GRC and Toilets

[Hangingaroundtheportal]

Sorry, I'm pretty sure this has been done a million times and perhaps could have asked this on another thread but I just wanted to clarify something.

When I have been reading about this stuff about the City of London consulting on whether to allow transwomen into women's toilets, I have seen lots of 'transwomen are allowed in the ladies loos since 2010, it's covered in the equality act'.

I know that transwomen have been in the women's toilets for a long time as a courtesy, because women are quite nice like that, but how enshrined in law is it? I know that sex is a protected characteristic but also gender identity?

Does a transwoman actually need a GRC to use the women's toilet? (obviously in real life it wouldn't work to demand to see it)

I know with self id this is a bit moot anyway, but I just wanted to clarify the current law.

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, this includes people considering transition.
The case for allowing all trans people into the loos they chose is that it is disproportionate not to.
The EA allows for trans people to be excluded from some facilities/provision but this has to be a proportionate step to achieve a legitimate aim.
Some people think that, due to cubicles, it isn’t proportionate or legitimate. Other people do. There hasn’t, to my knowledge, been any ruling on this.
It is a shame that the discussion is not based on whether single sex loos are needed/wanted in our society, as this is what needs to be determined. If it is seen to be legitimate to segregate loos according to sex, and if the rationale for this decision was clearly articulated, then it would be easy to decide who should access which provision.

Thank you MsBeaujangles. So it is actually quite complex then, not just 'transwomen have always used the loos get over it'.

Yes, I agree that toilets should be segregated by sex.

In order to come under the 'gender reassignment' part of the equalities act, do you need a GRC? Not many people have them?

I know that the 'self id' thing is a lot more about the culture and consequences it would create, rather than the details of the law itself?

Some people think that, due to cubicles, it isn’t proportionate or legitimate. Other people do. There hasn’t, to my knowledge, been any ruling on this

There have been cases. The Court of Appeal case of Croft v Royal Mail, which was concerned with employment law and the Sex Discrimination Act - a predecessor act to the EA. Also, see the County Court case of Brook v Tasker. Referring to this case barrister Claire McCann, who specialises in this area of law, notes that the exceptions were not argued in Brook v Tasker and speculates "Perhaps this was because it was so unlikely that providing separate toilets for men and women and not allowing the trans female customer to use the ladies toilets was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"

Also see the EHRC statutory guidance. This gives a specific example where cubicles in a changing room provided sufficient privacy to mean the exceptions do not apply.

Does a transwoman actually need a GRC to use the women's toilet?

A GRC in itself gives no right for a trans women to use the women's toilet. If under some hypothetical legislation a trans women could obtain a GRC but did not have the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" she could be barred from the women's toilet with impunity.

This is why the GC debate about GRA reform is so misconceived,

How do you come under the characters it of 'gender reassignment' then? What things do you need to have undertaken?

Doesn't the cubicle thing show that it's not about the safety/privacy of transwomen as is often argued (surely it's either proportionate for both the men's and women's or for neither) but about validation? I'm not saying that transwomen shouldn't be validated by being able to use the women's, but women are usually told that transwomen have the use the ladies because they are not safe in the men's? But the men's have cubicles too?

Good questions.

The problem now with all this is that the blurring of lines and the idea any man can be a woman if they say so has led to the old ladies and gentlemen's agreement kept in place by the medical checks of the GRA and social norms to blow up:

Ms Sinnott, 68, gave examples that she said supported her case. “Women are socialised to put others first, to be nice, to not make a fuss, and women also fear for their safety,” she wrote. “In central Cambridge public toilets, a recognisable male in women’s clothing entered, the women present experienced varying degrees of emotional agitation. None objected. Another day, a man in male clothing aggressively asserted his right to be there to shocked women, who all turned silently away. I was present and did not make a complaint on either occasion.”

(From Times article today)

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment relates to those who are considering reassignment through to those that have transitioned.
However, many are not sure about what someone is transitioning from/to is not clear. Sex is fixed and immutable so there is no sex transitioning.
It usually comes down to ‘living as’ a male/female/neither or both. I take exception to all notions of societal expectations on lifestyles based on sex.

It is a shame that the discussion is not based on whether single sex loos are needed/wanted in our society, as this is what needs to be determined. If it is seen to be legitimate to segregate loos according to sex, and if the rationale for this decision was clearly articulated, then it would be easy to decide who should access which provision.

Great point Ms

Yes Wanderabout it was actually the Ann Sinnott thread which prompted me to start this one.

It sounds like lines are very blurred.

However, many are not sure about what someone is transitioning from/to is not clear.

Yes, what is the definition of 'transitioned'?Is it about how well you pass? Just thinking about some well known transwomen - for example has Paris Lees 'transitioned' more than Lily Madigan? One has had loads of surgery (although not bottom) and the other has had none I don't think, but Im sure they would argue they are as 'woman' as each other? And anyway, surgery isn't what makes a woman.

This whole thing is a bit of a mess really isn't it?

To quote citizens' advice on "gender reassignment:"

-wants to change their gender, whether they go through with the medical treatment or not
-has had a gender reassignment
-is undergoing medical treatment to reassign their gender
-has started the medical process but has decided to stop it
-has decided to adopt the identity of their chosen gender without undergoing a medical gender reassignment
-wants to dress as their chosen gender, all the time or only occasionally.

But if you cross-dress for some other reason than because you want to adopt your chosen gender- for example, as a joke - this is not gender reassignment.

Gender reassignment is a personal process rather than a medical one. You don’t have to undergo medical treatment and you don’t have to be under medical supervision.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/protected-characteristics/gender-reassignment-discrimination/

We all know that there is no need to physically transition in order to be "trans" anymore. It's a spectrum, and current trans theory says that all you need is the declaration of the "trans" part to be valid. In fact, it's considered the height of rudeness to discriminate based on how well someone "passes." It does not matter whether you look like Danielle Muscato or Laverne Cox - everyone is "equally a woman." The very act of changing your name or even gender marker on documents is enough to firmly classify you as trans. Because it is completely subjective, all the trans person has to do is continue to claim to really really really identify (promise!) as the opposite sex. It is an unverifiable notion, so there is no way to really disprove someone's trans status, unless potentially you catch them on video saying they're only taking on trans status as a sick joke.

Additionally, with a GRC the law has to treat you as though you were actually born in the opposite sex, by default. Because undergoing the process allows people to create a legal fiction, complete with an altered birth certificate (the original goes somewhere super secret, not to be accessed by the public). It does bolster someone's legal claim to same-sex spaces, particularly in the case of prisons.

How do you come under the characters it of 'gender reassignment' then? What things do you need to have undertaken

As MsBeaujangles says, "protected characteristic of gender reassignment relates to those who are considering reassignment through to those that have transitioned". It is not clear exactly who is covered. But it excludes part timers, cross dressers, drag queens, bi-gender, non-binary people etc.

Doesn't the cubicle thing show that it's not about the safety/privacy of transwomen as is often argued (surely it's either proportionate for both the men's and women's or for neither) but about validation

The legal position is that you can't discriminate against trans people. There are probably many underlying policy and legal reasons for this. But an exception is allowed in particularly sensitive areas. If women would be naked or if they might see a transwomen's penis, the likelihood of the exception applying is increased. Hence where there are cubicles these issues disappear.

Seeing as all single sex provision has to meet the proportionate means to meet a legitimate aim, I think everyone providing single sex facilities/provision should be forced to declare what the aim is. Then everyone can see whether they think it is legitimate or not.

I am curious as to what the legitimate aim of single gender services could be.

I am curious as to what the legitimate aim of single gender services could be

It varies. For toilets and changing rooms it is likely to be privacy and dignity. For rape counselling it is likely to be whether men using the service would discourage women from access it. etc.

I had a horrendous experience in a "gender neutral" toilet, where a group of men, including at least one transwoman, had removed the sanitary bins from the cubicles, and were standing in a line by the inks with the bins hidden behind them.

Anyone who wanted to put a used sanitary towel or tampon in the bins had to approach them, and they only let you past if you showed them what was in your hand.

This was at a university open day. The university staff said there was nothing they could do about it.

This resulted in one prospective student changing her mind about applying to go to university

Hence where there are cubicles these issues disappear

No they do not. What would you say to a Muslim woman adjusting hijab in front of the mirror in the communal area?

Citizens Advice stuff on this has been heavily based on material and guidance from trans lobby orgs actively campaigning against women's rights. Worryingly the EHRC advice and practice also gets the law wrong in TRAs favour and orgs campaigning against women's rights wrote government guidance that negatively affects them too.

No wonder it is all a bit of a muddle.

It varies. For toilets and changing rooms it is likely to be privacy and dignity

Not safety? How can privacy and dignity be maintained in unisex facilities?

How for example is a Mum with a baby in a pram to safely and privately have a piss?

But it excludes part timers

So Pips Bunce (winner of 'Women in Business' awards) would be excluded then? I wonder what toilets Pips uses at work on their 'Pippa' days?

www.fnlondon.com/articles/mistranslated-i-split-my-time-as-pippa-and-philip-20171002

The cubicles argument is unjustified.

I have to use a cubicle with the door open, due to having a baby and toddler. Whether that’s to poo, pee or change my tampon. Although it’s uncomfortable and embarrassing to do, other women will understand as plenty have been in the same position. I will not be doing it if men are given the legal right to use our facilities because they ‘feel’ like it.

@bowlofbanelfish xpost

That's horrible Clairetree1.
The university's acceptance is equally vile.

I note that Ann and the other women clearly couldn't challenge the aggressive males in the toilets. A bit like the poor woman in Paris.
Aggressive, large males in our spaces leave us vulnerable on so many levels. My 16 year old niece has SN and wouldn't know what was going on.

No wonder it is all a bit of a muddle.

Yep. And Citizen's Advice goes against what our friend is saying on part-timers....

I am curious as to what the legitimate aim of single gender services could be

It varies. For toilets and changing rooms it is likely to be privacy and dignity. For rape counselling it is likely to be whether men using the service would discourage women from access it. etc

I can understand how privacy and dignity are afforded when provision is segregated according to sex/sexed bodies. People with vaginas are not exposed to people with penises when undressing/ in a vulnerable state. What privacy and dignity is afforded when segregation is based on gender?

Cubicles do not guarantee safety. Quite the opposite if an ill intentioned male person follows a female in there and locks the door.
Cubicles, in my opinion, are a complete red herring.
A young family member works in a refugee camp. The women were asked what would be the thing they most desperately needed.
The unanimous request was for segregated toilet and showering facilities for women and children. So the volunteers got on and built them.
Common sense.