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 think we need to turn the argument to the provision of additional third unisex/ 'gender neutral' spaces, rather than fall for the old divide and conquer tactic to have us argue about single sex, mens vs womens toilets.

I would love to see how anyone could make a legal case to say that this wasn't a proportionate solution to achieving legit aims and balance competing needs. Public provision could be challenged under the Public Sector Equality Duty as public bodies are required to justify their decisions not just act arbitrarily.

Because IMO you cannot make a successful reasonable cogent argument by claiming transwomen's feeling are more important than women's, or that tranwomen deserve validation, or that they are more at risk of violence or find anything else that will trump women's needs for single sex provision.

If so many woke kind people are so happy to have gender neutral toilets and it is of no concern or risk to anyone except biogots, there will be a steady stream of people using them, men and women, trans and not trans, so no one will be singled out or outed. Problem solved.

The only argument against would be about cost and available space in some circumstances. But then individual cublicles (regularly cleaned) would likely be the way to go there.

And no self ID.

If so many woke kind people are so happy to have gender neutral toilets and it is of no concern or risk to anyone except biogots, there will be a steady stream of people using them, men and women, trans and not trans, so no one will be singled out or outed. Problem solved.

Precisely. They can have T shirts printed to show their solidarity. "I P with T"

"I P with T"

Love that Erish!!!

And of course being forced to choose between only mens and womens is cruel to non-binaries, so third neutral spaces ticks their special boxes too.

Exactly. So inclusive. What's not to like?

thanks for the link re uni toilets

I might have to write to my MP again!!

Technically the law says that the gender reassigned may use whichever sex segregated facility they choose, with certain exceptions. That is how they provided for the genderfluid who identify as a different gender on different days. Now you may think this has created a special class of people whose rights trump everyone else's and given the dominance displays some people are putting on you would be right to think so.

Can someone help me understand what clairetree witnessed because I’m flummoxed.

Other than it being a bizarre display of power and humiliation, what drove this group of men to remove the sanitary bins from the cubicles, and then police their use? How come they all had the free time to hang out in the bogs and ask women to show them their used sanitary pads and tampons?

Haworthia

I'm also bewildered.

And of course, as a previous poster has suggested, women will just flush it down the loo.

A nonsensical, nonstarter.

But what the fuck, men asking to see evidence...??!

That has to be wrong.

Appalling....................but hey maybe they will come across a woman who has to wear TENA Lady one day. And like i said on the other thread i would rub it in their bloody faces if they did that to me.

wants to change their gender, whether they go through with the medical treatment or not . This line from Citizens Advice is potty. “Gender” is a manner of presentation, so what is “the” medical treatment needed to change it? There is none, let alone one treatment, as this wording suggests. But if “gender” is interpreted as biological sex, then it can’t be changed by any medical treatment yet known to humankind. It is written in the dna in every cell in one’s body.
This type of fluffy thinking was adopted purely to be polite and kind to what was perceived as a small, unhappy and pitiable group of people who deserved compassion and generosity. Really, if they wanted this muddle headed courtesy to continue, they shouldn’t have got so aggressive and tried to force their way in to women’s private spaces in such an abusive, frightening and entitled manner.

Technically the law says that the gender reassigned may use whichever sex segregated facility they choose, with certain exceptions. That is how they provided for the genderfluid who identify as a different gender on different days. Now you may think this has created a special class of people whose rights trump everyone else's and given the dominance displays some people are putting on you would be right to think so.

I don't think this is quite accurate thebewilderness or at least the government doesn't think it is so (from the Independent 24th June) when the Gov statement said
"The same can be said about toilets, changing rooms or single-sex activities. Providers may exclude trans people from facilities of the sex they identify with, providing it is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.”

So we can have and keep single sex provision, even for those with a GRC if exercised in a proportional way.

Proportionate in equality law typcially is described as 'no more than is necessary to achieve a legitmate aim'.

So by my understanding, declaring women's toilets to be single sex female toilets and not allowing transwomen even with a GRC into them is allowable discriminaton against transwomen with a GRC for reasons of women's safety and dignity etc because there is no other means to provide this level of safety and dignity for women other than by sex segregation (imperfect as it may be), and it is not more than is needed because it does not ban transwomen from using the building for example, because they can use the men's toilets even if they don't want to.

But is arguably even more allowable, and kind and reasonable, and could not be decribed as creating a constructive/ functional if unintended banishment, if additional third neutral spaces are provided for trans and NB people because that mitigates the effect on transwomen of not being allowed into the women's and does not force them to choose between overtly male spaces or finding toilets elsewhere. It really is not necessary to force such a choice when a third space can be created.

But also by my thinking, if policies cause discrimination against women, esp disabled and women from certain religions, by allowing male bodied people into female spaces, then public bodies must be able to storngly argue that this policy is no more than is necessary to achieve the aim of achieving their legit aim of providing facilities for trans people, and show that they are balancing the needs of competing groups.

But I cannot see how this can be argued when the provision of third spaces meets this need, whilst mitigating the effects of discrimination on women and transwomen (and transmen) and also provides for NBs, and foster good relations between the group instead of promoting fighting, hostility and suspicion as they are now.

Any flaws here?!?!!?

Cost maybe? Are public bodies against this third space option mainly because of cost? And so women are forced to put up and shut up? And especially because we are less litigious?

I am sad for transsexual women that the honour system has been lost for them, but I think it was inevitable that other groups would come along and piss all over our trust and boundaries.