AIBU To celebrate the government finally releasing guidance on keeping single sex spaces single sex? Even if it is more than a year after the Supreme Court judgement

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Nobody is banned from toilets, changing rooms or indeed anywhere else, but males must use the male facilities and females use the female facilities. Where possible gender neutral facilities may be provided AS WELL, but not instead of.

There will be a huge amount of disinformation about this rolling around today, but nobody is banned from anything, other than intruding upon the opposite sex.

"The updated guidance is expected to make clear that employers and service providers should provide single-sex lavatories, changing rooms and washing facilities on the basis of biological sex, after the Supreme Court judgment in April last year that held the legal ­definition of “woman” in the Equality Act referred to biological sex."

https://www.thetimes.com/article/b0750d21-426a-45d5-8cee-9578e33c6d9c?shareToken=a2e55a09e70500c14807d8eb1713db03

I’m still not ruling out further stalling until she actually does it.

Definitely not BU! Progress is progress. Saying that, I haven't read it yet! I'm still expecting some squirmy wording that someone will try to say is a loop hole.

I’m not celebrating til we see what comes out.

fair point.

But, whatever it says it cannot get around the Supreme Court judgments details. A man is a man and a woman is a woman and all that

Ah but it’s all about liminality, internal cognition and external perception (but only with filters and when someone agrees with you to be kind).

YWNBBU if it actually happens.

It is feat of engineering that they are even getting to the point of releasing it, lets keep fingers crossed that it actually meets the legal requirements of the actual law.

Thanks @SingleSexSpacesInSchools, I have moved over!

Scheduled for the 15th thing of the day in the House of Commons apparently - there is always the chance something mental happens and pushes it off the list I suppose, but it IS scheduled (currently!!)

‘The defining characteristic of a lesbian is that she is not sexually attracted to male bodies, including penises, testicles, male body mass and shape. Nor is she sexually attracted to certificates…’

The Supreme Court judgment is pro-lesbian & that’s the part that doesn’t get mentioned enough. It recognises that lesbians are not sexually attracted to trans-identifying males, whether or not they have GRCs.

All this because of a few men in dresses. It wasn’t the overwhelming numbers of women wanting to be men because being female is shit that caused the issue or attracted any attention.

Where’s all the media stories asking why so many young women wanted to opt out of being female in Britain?

About bloody time.

No matter what it says someone will try to wiggle through it. It's guidance not law and that can't be totally nailed down. I hope the extra examples add clarity not confusion. The interim guidance was very plain and most of the complaints were because they didn't like what the law says. Adding more words isn't going to change that.

The supreme court clarification of the law is also pro-trans-identifed females - they still get to keep their pregnancy and maternity rights. That doesn't get recognised either. Though I suppose the TRAs would prefer to argue that men with non-male gender identities should have pregnancy and maternity rights as well. If it doesn't benefit men it's not important.

In one of the buildings on the Sheffield uni campus they replaced the women’s loo with a gender neutral one. I don’t know why they chose the women’s and not men’s since women are more likely to feel unsafe in this situation than men but there you go.

I think more places should adopt the system with a set of individual self contained cubicles, it just makes most sense.

Absolutely. It was the first thing that shocked the TRAs when they still thought they would win the SC case, that even the Scottish government barrister was quite clear that men weren’t lesbians.

YANBU

Everyone deserves to be treated decently and that’s what this guidance is about - equality!

Im baffled that anyone can think it’s “anti trans” or upsetting in any way to have to follow the law and treat all individuals with respect.

Although many people seem to think of the trans movement as progressive, there are enough stories which have emerged now over many years to reveal a very dark and cruel side to trans activism. Actual cruelty - like death threats, job losses and physical assault. Not just thinking someone unkind or being upset that someone disagrees with you or maybe doesnt have the same beliefs.

I can’t quite get over the idea that to “be kind” to a minority (mostly made up of men) women are to give up rights to having anything of their own. No privacy or dignity and to be mocked about safety concerns.

And there are many women that cheer this on?Weird! Like turkeys voting for Christmas? But then again thousands of women campaigned against women getting the vote and campaigners then suffered threats and violence 100 years ago - so nothing much changes does it?!

I look forward to the law being enacted as it should always have been. If we can’t respect the rule of law then we can’t expect to sustain the liberal democracy we currently enjoy. Anyone who doesn’t like the law is free to campaign for it to be changed out in the open with proper debate. Womens rights should not be removed and certainly not by stealth

rant over!

I am hoping that she will indeed table it today and that we can finally access it to analyse just what has or hasn’t changed.

Agree, just wait until the "perceived sex" people start in!
There's nothing liminal about the SC judgment.

I, too, will wait untiI have read it. Dropping it off the list today would be something BP would try if she could get away with it. Talk about leaving it to the very last second!

I can think of a few reasons why it's easier to trash the women's provision. e.g. there may not be room for sanpro in the mens. If it's not fully separate floor to ceiling rooms each with a sink and sanpro disposal inside then it's probably illegal anyway.

I think more places should adopt the system with a set of individual self contained cubicles, it just makes most sense.

Single-user unisex facilities aren't as physically safe or as easy to clean as the usual single-sex sort. They attract sexual violence and drug use and no-one notices if someone is ill or collapses inside. You can search for posts by our resident toilet safety expert (yes MumsNet FWR has one!) @KeepToiletsSafe for more info.

Yes they can have a few individual self-contained cubicles (with sinks and sanitary provision inside) but if you're providing more than two toilets then most provision should be single-sex. At least in workplaces. I'm not entirely sure about students.

I think this is a very good point and one that gets skipped in order to not draw attention or to maybe cast a shadow upon trans identified people but it really is important to investigate why so many young women hated their femininity so much quite possibly because of media portrayals and the way they had been treated for being female that they wanted to opt out

There are reasons tgat toilets were designed with floor gaps and being relatively open. If anyone collapses they’ll be seen and. An be rescued - most people go to the toilet when they feel ill - there are increasing stories about deaths in these self enclosed loos. It’s not a great idea to have more than a minimum number of these cubicles IMO. Useful for quite a few different users - but not safe enough to be rolled out to all.

It does however take up three times as much space cost three times as much and is proven to be more dangerous with regards to both sexual assault and people going to the bathroom passing out and then not being found and dying

I hope someone has told Andy Burnham 😅

YANBU but just to say - the new guidance covers service providers, public functions and charities. It doesn't cover employers who never even had the excuse of 'waiting for the guidance' before they stop breaking the law.

Just something to bear in mind (sorry), as I posted on another thread:

The next delay tactic: we are working to update our policies, which must be approved through the correct channels, and our updated policies will be published in due course.

I used a lot of "in due course" in my last job. Comes in handy.

A very good point although as you roghtly say this is guidance not the law the law has already settled and workplaces should be absolutely providing single sex spaces with enough for female users otherwise as it is definitely indirect discrimination and there are many cases about this that are being won