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.

Many schools have stopped putting period products in the mixed sex toilets because boys would muck about with them and the bins and it wasn’t sanitary.

It’s interesting space wise as that may be too small building regs wise now. Little known fact: some organisations recommended very small public toilet cubicles in the past just so you could prevent multiple people fitting in there to do things! It is illegal to have sex in a public toilet in this country but that does not seem to stop people. Not sure if very small cubicles do!

But in all seriousness, students collapsing is a concern as it’s the first time many with medical conditions have been responsible for their health, medication etc.

I cannot imagine anyone being so desperate to “do something” other than a quick wee that they would use these toilets!

There are accessible toilets in the building which are unisex and much more spacious for an illicit encounter - these tend to be clean too as they are low traffic.

Like the BBC?! https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-bbc-always-knew-that-russell-brand-was-a-lout/

Apols to have seemingly posted this thread and run. I honestly thought it hadn't got off the ground and haven't checked in for a while.

Thanks for all the responses, and especially to @Tandora for coming back to answer my question, I do really appreciate it, and wanted to acknowledge that.

Just to respond to their very first reply:

Also a survivor of CSA here <3. I agree that children's rights come first, but I don't view trans people as a threat to children's rights. I see that as moral panic - of the very same nature that people spread in the 80s in response to the increasing visibility of gay people in society.

Firstly, I am sorry you experienced CSA too. I'm glad you recognise that children's rights come first and have clarified that. It's been very helpful to me to understand you view concerns around this as 'moral panic' and comparable with the increasing visibility of gay people in the 80s. I can kind of understand this, except that I'm not sure how you would explain or justify in the moment, a transwoman's presence in a female space having a triggering affect on a child in particular, to that child. That's why I gave that specific example. And why for me, the benefit (of transpeople feeling social acceptance or being able to 'pass' and share female loos) comes secondary to the child's feelings in those circumstances. I believe society can provide better opportunities for social acceptance of the trans community, that don't override children victims of CSA feelings of safety.

Obviously, some victims (or survivors) are able to work towards processing their fear and reactions to triggers, and move towards a place where they are comfortable around males again. That can take a huge amount of work, for some this can happen quickly, for others it can take years or decades. Some are never able to get there at all. I would argue that being triggered by an obviously male figure in a vulnerable space, such as a loo, is not 'moral panic' but reality for a lot of CSA victims. To ignore that is to undermine their right to a safe space, dignity and privacy away from males, until such times as they are ready and can choose whether they are comfortable or not to share their space. So while I appreciate your time in engaging with my question, I'm afraid we're still going to have to agree to differ.

I also very much appreciate the posts from @Keeptoiletssafe and @coffeeandmycats and many others who have been super informative on this thread. Thank you

I hope the original OP of the first thread has found a way forward with her situation!

The position that trans women should be allowed into women's spaces effectively boils down to an argument that women who have an issue with that should "re-educate" themselves to view trans women as a subset of women who don't pose the same issues regarding dignity and safety as males.

But that argument falls down for a number of reasons (even assuming, for now, that we accept "trans women" as a third category that is not the same as "men").

First, it falls down as a matter of logic. It tells women to assume that every male in a female space is there because they are a trans woman who is entitled to use that space. But there is absolutely nothing external to distinguish most trans woman from any male. A small number may have undergone surgery, but the vast majority of trans women I now encounter simply wear a skirt or nail varnish or have long hair - all things which any man can (and should feel free to) do.

Second, it falls down as a matter of female instinct - born both from our experiences and clear crime statistics - that males pose more of a threat to us and to children. Again, if there is nothing external to distinguish a trans woman from a male, we are being asked to ignore the important instincts that keep us safe. It also goes against the important safeguarding principle that encountering a male in an all female space is normally a pretty good indication that he poses more of a threat - not less.

Third, despite the repeated suggestions that trans women pose less of a threat than men, there are no studies that I am aware of that bear this out. In fact, the statistics on trans women in prison seem to suggest that they are more likely to have committed sex offences (although I do accept that there are issues with this too - precisely because there is no objective definition of trans women). I also struggle to see how there could be any reliable studies because there is no objective definition of trans women that could be used.

Finally, it ignores that in many situations women have good reasons to exclude even the nicest, safest trans woman (just as we would exclude even the nicest, safest man). There are certain issues that we only want to discuss with people who share our female bodies and experiences derived from those female bodies. There are reasons why some women don't want their female bodies seen by people who don't share those bodies.

I do have sympathy for trans women who don't want to use male spaces. But the only answer that properly balances rights is to campaign for third spaces of some kind. Those spaces don't need to be "outing" if there are sufficient numbers of them and they are also used by women who don't have an issue with mixed sex spaces.

exactly this

What will be interesting if groups decide to designate spaces as for women and TW, is to see if the debate moves from what is a woman? Which the SC had ruled on, to what is a TW? Because as I understand it, there isn't really consensus within the trans community on this one. So will the inclusion of TW in women's spaces include any man who decides on a given day to experiment with his gender 'for fun' (which I know from trans reddit is a thing)? Or TW who don't want to present in stereotypically feminine ways, so 'butch' or 'tomboy' TW? Ones who have rejected surgeries? Basically, TW who are completely indistinguishable from men who aren't trans in all but their innate sense of self at that particular time. Will TW be happy sharing these spaces with other TW across the whole broad church that encompasses? Or will women's spaces become a free for all that even TW themselves are not comfortable with?

Any new ‘third’ space is always going to be more of the same problem for women and children when it has the same design properties as the existing traditional third space - a mixed sex private toilet leading out onto a public space.

Disabled toilets (now called accessible toilets) are the traditional third space. They are at least put into more public areas and have a pull cord - but I have no evidence people pull it if they are being attacked.

In terms of absolute risk, public toilets are safer with door gaps for any man, woman and child. There are so many medical emergencies in toilets that under building regs these toilet doors aren’t truly lockable - they can be opened outwards from the outside. So a transwomen is safer being in a male toilet that has door gaps is case of a cardiac arrest (11% happen on the toilet), stroke, heart attack, drug overdose or mental health crisis. The absolute risk of being concealed from view from people who could help you (and I hope most people would) is the reality of ‘third spaces’. I also believe it prevents assaults happening in the first place because, and I am going to be blunt here, I don’t think the incidences where people have been raped in very busy public places, would have happened if there had been a simple toilet door gap to allow others to see and hear the assault.

To put this into human rights Article 8 terms:
1Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

For toilets outside the home, it is not against Article 8 to have single sex toilets as are they are safer, they prevent disorder and crime, they are healthier (less pathogenic, especially as better ventilated), morally they protect anyone at their most vulnerable. The rights and the freedoms of a small proportion of the population are the ones everyone is debating but that should be overridden by the overwhelming health and safety factors anyway.

What I find bizarre is people think adding lots of ‘third spaces’ without looking at the consequences. Robin Moira White has called them ‘ghettos’. From what I have seen, many transwomen don’t want third spaces but to be in women’s toilets. That comes at a cost to everyone’s health and safety because design changes.

I want everyone to be safe. But in reality for out-of-home toilets that means as many single sex toilets as possible (with door gaps). Which means actual single sex toilets.

The Good Law Project is discussing Article 8 but this right is conditional. Article 2 ‘Right to Life’ is not. Article 2 is often referred to as an ‘absolute right’. These are rights that can never be interfered with by the state. If that sounds a tad hyperbolic to be discussing it in this context, this right includes that public authorities should also consider your right to life when making decisions that might put you in danger or that affect your life expectancy.

You seriously believe the Supreme Court didn't bother to think through what their ruling meant in the entire context of the entire EA?

You think, in other words, that the highest court in the country, where judges rule on the trickiest or most critical points of law, are the sort of people to whom it does not occur to think through the full legal consequences of their decisions?

Sorry, silly question. Based on your other posts I'm sure you do seriously believe that.

But I'm pretty sure if it was about any other topic you wouldn't consider this a likely scenario.

No I don’t believe the SC contemplated that their judgement would be interpreted in the way that it has, not least because it’s absurd.

Fifthly, it presumes a definition of "woman" as something mental rather than physical, which denies how many women see themselves and invalidates their experience of the challenges and risks they face being generally based in the fact of their body.

The reality is that outside their own heads, by any metric that is not grossly offensive to women, trans women are no more like women than any other man.

It has never been explained to me why a trans woman's understanding of himself as a woman mentally should be given more weight than the undeniable fact that female people also exist in ways that are different to him.

The language is clear and logic consistent.

The only reason you consider it "absurd" is that you are unable to accept that the law recognises that trans women are not women in many scenarios where you personally think they should be. Therefore you twist and turn every way you can to create a distorted reading which if you use very unusual personal meanings of words and squint sideways you can just about find a way to make it say what you think it should.

You are starting with a conclusion and fitting the explanations to support it.

This is very much a hallmark of Genderism.

The outcome is predetermined - "trans women are women". All that is ever needed is to find the reasons why.

None of this has any basis in reality.

It is interesting you are talking about reality. My posts are about research I have done on real life incidents. You can not counteract my arguments because you can not argue with reality (well you can but it makes no sense).

The only reason you consider it "absurd" is that you are unable to accept that the law recognises that transwomen are not women in many scenarios where you personally think they should be

Yes. @Tandora just because you disagree with the SC ruling, it doesn't mean that TWAW.

They're still men, no matter how you choose to interpret the ruling.

Are you saying the SC judges are incompetent, or just poor communicators?

I am saying that the SC judgement has been widely and maliciously over-interpreted to mean much more than what the judges said.

No, it hasn't.
The judges were clear about the definition of a woman.

They didn't say that men could become women.

Tell me exactly what the reality is then Tandora.

You are, like most Genderists, very quick to say "no that's wrong" but very shy about saying anything concrete to back up your assertions.

For example, I asked you some time ago to share what language in the SC judgement leads you to believe the EA allows a provider or employer to discriminate against men without a single sex exemption as long as a small number of men (ie transwomen, who the SC confirmed are men within the EA) are allowed in.

That would be a great way of supporting your assertion of "reality". Do you have enough confidence in your claim to back it up?

Do I have to explain this again?

The judges didn't 'define' 'a woman' , or whether 'a man can become a woman'.

The judgement was specifically and only about the meaning of the words 'sex', 'women', 'men' in the specific context of the EA 2010, for interpreting protections from discrimination on the basis of 'sex' in the Act.

The judgement found that where these words appear in the act they refer to a person's sex at birth, so should be interpreted as applying to people on the basis of their birth sex. However, they also identified some circumstances where due to gender transition protections for women may apply to trans women, or exclude trans men.

That's all the judgement said.

However, they also identified some circumstances where due to gender transition protections for women may apply to trans women, or exclude trans men

And none of those circumstances allow anyone to use a single sex service for the opposite sex.

The judgment ruled that transmen could be excluded from female single sex spaces but that would not entitle them to use male single sex spaces.

The judgment ruled that if someone mistook a transwomen for a woman they could claim sex discrimination on the basis of perceived sex but that does not entitle them to use female single sex spaces

I've spent countless hours trying to do this.

Explain what being trans is.
Explain why it matters.
Explain what sex development is
Explain why that matters.
Explain how and why the EHRC guidance is an overreach/ over-interpretation of the judgement
Explain how if passed it would be both unenforceable and be widely intrusive and discriminatory not just for trans people. Etc.

Having wasted all this time I have come to understand that there is no point in explaining things to people with the kind of extreme and unwavering beliefs expressed by yourself and other users I am well acquainted with on this topic. You simply aren't interested in listening or considering anything that falls outside of your ideology. All you want to do is to argue. I'm not interested in that.

I joined this thread to respond to the OP who asked me a specific question around children's rights/ safeguarding.

And what is the scope of the EA Tandora?

Because I think it is the act that sets up as a general rule that providers and employers cannot discriminate or separate by sex unless they are able to show it meets the EA criteria for exemption.

And that means that while you can say trans women are women to your heart's content and while you can believe it to be true in every fibre of your ciswoman's gentle, kind, empathic soul, and truly no one can ever take that away from you, when it comes to any meaningful real world situation where you treat men and wonen differently, you treat them as men.

And for women who care about women, it's that real world result that matters.

when it comes to any meaningful real world situation where you treat men and women differently, you treat them as men.

Nope. They did not say that at all. In fact, to the very contrary, they acknowledged some circumstances in which trans women may be treated as women, and trans men may be treated as men.

You said on different threads that trans people were neither male or female, and also that trans women knew they were female and also trans women knew they were men.

Not really an explanation that. I'd go so far as to suggest it was 'nonsense on stilts'.