Telegraph article on women's loos

[Polynerd]

Apols if this has already been posted. Written by political editor so presumably has come from on high.

"Civil servants in the Department for Communities and Local Government have now been asked to write to the British Standards Committee to ask whether technical guidance on building regulations needs to be clarified to make it explicit that women must have access to female-only facilities.

A Government source said: "It is clear that there needs to be a public service provision for everyone in our community and all people should be treated with dignity and respect.

"The Government is committed to maintaining safeguards that protect women.

"Proper provision of separate toilets for both men and for women, which has long been a regulatory requirement, should be retained and improved."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/28/win-against-wokeness-women-have-right-female-only-lavatories/

"Tories are going to use this hurt the Labour Party, the BBC, the Civil Service etc."

And all of the above could easily avoid that by pulling their heads out of their misogynistic arses and committing to preserving existing safeguards for women.

Maybe they all need a real scare to get themselves in order.

"Tories are going to use this hurt the Labour Party, the BBC, the Civil Service etc."

I don't see how this hurts the CS or BBC, and the Labour and Lib Dem's have self-inflicted their wounds.

The debate in the Lords that initiated this was started by a conservative peer Lord Lucas (there's another thread titled something like 'Hurrah! Lords debate' which has a link to the Hansard report ) but it had some good contributions from some cross-benchers eg Tanni Grey-Thompson.

I don't see how this hurts the CS or BBC, and the Labour and Lib Dem's have self-inflicted their wounds.

They allowed themselves to be captured, and to not do the job they are meant to in terms of maintaining thoughtful response to lobbyists or the desire for change. A lot of people have become cynical about the ability and neutrality of these groups.

^The Government is committed to maintaining safeguards that protect women. Proper provision of separate toilets for both men and for women, which has long been a regulatory requirement, should be retained and improved.”Earlier this week, Lord Lucas, a Conservative hereditary peer, said of the trend for gender-neutral lavatories: “Women do not want to wash bloody underwear in front of men. What is the justification for making women feel unsafe where now they feel safe?”
Welcoming the rethink this weekend, the peer told The Daily Telegraph: “I am delighted that the Government is to make sure that public buildings provide properly safe spaces for women.
“I hope that they will also make sure that there are enough such spaces to meet demand – or at least to provide for women’s needs equally with men’s^

This is a great article. It quotes Lord Lucas who gives a robust defence of women's rights to privacy. It's good to see the government finally resisting the insidious advance of this niche agenda.

I hope the NHS and schools are included in any tightened regulations.

Until the definition of female is reclaimed as a biological woman or girl then I don't see cause for celebration.
The TRAs have effectively walked us down the road of de facto self-id. And therein lies the problem, we can't tell on the surface whether we are sharing a space with someone who has undertaken reassignment surgery or an AGP who fancies intimidating women and forcing us to take part in their sexual fetish. The GRA has created legal fictions that leave us unable to challenge men in our spaces. In my view it needs to be repealed and we should be working towards this.
And unless the corporations and institutions are willing to lose their stonewall approval I can't see what difference this makes.

TheWordWoman

I agree - we need to check the small print - but my reading of this makes me hopeful it implies females - dictionary definition

The implications are of most interest. No it is not explicit. But in reminding public authorities of their obligations, I suspect this “letter” will also tell them what they do not have to do.

The issue of self ID has not gone away. But importantly, in reminding public authorities of what they have to do, the relevant people who are in public life who have been making changes without legal backing and in the basis of briefings from charities with little actual evidence are going to have some attention on what they are doing.

A lot of people who have been uncritically just going along with self ID in the public sector will find they need some real facts and evidence.

You may never get around the AGP issue - but you might find that there will be a renewed interest in the law that applies to people who are obtaining sexual gratification in public places.

I think that is the next move. To address what risk exists, and if the law is insufficient to deal with it.

I am not one for “toilet policing” but given the current attention then I can imagine creative use of current criminal law might be considered.

Consider “upskirting”. A new form of criminal offending often done for sexual gratification. Law changed to deal with it. Things can change quickly if there is evidence of a problem.