close to them.

I don't think it would help me to explain why I think it's offensive, because I think you already know, you just don't agree that it should be received as offensive?

But we also have to look at what impact this has on women.

If there are two existing groups, and you create a third, who has access to one group but now wants access to the other, you can't just look at the needs of the third group. You have to consider the needs of all the groups.

In this case, because trans women are not women, giving them access to women's spaces has a negative impact on women.

The Equality Act is already law. The Supreme Court judgment is already law.

Yes.

The EHRC guidance cannot contradict existing law.

Of course it can. Statutory guidance is intended to clarify or explain how the law should be applied, it is not itself a law and can sometimes be interpreted or applied in ways that are inconsistent with the underlying legislation or create additional obligations not explicitly provided for in the law. In such a case the interpretation of the courts always takes priority.
The Guidance you are speaking of is also still in DRAFT. It's under consultation and review and has not even been approved by parliament, so it is meaningless right now in terms of law.

But we also have to look at what impact this has on women.

Absolutely. I agree. It has to be a balance.

I'm not being awkward or disingenuous. I genuinely don't know what would be percieved as offensive in my language. Obviously I know that me answering you honestly about my personal view that yes, transwomen are men would cause offense to a transwoman who believed they had changed sex, but that's the opinion, not the language it was expressed in.

@Tandora Follow it through - you don’t see the dangers.

You have an enclosed space in a public area that is ‘resistant to sound’ (building regs again), that no one on the outside knows what’s going on, open to mixed sex and that anyone can let themselves into. Similar designs have been called rape cubicles.

The ‘lockable’ bit is the bit that is giving people a false sense of security. In reality, men hide in this cubicles and then let themselves into others with an unsuspecting woman inside.

Health and Safety should come first in toilet design, which means single sex toilets should take priority.

If trans people are a third/ separate group/ subset group of people then when we consider what is reasonable and proportionate as a policy arrangement

Ok, I think this is a bit of a leap. Trans people aren’t a third or separate group from men and women, they are subsets of men (transwomen) and women (transmen) just like young, old, disabled, homosexuals or bisexual men and women are subsets.

We look at their protected characteristic and make reasonable judgments. None of those adjustments must take away the necessary arrangements of the other groups because, whatever Stonewall likes to say, there is no hierarchy in protected characteristics.

You seem to be setting up trans in addition to male and female as categories and not merely groups within those categories.

Apologies if I have misunderstood your intent.

What balance do you propose?

Right. I think I see what you mean. the opinion is the offense and the language expresses that opinion.

But we can use neutral language that builds on parts of consensus in our opinions, rather than slams down on points of divergence.

Calling a transwoman 'male', even a subset of 'male', is offensive, as it contradicts their lived experience and triggers profound feelings of dysphoria, rejection, disassociation, disorientation, distress etc.,

However, we can agree that trans people are a distinct group of people - registered male at birth (this is a factual description of an event) if you want to emphasis their status as a subcategory - who are distinct from a broader group of people registered male at birth, by virtue of the fact that they are trans.

By the way statements such as 'believe they have changed sex' are not actually accurate. The idea of 'changing sex' is a gender critical logical fallacy.

A) That there may be limited circumstances where services can be exclusively reserved for (non trans) women.

B) However, there are also circumstances where services for women can (and should) be inclusive of trans women.

I believe that the SC only meant to clarify a) (indeed this is factually all that the judgement set out). I do not believe that they intended to blanket prohibit, in all circumstances, B) , as has been the widespread interpretation and the EHRC are trying to enforce.

who are distinct from a broader group of people registered male at birth, by virtue of the fact that they are trans

But their trans identity doesn’t make any difference to being male or female. That remains a constant throughout their lives. Not being happy about that must be difficult, but their sex remains an immutable part of them.

A transwoman is no less male than my dad, or than my gay son. They are likely less masculine in presentation, which is fine - breaking down stereotypes is a good thing.

Yes, of course there is a difference, however it’s the difference that is between all humans- we are all different.

It would be proportionate for all people to use the toilet for their sex because that is the safest toilet design for everyone to use - with the exception of small children with an opposite sex carer who need supervision for health and safety.

If you start making all the toilets enclosed, it is discriminatory to women and children and also the medically vulnerable.

You have to go with health and safety first. If a man was having a heart attack or a stroke in a toilet (this is not unusual), would he be more likely to be rescued in time in a single sex design (with door gaps) or a unisex (completely private, sound resistant) design?

Firstly you have got to understand that lots (other than the obvious) happen in public toilets.

It’s about health and safety needs.

Do you have examples of both cases?

For B) I can't think of a case where it would make sense to include transwomen in an existing women only service - if that were the case the service shouldn't have been for women only in the first place.

All of this is your opinion, based on not a great depth of understanding (sorry I'm not being rude, I'm just being honest!).

Chesterton's Fence. That's all.

Calling a transwoman 'male', even a subset of 'male', is offensive, as it contradicts their lived experience and triggers profound feelings of dysphoria, rejection, disassociation, disorientation, distress etc.,

The only lived experience a male can have had, is a male lived experience. A male cannot have a female lived experience and if that makes him cry, he needs some therapy.

Examples of a) might be specialised rape crisis services. Specialised medical services related to reproductive anatomy etc.

Examples of b) might be toilets in a pub. Or a women's reading group. or all kinds of thing.

if that were the case the service shouldn't have been for women only in the first place
This is the kind of statement I find intolerable.

this is a really ignorant and harmful opinion, devoid of sophistication, insight or empathy.

And?

Of course guidance cannot contradict the actual law.

Any comment on why my explanation of the Equality Act is wrong.

It’s also meaningless. What is a “male lived experience”? I thought it was one of the core tenants of GC feminism that there is no such thing 😹