Accessible Toilets

[WarOnWomen]

I've just seen this thread by Fair Play for Women regarding their stance on toilets. Maya F is also on the thread clarifying the issue.

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1312062467191734273?s=21

They are saying that everyone should be comfortable choosing the toilets they want to without being forced to share with opposite sex. Yup. Trans people should also not have to share with people designated at birth. Yup, also agree. Have a mix sex category for people who don't mind and trans people. Sure.

They are saying these facilities already exist. Accessible toilets. This is where I feel lost and let down. These toilets are for disabled people. People worked hard to get these accessible toilets. I don't want my mum having to share these toilets with trans women, anymore than I want them in female spaces. It's just wrong. And don't disabled people have a say as part of the EA2010?

Please tell me I have the wrong end of the stick.

JJ

About the Halifax case. It was not defended. No legal arguments were heard or considered. It does not provide any precedent of anything .

Https:a-question-of-consent.net/2020/05/29/the-case-of-sb/,,,,,,

This is what I am thinking about:

What we want to do is re-establish the principle that single sex services are based on sex

This is what the Equality Act says , but the guidance has been misleading.and doctors have told people they can use opposite sex facilities.

What is needed are clear workable, simple provisions for employers and service providers, that are in line with the Equality Act, don't require them to spend a lot of money and solves the problem for them. Otherwise there is no chance they will do it.

This is the target zone: you need a policy that works on paper, can be enforced in practice, can be communicated to all staff and customers verbally (eg on phone) and is reliable in practice (everyone knows where to go - and it's the same accross branches), and won't get them sued or lambasted in the papers .

Different buildings will have different solutions depending on their size and layout but you want the principles to be the same everywhere.

imagine this conversation "Hi I'm coming to the cinema tonight and I'm a transwoman which toilets should I use"

Staff need to know what to say - the policy needs to be written down and on the website.

If they answer "We respect your gender identity but our toilets are based on sex, you are welcome in our male toilets" , even if there is no violence or harassment the risk is the person turns up and they look like Blaire White or Paris Lees , a customer complains or a staff member might stop them. (And vice versa for a passing transman told to use the ladies) ,,,,a-question-of-consent.net/2020/05/23/the-transman-gotcha/

Or they do with the EHRC advice "you can use facilities in line with your gender identity" and allow in all-comers and give up the ability to challenge anyone. a-question-of-consent.net/2020/08/31/the-authority-that-regulates-security-in-pubs-clubs-says-who-needs-rules-when-it-comes-to-womens-privacy/

So the only workable policy that allows sensible sex based rules to be communicated and enforced is "we have male and female toilets by sex and we have a unisex to anyone"

If a business already has a unisex accessible loo, as most do, it can implement this policy simply. There are 12 m disabled people and estimated 0.5 m. trans so it could have some impact on use and they should monitor.

There is currently no law about who can use an accessible loo and businesses will already tell you this is the policy (and the EHRC does say that gender dysphoria can be considered a disablility). planners consider them multi use (as do the regulations). This would not be a change of rules.

Some larger / newer buildings could also have family, gender neutral etc... options in addition. But if the answer is businesses must build new seperate gender neutral loos accross all branches before you can implement this policy I just don't think they will do it. And I don't see govt mandating a big spend.
......
In practice the place this will play out legally is employers not service providers -- because this is where you have the equivalent of the phone call in advance - the person saying they are transitioning and the business having to have a very explicit policy , and the high risk of being sued.

I think the chance of an employer taking a GC hard line "you must continue to use the gents" particularly if it already had unisex accessible facilities is zero.

So pragmatically what would you tell this employer to do when they face this issue tomorrow ?

There is no logging of offences against trans people. Hate crimes are logged, but this is only when there is a specifically transphobic element. In most cases they would be unlikely to include sexual assaults unless that assault was perceived to be motivated by transphobia. There are two sets of crime statistics published, one based on police reports and the Crime Survey of England and Wales which is a large scale survey. In both sets of statistics crimes would simply be recorded against the sex people identified as.

In which case all the claims about "violence" against "transwomen" are based on nothing if such events are not recorded as such.

So pragmatically what would you tell this employer to do when they face this issue tomorrow ?

An employer {as opposed to somebody who is providing a toilet to the general public) should know how much use the accessible toilet gets and whether it’s reasonable to increase use by one person.

That is not the same as telling people that the accessible toilet is for everyone based on their subjective assessment of convenience rather than need. As described on this thread (and on many, many threads on MN) people are not good at making this judgement.

As I have said before I am relaxed about unisex provision, but understand why others need it. However I am more concerned about people (particularly women) who can’t leave the house without planning accessible toilet use.

I think concentrating on what the law will allow rather than what people with disabilities need will cause FPFW to lose support on MN.

@jj1968
I don't believe trans inclusion in toilets makes women less safe.

How many women here have said to you that women do feel less safe sharing such public facilities with men; that they are very scared; that women feel violated when men use such spaces?

Every time that a man violates that boundary set down by and for women he should know that he is terrorising women who have never consented to him being there. For years women have been terrorised by these men who have imposed themselves on us in our private spaces. Women have said No ever since and are still saying No. The difference now is that at last women saying No is being heard.

In February there was a debate in the House of Lords about this wherein it was proposed that if any public facilities were to be designated as mixed sex it should be the men's facilities, if creation of a third space is not a viable option. We will continue to campaign for this.

It's not realistic though is it.

Believing you can change sex is what is unrealistic.

Expecting everyone else to believe it too is what is unrealistic.

Most of us don't commit murder, not cos it's against the law, but cos we are decent people. Decency seems a tad unfashionable these days.

Cloudvanilla replied:

No. Agreed. That's why able transwomen and men should continue to use the toilets that match their gender identity.

Why do you centre the tw here and not the actual women?

If transwomen know that women are uncomfortable having them in their toilets (and they do; the controversy is very well known), is it "decency" that they continue to use them?

Why don't they just be kind and not use them, out of simple decency?

As a woman, socialised to be kind and understanding to others, I would never impose on anyone by going to an area where others were uncomfortable with my presence.
Say, a group of lesbians discussing their own issues, who might not want a straight woman among them. Or a group of teenage girls not wanting an "oldie". However much I was interested in their discussions (say for research purposes; I'm a writer) I would respect their exclusion of me, and find another way.

That's actually typical "feminine" behaviour: to step aside for others, to care for their feelings. Whereas barging your way into a place where you are not wanted is typical male socialised behaviour.

It seems that by the very act of demanding the use of female spaces, transwomen are outing themselves as men.

In this case, women have said, clearly, NO (once they know that most transwomen have intact penises).

A threshold has been reached, and in such cases we do not want to be kind. Why do you insist on overstepping that threshold?

(Trying to put it in very basic, almost childish terms for the hard of comprehension!)

@Malahaha in answer to the first line of your question. I centre TW because it is their use of women's toilets that are up for debate, not womens'.

Also I do hear the emotive assertion here a lot that women have said NO to TW in female toilets specifically. I disagree with this sentiment; I see no evidence when looking at toilets that the majority of women feel TW shouldn't use women's toilets. It is not the universal opinion as it is on here.

In a recent Yougov poll 37% of women said no 27% said not sure and 36 % said yes

Do 64% have not positively consented to having male bodies in womens toilets .

Is that enough?

Oh dear I wrote another message and accidentally deleted it

In summary the point was:

I would imagine that trans women are not centering women when it comes to their use of women's toilets because for them it is about more than a sense of "decency" they are thinking of. Naturally I imagine TW have valid safety concerns about using mens toilets. On here it is displayed that TW are using women's toilets solely as some kind of validation technique; I would assert that the real motive is much more pragmatic.

I do not feel it is ethical for the default position to be that TW are forced to use mens toilets. And it is not the default position in law, so that I think that would suggest that it is a well understood and held opinion.

@MForstater thank you I hadn't seen that statistic before. I am more familiar with the one @jj1968 posted. Honestly, I would still consider that a pretty even split?

MForstater

Can you answer this question: did you consulted any disability groups before you came up with this proposal.

(My grammar!)

[quote CloudyVanilla]@Malahaha in answer to the first line of your question. I centre TW because it is their use of women's toilets that are up for debate, not womens'.[/quote]
Exactly. women's toilets. THEIR toilets. So centre women. Ask women first. See what they say. And abide by that decision.
The decision is NO.

" I don't think trans inclusion in toilets makes women less safe"

Where is your evidence for this. Toilets are segregated to protect female people from male people as the latter are considered to be a potential threat to the former. So where is the evidence that some male people, who identify as women are less of a potential danger than other males? If no such evidence exists then your assertion that including transwomen doesn't make women less safe is patently false.

[quote CloudyVanilla]**@MForstater* thank you I hadn't seen that statistic before. I am more familiar with the one @jj1968* posted. Honestly, I would still consider that a pretty even split?[/quote]
Most of the public assumes that a transwoman has had genital surgery, ie no penis.
When they understand that most tw are intact males, their opinion changes drastically.
You will find that the "undecided" group quickly changes to NO.

@334bu

" I don't think trans inclusion in toilets makes women less safe"

Where is your evidence for this. Toilets are segregated to protect female people from male people as the latter are considered to be a potential threat to the former. So where is the evidence that some male people, who identify as women are less of a potential danger than other males? If no such evidence exists then your assertion that including transwomen doesn't make women less safe is patently false.

There is a reason (as stated earlier in this thread, but bears repeating) why in every country in the world, even in poor so-called third world countries, women have been granted separate facilities. Why do you think this is? Do you think that men bothered to construct such facilities as a favour to women? Or did women demand it? And if the latter, why?

I don't think trans inclusion in toilets makes women less safe

Most transwomen are clearly male. I read them as men, not as a kind of woman.

For those who are arguing that transwomen should be allowed in the ladies via a social contract, you are actually arguing for any man to be allowed in the ladies.

Given that we don't have mixed-sex facilities that is a deeply unfair position to put women in.

If men don't feel safe going into men's toilets then you would think they might manage to have some empathy for how unfair it is for them to ignore women's boundaries and decide that women's loos are the space they should be in.

It is very difficult to find evidence regarding trans women and the threat to women they pose (or don't pose)

When just using basic Google, you get sources that are either by pro trans or pro GC feminism, so it's hard to be sure without bias. As in the UK at least, crimes are not recorded by gender identity.

My perspective at least though, is that violence against women is usually sexual or domestic in nature. It is well regarded that the vast majority of harm caused to women and girls is by people they know and often have a personal relationship to. As in, partners and family members.

I do sometimes feel that the idea that the majority of trans women are specifically seeking access to women's spaces in order to harm them, and not because of their own safely concerns seems misguided. But again no data. Data can never explain everything though I suppose. Its not an easy issue ethically, or it isn't at least if you go on the belief that most trans women are just trying to live authentically. And of course it's not just about the wishes of trans women. But if they objectively aren't harming women, then them feeling unsafe in mens toilets seems as valid as women saying they feel threatened by TW.

I do feel safe unisex toilets will be the way to go in future. Its not without issue though.

It is very difficult to find evidence regarding trans women and the threat to women they pose (or don't pose)

It’s really not hard to find, Cloudy. Most violent crime and almost all sexual assaults are carried out by men. TW commit crime at the same rate as non-trans men.

Stats are muddied by the fact that police and courts started recording male criminals as women, in the past few years, if the men self-ID’d as women. I’m hoping this should stop now that the government has rejected self-ID. But even with the past few years of inaccurate stats, the ratio is very clear.

The official stats are at FPFW or AWP as well as govt sites.

Transcrimeuk.com has numerous examples.

I do sometimes feel that the idea that the majority of trans women are specifically seeking access to women's spaces in order to harm them, and not because of their own safely concerns seems misguided. But again no data. Data can never explain everything though I suppose. Its not an easy issue ethically, or it isn't at least if you go on the belief that most trans women are just trying to live authentically. And of course it's not just about the wishes of trans women. But if they objectively aren't harming women, then them feeling unsafe in mens toilets seems as valid as women saying they feel threatened by TW.

I've said this before and I'll keep repeating it: it's not just about assault.

The main issue for me is privacy. I absolutely do not want some transwoman with beard and penis rocking up to my women-only changing room, where I and a group of other older women change for our aquatics class, and taking off his panties knickers to climb into his lady's swimsuit.

I guarantee that if that happened, every one of the women in that room would walk out. I don't even have to ask them. They don't fear he would assault them; they just do not give consent to get naked in the presence of a penis. Some of them are even shy of other women, hide behind towels etc.

There is nothing we could do about it. This is in Ireland and such a transwoman would have every right, under the self-Id laws here. The women would be guilty of transphobia.

I do not change with the adult males of my family, no matter how much I trust them. And they would not dream of entering a women's changing room.

Men who do this, regardless of how they "identify," send a really, really disturbing message of disregard for women and their privacy.

Excellent post from Malahaha particularly this line:

It seems that by the very act of demanding the use of female spaces, transwomen are outing themselves as men

Transwomen are members of the male sex class. Toilets are segregated by sex class, so allowing only one special group of males to use female toilets is discriminatory against the rest of the male sex. Toilets therefore have to be single sex only or totally mixed sex.

But if they objectively aren't harming women, then them feeling unsafe in mens toilets seems as valid

If men feel unsafe in men's toilets why do you think the solution is to invite them into women's toilets?

You keep faffing on about whether they pose a threat to women or not, I just haven't heard the reason why they want to use the ladies.

To take a similar example, a male gay friend of mine felt very uncomfortable using the gym changing room/showers, it never occurred to me to say "why don't you come in the ladies then?" Because the facilities were single sex, and it would have been wildly inappropriate all round.

But you seem to think if the same bloke felt uncomfortable because he thought he was a woman I should invite him in.

It makes no sense to me.