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.

Can you please post the wording? Not your interpretation, but the actual SC judgement words?

I'm not doubting that they said something, just doubting whether it would imply treating trans women as women in a meaningful real world situation.

Eg a ladies hairdresser might legitimately choose to say TW are women, but then again probably wouldn't refuse to cut a long haired man's hair so not really an EA exemption.

The judgement was pretty damned clear, even to a non-legal reader. It laid out nice and clearly what a man and a woman is under the law.

It made single sex exemptions crystal clear - a transwoman is not a woman and is therefore excluded from female only spaces. Allowing a transwoman in and not any other man would be discriminating against that other man. Therefore anything intended for women excludes transwomen.

They even clarified that a transman might be excluded from both male and female services if they pass sufficiently as male to alarm users of female facilities, the poor sods, and would have to seek out third spaces. (as usual it's transmen getting the rough deal, not transwomen. Plus ça change and all that)

I've read it through more than once, and it's very clear.

What you still haven't addressed in any of your posts is, if we accept your position that a transwoman is 'not a man', why on earth should that person use women's facilities. A woman isn't just 'not a man'.

parag 250

Applied in the context of a discrimination claim made by a trans woman (a biological male with or without a GRC), the claimant can claim sex discrimination because she is perceived as a woman and can compare her treatment with that of a person not perceived to be a woman (whether that is a biological male or a trans man perceived to be male). There is no need for her to declare her true biological sex. There is nothing disadvantageous about this approach. Neither a biological woman nor a trans woman “bring a claim of direct sex discrimination as a woman” (as the EHRC suggests). That is not how the EA 2010 operates: a person brings a claim alleging sex discrimination because of a protected characteristic of sex.

The judgement was pretty damned clear, even to a non-legal reader. It laid out nice and clearly what a man and a woman is under the law.

Not what it did at all.

😖

If someone thinks a heterosexual person is gay and discriminates against them based on this perception it doesn't make that heterosexual person gay.

If someone discriminates against a man they perceive to be a women it doesn't make that man a woman.

For the purpose of the Equality Act 2010. Which is pretty damned important.

Nobody says it "makes them a woman". The court WASN'T RULING ON WHO IS A WOMAN as they specifically clarified in PARAG 2! Nor is it within the court's power to do so lol.

The court was simply ruling on what the protected characteristic of sex means in the context of the EA.

Neither a biological woman nor a trans woman “bring a claim of direct sex discrimination as a woman” (as the EHRC suggests). That is not how the EA 2010 operates: a person brings a claim alleging sex discrimination because of a protected characteristic of sex.

People have widely interpreted this to mean that trans women can never lawfully be treated as women in society. The judgement says the opposite!!

People have widely interpreted this to mean that trans women can never lawfully be treated as women in society. The judgement says the opposite!!

It doesn't say the opposite, you are conflating two different things.

Thing 1. If a service provider wishes to make use of single sex exemptions to exclude one sex from a service or provision then that is all based on bio sex

Thing 2. You are protected from discrimination due to your actual or perceived protected chararacteristic

LOL

OK yes treated "as" a woman, but only in the very specific and limitated sense of being able to claim the same discrimination as a woman would face despite not actually being a woman.

So this famous SC "as a woman" is im fact "as" in the sense of "treated the same way as despite not being" rather than "treated the same way because actually is" and would equally apply to a man without a trans identity who was perceived as being a woman and discriminated against on that basis.

Key point being it's not the TW's self image thst is relevant here, it's what sex the person or organisation believed them to be and based the discrimination on.

these examples are not two separate things at all!! they are all about exactly the same thing/ they are about the application of sex exemptions under the law- not whether trans women are women and can or cannot ever be treated as such in situations where men and women are treated differently.

If a service provider wishes to make use of single sex exemptions to exclude one sex from a service or provision then that is all based on bio sex

Nope because they can also exclude trans men on the basis that they appear to be men and that would be detrimental to the operation of the service as intended as a single sex provision.

There’s no reason at all to say a service can’t be for women and trans women, excluding men because of the sex exemption. People say that unlawfully discriminates against men, but of course you can argue it doesn’t, using exactly the same argument as the court uses in the former case: because although men are excluded because their presence would be detrimental to the operation of the service, trans women appear to be women and therefore their presence is not detrimental to the operation of the service as intended as a single sex service , therefore the discrimination still has a legitimate aim (and is proportionate).

The court clarified that single sex provision for women may lawfully exclude trans women, not that they are required to do so. That is the key point.

Anyway as I said I’ve got better things to do with my time.

What about TW who aren't percieved to be women though? If you allow TW in on those grounds you'd be discriminating against the ones who don't pass or who choose not to present in a stereotypically feminine way, surely?

The court clarified that single sex provision for women may lawfully exclude trans women, not that they are required to do so. That is the key point.

A service provider is not required to provide *single sex facilities by the Equality Act but if they do they must be single sex. If a service provider doesn't use the single sex exemptions then it cannot exclude anyone on the basis of sex.

The choices are single sex using the SSE or mixed sex.

If SSE are used to provide a single sex female service the provider can also choose to exclude transmen as long as they are provided with alternative provision

The Equality Act doesn't allow you to provide a service for females and only some males

*other legislation may require single sex services to be provided

you allow TW in on those grounds you'd be discriminating against the ones who don't pass or who choose not to present in a stereotypically feminine way, surely?

If that were the case you could make the same argument that you were discriminating against trans men for excluding them for presenting in too much of a masculine way. This discrimination is perceived as legitimate in the context of the single sex service provided; so it must therefore be for trans women who don’t pass .

And are you comfortable with that? To argue that interpretation excludes a lot of TW for the sake of the passing few.

Much more comfortable with that that than with an interpretation that says that law mandates the exclusion of trans women in all cases where men and women are treated differently. Absolutely I am. There is for this interpretation a legitimate logic.

No you can't argue that.

In your haste to centre men you forget to consider the purpose of the SSE. You can argue there is a case to exclude all men plus a couple of women whose presence would also undermine the objective for which men are excluded.

You can't claim to exclude all men but then include a handful who don't count, because now you've just agreed that NAMALT and you've lost the justification to exclude any of the men.

In other words, the SC is saying you can add to the exclusion but not weaken it.

So, a law that mandates the exclusion of transwomen who's physical appearance isn't sufficiently womanly is OK?

Im wondering who would decide on this? Some kind of scale perhaps? 🤔

obviously not FFS because the whole thing is mad but no limits to what Tan will agree to to centre the men

Anyway as I said I’ve got better things to do with my time.

You say that on all these threads, Tandora, but you're always, always here.

Changed my user name for this simply because I've seen how these threads can go.

None of us want testosterone driven angry men in the women's toilets.

BUT...

What about those transwomen (old school transexuals I guess they were called) who transitioned 30+ years ago and are NOW being told to not use the toilet they have used their entire adult lives...?

Are we really expecting them to now start using the mens toilets?

I know a couple of transwomen in this situation and I've seen their world change from living a productive, unnoticed, quiet life...to now being judged and labelled as being as awful as the most extreme, violent and criminal of the TRAs.

Both of these transexual women did everything asked of them by the establishment; in terms of therapy, real life tests, psychiatry, medical interventions, paperworks.

So I don't know what they are (realistically) supposed to do now...

You changed your name to anonymously 'what about the true transes'? Gosh.

How does one tell a true trans?

These men gave not one passing thought to the women whose toilets they invaded for the years before their operations were approved. Or afterwards.

Why should we give one passing thought to them now? Seriously, why?

It cannot come as a shock to them that all this time, women actually had rights too? Perhaps it has. And that if they don't pass as women now, after all these years, maybe the life they are living isn't as real as they think it is.

So what is the difference between a man and a male flaming a trans identity? They are both male. Why should one be allowed in female spaces and one not?

So how do they know they didn’t make women uncomfortable. What woman is gonna confront a man who obviously has decided to invade female spaces? No one asked women if they would be ok with males in their spaces did they? The “establishment” didn’t give a shiny shit bout women when they decided these men could use women’s spaces did they? So I’m giving these men’s feelings about as much consideration as they and the “establishment” gave to women’s feelings. None. If they’re not comfortable in women’s spaces, that’s not women’s problem is it?

Claiming darn it. So sorry.

I believe Coffeeandmycats was the poster of the original thread, they seem much more clued up about the situation on this thread.