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.

I remember this anecdote from Eddie Izzard about him using the ladies toilets to take off his dress and makeup and get back into 'boy mode'. He was confronted by some young teenage girls, who he then shouted at before they ran off screaming. Totally framed as him being beautiful and brave and standing up to those awful young girls.............. Apparently he 'wasn't expecting' there to be girls in the girls toilets.

www.vulture.com/2017/06/eddie-izzard-memoir-believe-me.html

The one time I’ve used a gender neutral toilet was in a quiet provincial art gallery. I walked in and there was one other person in there, a man. I was acutely aware of the fact that he could very easily have dragged me into a cubicle. It didn’t feel safe at all.

It is ridiculous to demand that a woman predicate her degree of embarrassment and anxiety on the man's subjective expressed view of his internal self at the time - if he says he's a man, she can get upset as she wants and demand he leaves, if he says he's a woman then shame on her for feeling that way.

The subjective experience for the woman is identical however the man identifies.

It's like that ridiculous quote about 'why won't lesbians accept that my female penis will feel completely different inside them than a man's penis would, and accept me as a lesbian sexual partner!'.

The 'it's been happening since 2010, it's already law so get over it'/ The GRA revision will change nothing it's just a paperwork exercise, nothing to see nothing to see, shut up, stop looking, move along' is just another version of no debate. An attempt to shut women up and avoid them getting into public view where the general public will realise the full picture, go 'what the actual fuck?' and the political establishment will panic.

It is ridiculous to demand that a woman predicate her degree of embarrassment and anxiety on the man's subjective expressed view of his internal self at the time - if he says he's a man, she can get upset as she wants and demand he leaves, if he says he's a woman then shame on her for feeling that way.

Yes! This sums up so much of this whole thing!

It is ridiculous to demand that a woman predicate her degree of embarrassment and anxiety on the man's subjective expressed view of his internal self at the time

I'd call it patriarchy. Or male supremacy.

All this guff about nothing has changed since 2010 is just that. Everything has changed in that 8 year period.

When the law was created it was for gender reassignment which at the time was understood as being for transsexual people who for the most part intended to transition fully and in relatively tiny numbers (around 5000 I believe).

Back in 2010 based on the number of people transitioning vs general population the chance of encountering someone who reads as the opposite sex in public facilities was very low.

Since Stonewall expanded their trans umbrella to encompass pretty much any man that has as much as looked at nail polish the lines are well and truly blurred. So it's useless looking at the current debate from a historical perspective.

The current thinking that is pervasive from all the orgs and many in government positions is basically you are what you say you are. This is why it's an issue.

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.

I'm just back from the gym - I've been using gyms for more than 20 years now and all have had the same type of layout in the women's changing room: a large central area with benches and a few cubicles. You can use a cubicle to dress/undress, but to access the showers you must, of course, walk naked or wrapped in your towel through the communal area.

Of course, to get into a cubicle, toilet or shower you must always enter the communal area, in which any person could be naked. If they were (in future, post self-id) a predatory man taking advantage of the fact that no man, however he looks, can be challenged in the women's spaces, he might be sitting indulging his fetish or perversion and you've no choice but to see it.

I mention this for all the 'just use a cubicle' people.

It's interesting that Amnesty International thinks that single-sex facilities are important for women and girls:

Women also reported having to use the same bathroom and shower facilities as men. One woman told Amnesty that in a reception centre in Germany some refugee men would watch women as they went to the bathroom. Some women took extreme measures such as not eating or drinking to avoid having to go to the toilet where they felt unsafe.
Tirana Hassan added:
“If this humanitarian crisis was unfolding anywhere else in the world we would expect immediate practical steps to be taken to protect groups most at risk of abuse, such as women travelling alone and female-headed families.
“At a minimum, this would include setting up single sex, well-lit toilet facilities and separate safe sleeping areas. These women and their children have fled some of the world’s most dangerous areas and it is shameful that they are still at risk on European soil.

www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/women-refugees-face-assault-exploitation-and-sexual-harassment-journeying-through

If they were (in future, post self-id) a predatory man taking advantage of the fact that no man, however he looks, can be challenged in the women's spaces, he might be sitting indulging his fetish or perversion and you've no choice but to see it.

What makes you think that no man can be challenged post self id? Men in women spaces today can and should be challenged. Post the GRA nothing changes.

BTW the best way to have men in the women's toilet is to require that everyone has to use facilities in accordance with their gender assigned at birth. This would put trans men in the women's toilet. And it would be followed as sure as night follows day by men claiming they were trans men.

If alternatively the policy was biological sex, then as well as the trans men you would also have some intersex men in the women's toilet.

SarahAr
What if that man says that he 'identifies as a woman'?

As you know Sarah we couldn't require that without a DNA check. So why not keep to sex as it's always been, and the vanishingly rare trans people who pass as the opposite sex will be able obviously to use the opposite sex loo without anyone realising. The others won't.

Because many of us care about trans people more than you care about women, I would suggest a third solo accessible cubicle for the use of trans people and disabled people alike. In addition to the disabled only one.

the best way to have men in the women's toilet is to require that everyone has to use facilities in accordance with their gender assigned at birth. This would put trans men in the women's toilet. And it would be followed as sure as night follows day by men claiming they were trans men.

If alternatively the policy was biological sex, then as well as the trans men you would also have some intersex men in the women's toilet

I think it is unacceptable to require people to use single sex loos. This would be distressing for people with gender dysphoria - be they males or females. This is a separate issue to that of who should access single sex loos. Clearly, only those of the sex they are designated for should be entitled to use them.

All females should be able to use female loos, no matter how they identify. Someone pretending to be female, who isn't female, to access provision they know is not for them should be held to account for doing so.

There will always be people who abuse laws. This doesn't mean we shouldn't have well thought out and well considered laws.

Men in women spaces today can and should be challenged

Ok let's take Jess Bradley for instance. Jess Bradley is obviously male. Sometimes doesn't really wear feminine clothing from what I've seen. Should women all challenge Jess?

Of course, to get into a cubicle, toilet or shower you must always enter the communal area, in which any person could be naked. If they were (in future, post self-id) a predatory man taking advantage of the fact that no man, however he looks, can be challenged in the women's spaces, he might be sitting indulging his fetish or perversion and you've no choice but to see it.

Indeed.

Fuck me that's appalling Clairetree.

Challenging men tends to go really well for women, doesn’t it?. Look at how that woman in Paris got punched in the face for challenging a man. Lots of other women saying that similar has happened to them.

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"

As you say, she speculates. "Proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" is a subjective test subject to changing public perception. Women don't want obvious males in the women's toilets. They will object.

I read the Citizens Advice stuff as meaning that if the rugby club goes out every Saturday evening and there is a tradition that one of the players wears a dress for the evening then they are not regarding as having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (even if the same player repeatedly ends up wearing the dress because he has butter fingers and keeps fumbling the passes)

Sure, I think that's what they're saying. However, if that player says his name is "Nancy" and he "identifies as a woman" on Saturdays, insisting that he be referred to by "she/her" pronouns and use the ladies' facilities - how can one challenge this gender identity? What are the women in the pub going to say when "Nancy" walks into the female restroom? If "Nancy" insists "she" is a woman, then I do believe "she" could technically be covered, as these people are currently interpreting "gender reassignment". Trans ideology completely accepts gender fluidity, and mind-reading isn't a thing, so we would have no idea as to "Nancy's"motives. How would "Nancy" be different from Pips Bunce? Or Travis Alabanza?
Currently, I feel there is some hope for us to reassert the importance of biological sex and argue the importance of single-sex spaces. That we at least have some way to challenge people who don't really belong in a female space. But if the GRA is revised to become self-ID, what happens to the ability to question "Nancy" if she changes "her" legal status?

Yes I agree with you, heresy.

TRAs want protection for genderfluid and non binary people which is not currently specifically codified into law. This was recommended by the Miller Inquiry who wanted to change the EA protected characteristic to "gender identity" and specifically mention genderfluid, non binary etc which was rejected by the government. The fudge that they said to placate them that these people were already de facto covered by the EA under "perception".

It's on shaky ground though. I can see why activists want it codified into law either in the GRA or EA.

everyone has to use facilities in accordance with their gender assigned at birth.

This makes no sense.

Nobody is assigned a sex at birth, never mind a gender.
Intersex people are not assigned a sex at birth either - they have a sex observed like everyone else. If their sex isn’t certain from a quick visual inspection they are physically and genetically examined. You don’t just whack an ‘oh not sure’ on a birth certificate 🤦🏻‍♀️

Do you mean people should use the toilets associated with their biological sex?

And an answer to how Muslim women, orthodox Jewish women, Romany women and women of no particular religion who want to have a piss with a baby in a pram and the cube door open would be lovely.