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.

but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say trans rights has the potential to threaten it, no trans woman is ever going to get maternity pay after all bar a leap in technology and it's entirely correct that trans men should qualify I'd have hoped.

Again, the point has gone over your head. The issue is not trans rights, but loss of the definition of sex. I’d argue that trans rights can’t exist without a clear definition of sex, but that is not what Stonewall et al are campaigning for. It shouldn’t be necessary to say ‘TWAW’ to protect trans rights.

When I say ‘sex based rights’ I’m talking in general terms about the rights that are essential to women for equality e.g. my right to work is impacted by my ability to access contraception, my ability to access toilets.

To protect women’s rights you need objective criteria to explain what ‘woman’ means. You can’t create policy and legislation without language. It’s really not clear why accepting reality should be such an issue.

I don't really see the part where they are persuading organisations that it is transphobic to talk about women in the context of sex.

The definition says it is transphobic to refer to biological sex.

You can’t talk about single sex sport if you can’t refer to biological sex.

You can’t talk about women’s rights at all if you can’t talk about biological sex.

racists could try and claim race based rights on the basis that if it is a proportionate means of a legitimate aim or an occupational requirement then in very limited circumstances it is legal to discriminate on the grounds of race.

Can you show me where in the Equality Act it says that it is legal to discriminate on the grounds of race?

The danger of framing single sex spaces as s sex based right, is that other groups could do the same.

Can you cite the parts of the Equality Act which state that this would be legal?

Can you show me where in the Equality Act it says that it is legal to discriminate on the grounds of race?

You can in limited circumstances discriminate on the basis of race. For example you could have a social club for egyptian or jews. It can also be an occupational requirement - mostly acting eg the actor playing Mulan to be asian. I think there may be something about exemptions for restaurants too

@OldCrone

racists could try and claim race based rights on the basis that if it is a proportionate means of a legitimate aim or an occupational requirement then in very limited circumstances it is legal to discriminate on the grounds of race.

Can you show me where in the Equality Act it says that it is legal to discriminate on the grounds of race?

The exemptions based on a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aims applies to every characteristic, as does the occupational requirement. It would be legal to refuse to give a white actor the role of Malcolm X in a play for example, for example. Equally (in very limited circumstances) it may be legal to discriminate on grounds of race - a VAWG project could legally exclusively target their services at a marginalised ethnic group if they could show this was a group that rarely accessed support, and may also specify that they employ a worker who needs to be of that group.

How is the right to single sex spaces not a sex based right?

The danger of framing single sex spaces as s sex based right, is that other groups could do the same.

You can argue the toss about when single sex spaces are necessary, but the need to clearly define sex in legislation goes beyond provision of single sex spaces.

The exemptions based on a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aims applies to every characteristic, as does the occupational requirement. It would be legal to refuse to give a white actor the role of Malcolm X in a play for example, for example. Equally (in very limited circumstances) it may be legal to discriminate on grounds of race - a VAWG project could legally exclusively target their services at a marginalised ethnic group if they could show this was a group that rarely accessed support, and may also specify that they employ a worker who needs to be of that group.

So this is already legal. Nothing to do with "The danger of framing single sex spaces as s sex based right, is that other groups could do the same." They already can.

It’s also not how the law works. You can’t argue for special car parking spaces on the basis of sexual orientation just because the law allows blue badge parking.

@OldCrone I have never heard anyone refer to these exemptions as race based rights firstly I think because they are not really what is usually legally thought of as a right but also because it creates a dangeous shift in emphasis away from equality towards exclusion which is the exact opposite of the intent of the act.

Also whilst the occupational requirement exemption is quite broadly used in care work, the proportionate and legitimate exemption is used very sparingly as it is understood the courts will not perit anything else. Saving money for example is not a legitimate aim. So to get right back on topic, I think a women's discomfort at a trans women using a toilet cubicle next to her would probably not meet the threshold, not least because a man could also claim discomfort at the presence of a trans woman leaving trans people effectively barred from public toilets which is hardly proportionate.

God is this still going on. The Duracell bunny has nothing on jj.
Transwomen are male so men can't discriminate against them on the basis of sex because men and transwomen are the same sex, so feeling uncomfortable is irrelevant.
Women however are not the same sex and if they feel the need for their safety ,privacy and dignity to exclude male people that includes transwomen because they are male.

Race is cosmetic and a social construct.

Sex has material unavoidable consequences and always will.

By conflating the two you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of the issue.

The only point of comparison is that racist and sexist stereotypes are both harmful. Unfortunately sexist stereotypes are actively promoted by people who claim to be progressive.

I think a women's discomfort at a trans women using a toilet cubicle next to her would probably not meet the threshold

Again, if you can’t explain where you draw the line between a trans woman and a man, it’s impossible to make that argument.

@merrymouse

It’s also not how the law works. You can’t argue for special car parking spaces on the basis of sexual orientation just because the law allows blue badge parking.

Could you please explain this further if you have time?

I see sentiment a lot on here. But as rights pertaining to single sex spaces exist, and trans people are allowed to access those through the separate protected characteristic of being trans and being allowed to choose their single sex space based on gender identity, where does the change in definition woman come into it?

They are treated as separate things in law, unless someone has a GRC and as far as I'm aware the vast majority of trans people don't obtain those as in most areas of life (like employment for example), simply identifying as trans is enough.

So is erasing definition of woman idea based solely on GRC holders or am I missing something?

Sorry I've misquoted, I was addressing this one:

You can argue the toss about when single sex spaces are necessary, but the need to clearly define sex in legislation goes beyond provision of single sex spaces.

Gender identity is not a protected characteristic

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics

Transwomen are male so men can't discriminate against them on the basis of sex because men and transwomen are the same sex, so feeling uncomfortable is irrelevant.

A man could discriminate on the grounds of gender reassigment, and given that men are required to partially expose their genitals in a public toilet then he may have a stronger case than a woman in an enclosed cubicle would. It's the Equality Act, not the Gender Critical Act and I think you might be making a mistake if you assume the judiciary would agree that a trans woman is a man or that a man's discomfort is less important than a woman's.

@merrymouse

I think a women's discomfort at a trans women using a toilet cubicle next to her would probably not meet the threshold

Again, if you can’t explain where you draw the line between a trans woman and a man, it’s impossible to make that argument.

It's clearly not impossible to make that argument in the courts which is what we're discussing because every trans discrimination case has been able to. The law provides a definition of what gender reassignment means for the purpose of the act.

Gender identity is not a protected characteristic.

The equality act is not about treating people the same, it is about allowing equality of opportunity.

But as rights pertaining to single sex spaces exist, and trans people are allowed to access those through the separate protected characteristic of being trans and being allowed to choose their single sex space based on gender identity, where does the change in definition woman come into it?

There is no pc of 'being trans'. There is a pc of 'gender reassignment'. This means that someone with that pc can't be discriminated against compared to someone else of their legally recognised sex. For someone without a GRC this is their birth sex. They are not entitled to 'choose their single sex space based on gender identity'. 'Gender identity' (like 'being trans') is not recognised in law.

Women are female. Transwomen are male. Use these definitions and you should start to understand.

@jj1968
What is your definition of a man ?

What makes somebody a man ?

Ignoring legality in any particular country
imagine you are explaining it to an alien
What is a Man ?

I don't think woman (or man) has ever been clearly defined in law, and if it was it would still be fraught with problems, which toilet would you make Castor Semenya use for example?

I think you might be making a mistake if you assume the judiciary would agree that a trans woman is a man or that a man's discomfort is less important than a woman's.

Men need single sex spaces for privacy and dignity. Women need single sex spaces for privacy, dignity and safety.

Women are at more risk from male violence than men are from female violence. You should know that since TRAs are always going on about how much at risk transwomen are from violent men which is why they demand access to women's spaces.

I would just like to take a moment out to thank jj and cloudy for giving us the opportunity to explain these concepts to lurkers who might also have been taken in by stonewall law. So many people like cloudy have been trained in a misrepresentation of the equality act that it is so important to be able to restate the actual law here.