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.

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

I do agree with this, and I think the courts would too, but I think they'd want to see some evidence that trans women using women's toilets has placed women at risk and let's face it, there isn't any.

jj
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 did not ask for in law
I asked for a version that would make sense to an alien.

A male cat / a female cat
a male flower / a female flower
a male human / a female human

is it that tricky ?

I don't think woman (or man) has ever been clearly defined in law

From the Equality Act:
“woman” means a female of any age

If you don't know what 'female' means, you can look it up in a dictionary.

@jj1968

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

I do agree with this, and I think the courts would too, but I think they'd want to see some evidence that trans women using women's toilets has placed women at risk and let's face it, there isn't any.

Katie Dolatowski?

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

The enforcement of ‘TWAW’ and gender ideology in policy and the concept of self ID make it impossible to define women in legislation.

Self ID is completely irrelevant to any protected characteristic. People experience direct discrimination because of how they are perceived and indirect discrimination because they possess particular qualities, regardless of their identity.

There is no definitive case law regarding toilets. People interpret the law differently which is why guidance has been requested.

Intersex people have asked consistently & persistently not to be weaponised in trans issues as they are in fact not trans or some kind of strange third sex

And yet still.....

" I do agree with this, and I think the courts would too, but I think they'd want to see some evidence that trans women using women's toilets has placed women at risk and let's face it, there isn't any"

Not this again!! Where is the evidence that males who are trans are less dangerous than any other males? That's right there is none because males who are trans are just as likely to be a threat to women as other males .
Transwomen are males. Males statistically pose a danger to women, ergo so do transwomen because they are male.

I don't think woman (or man) has ever been clearly defined in law

We know exactly which people weren’t allowed to vote before 1928, and it had nothing to do with their gender identity.

@OldCrone

Katie Dolatowski?

Well quite, one incident in a country of 35 million women. And do you really think Dolatowski wouldn't have followed that kid into the toilet if trans women were banned from women's toilets?

Don't forget the exemption has to be proportionate. Forcing 50,000 trans women into the men's on the basis of one crime which single sex enforcement would probably not have prevented anyway is unlikely to be persuasive. And I'm fairly sure that if the courts did agree that safety is a factor when it comes to women's toilets then this would equally apply to trans women were they expected to use the mens.

That's right ignore the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that transwomen are less dangerous than any other males. Most malesdon't assault women but some do and that's why we exclude all types of male human from female only spaces. That includes male transwomen.!

@merrymouse

I don't think woman (or man) has ever been clearly defined in law

We know exactly which people weren’t allowed to vote before 1928, and it had nothing to do with their gender identity.

I'm not sure the law explicitly defined woman though, or female even then. It was to all intents and purposes pretty much illegal to be a visible trans woman back then, so I very much doubt it ever came up.

Even if it weren't the case that the internet is awash with examples of sexual assaults carried out by people identifying as TWs (which it is) it would still be fucking depressing that the bar is So. Fucking. Low

'Don't want TW in women's toilets?' 'C'mon bigot! You probably won't get raped or murdered!'

I don't want TW in my toilets or changing spaces. I don't want them observing me in those places - in the same way I don't want any men doing that - and I sure as hell don't want to see their male bodies either. And all the women I know feel absolutely the same way. And that SHOULD. BE. ENOUGH.

What an individual might want and what the law permits are often very different things.

I'm not sure the law explicitly defined woman though, or female even then. It was to all intents and purposes pretty much illegal to be a visible trans woman back then, so I very much doubt it ever came up.

Depends what you mean by trans and illegal.

However perhaps being able to vote was some consolation.

@merrymouse

I'm not sure the law explicitly defined woman though, or female even then. It was to all intents and purposes pretty much illegal to be a visible trans woman back then, so I very much doubt it ever came up.

Depends what you mean by trans and illegal.

However perhaps being able to vote was some consolation.

Depends what you mean by trans and illegal.

"Thomas Ernest Boulton and Frederick William Park were two Victorian cross-dressers. In 1870, while in drag, they were arrested after leaving a London theatre. They were charged with conspiracy to commit sodomy, a crime that carried a maximum prison sentence of life with hard labour. Their case came to court the following year when they were acquitted after the prosecution failed to establish that they had anal sex. The pair admitted to appearing in public dressed as women, which was "an offence against public morals and common decency". They were bound over for two years."

I meant illegal. But yes I'm sure they enjoyed their voting privilege whilst they had life imprisonment hanging over their heads simply for existing in public.

I meant illegal. But yes I'm sure they enjoyed their voting privilege whilst they had life imprisonment hanging over their heads simply for existing in public.

They are described as cross dressers which is not the same as being transgender in 2020. Their prosecution is also related to the fact that they were suspected of sodomy. We can agree that they shouldn't have faced prosecution for either consensual sex or wearing clothes.

To return to the point that you were making about sex, they were prosecuted because they were both male, regardless of how they identified. It's unlikely that anyone would have cared about heterosexual sex, consensual or otherwise.

@jj1968

What an individual might want and what the law permits are often very different things.

It's not 'an individual'. And I'm not talking about the law. I am talking about TW showing a bit of empathy and understanding, and listening to women's concerns rather than barging in where they are fully aware most women don't want them. Just like all decent males I know do.

But that is clearly asking for the moon on a stick because 'be kind' only ever works one way as we all know. And now you raise an eyebrow and say 'most women?' and I say 'yes here's the survey' and you say 'carried out by bigots' and blah blah blah.

But decent people don't make others feel uncomfortable and afraid. They think about their effect on others. And decent males are acutely aware of their potential chilling effect on females and do everything they can to mitigate that. Which can only lead to one conclusion about TRAs...

@OldCrone

I don't think woman (or man) has ever been clearly defined in law

From the Equality Act:
“woman” means a female of any age

If you don't know what 'female' means, you can look it up in a dictionary.

That definition has to be read in conjunction with the GRA.

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)

@merrymouse

I meant illegal. But yes I'm sure they enjoyed their voting privilege whilst they had life imprisonment hanging over their heads simply for existing in public.

They are described as cross dressers which is not the same as being transgender in 2020. Their prosecution is also related to the fact that they were suspected of sodomy. We can agree that they shouldn't have faced prosecution for either consensual sex or wearing clothes.

To return to the point that you were making about sex, they were prosecuted because they were both male, regardless of how they identified. It's unlikely that anyone would have cared about heterosexual sex, consensual or otherwise.

Oh really, you think a trans woman attracted to women would read about that case and feel safe going to the theatre with or without her female partner. You may wish to sweep the oppression of trans people under the carpet and pretend it never happened. I'm sure it makes your insistence that people musn't be kind all the easier. But just like women remain vigilant because they know what men will do if given the chance then trans people also know what non trans and straight people would do to us. Because you fucking did it for centuries.

You're really using a case in 1870 to prove that cross dressers don't feel safe in men's toilets in 2020? There were very few toilets at all for women so even if Tom and Fred had fancied using them, they didn't exist.

Haven't read the whole thread as its late and its long. But I'm very disappointed see this. Accessible toilets are fir those who need them because they can't use regular toilets. Not because its unpleasant. Not because it means admitting reality but because they cant

I wish we could stop talking about this so called danger. According to channel 4 fact check trans people in the UK are the safest demographic.

None if this is even about safety. We know this because there is no way anyone would fight for self ID when that means these dodgy men who are unsafe to pee next to in the men's loos can just self ID themselves and follow you in to the women's.

Its not our problem to solve. Men need to sort their own stuff out and accept gender non confirming males in their spaces.

There is no way to do this that means all the "genuine " and safe ones can use the womens and the fraudsters cant. So the only answer is no one born male uses the womens spaces over the age of what is usually 8/9. Let's face it any child that struggles to be able to go to the loo themselves at that age would probably surely qualify to be able to use the accessible toilets.

And before anyone blames feminists, just remember, if stonewall hadn't expanded the umbrella so as to include practically anyone and if self ID hadn't brought us the yanivs of the world, those few thousand grc holding trans people probably would have continued to use facilities relatively un noticed.

Take it up with the activists who saw the opportunity and got greedy and stuffed it up for everyone else.

"Thomas Ernest Boulton and Frederick William Park were two Victorian cross-dressers. In 1870, while in drag, they were arrested after leaving a London theatre. They were charged with conspiracy to commit sodomy, a crime that carried a maximum prison sentence of life with hard labour. Their case came to court the following year when they were acquitted after the prosecution failed to establish that they had anal sex. The pair admitted to appearing in public dressed as women, which was "an offence against public morals and common decency". They were bound over for two years."

Two men who were suspected of being homosexual at a time when homosexuality was illegal. Fortunately we are more enlightened now.

Two men who were dressed in women's clothing, when such a thing was unacceptable. Fortunately we are more enlightened now and people are free to wear what they want.

These were men who cross-dressed and who were possibly homosexual. Is there any evidence that they thought they were actually women, or wanted to be women? How is any of this relevant to what is happening today? People still can't change sex, no matter how much some of them might want to.

My university made the few disabled toilets into "accessible" toilets complete with trans signage. What happened next was that they became the favoured post prandial loos of young male able bodied students, meaning that for people who needed disabled facilities like myself there was no accessability or availability.

[quote jj1968]@OldCrone

Katie Dolatowski?

Well quite, one incident in a country of 35 million women. And do you really think Dolatowski wouldn't have followed that kid into the toilet if trans women were banned from women's toilets?

Don't forget the exemption has to be proportionate. Forcing 50,000 trans women into the men's on the basis of one crime which single sex enforcement would probably not have prevented anyway is unlikely to be persuasive. And I'm fairly sure that if the courts did agree that safety is a factor when it comes to women's toilets then this would equally apply to trans women were they expected to use the mens.[/quote]
That one incident was an example, because you said there was no evidence that trans women using women's toilets had placed women at risk. I was simply pointing out that that wasn't true, not that this was the only case.

And we not only 'force' all the transwomen into the men's on the basis of these crimes (not 'one crime' as you suggest), but we also force all the men in there as well! Most men have never committed any crime like this either. Don't you think it's unfair to force all of them into the men's when some of them might prefer to use the women's and most of them are innocent of any crimes against women?

Do you have any evidence that transwomen are at risk from using the men's?

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.

Again, you are wrong. I really don't think you understand the Equality Act at all.

Schedule 3, Part 7, Paragraph 27:

27 (1) A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—

(a) any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b) the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2) The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.

(3) The condition is that—
(a) the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b) the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.

(4) The condition is that—
(a) a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b) the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.

(5) The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a) a hospital, or
(b) another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.

(6) The condition is that—
(a) the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b) the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

So yes, a female's discomfort at the presence of a male who identifies as trans does indeed meet the threshold and no, a male's discomfort at the presence of a male who identifies as trans does not.

Especially since under Other prohibited Conduct in Part 2, Chapter 2, Paragraph 26 Harassment, the dignity of a person is separately referenced as is the right of a person not to be subjected to unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, or to be subjected to an environment that is intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive.

To decide whether the presence of a male who identifies as trans creates such an environment for a female person, the court must look only at the perception of said female person and no one else's, the circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for her to feel this way.

As the law specifically allows for the exclusion of males from spaces we expect to be female-only, a female person's discomfort therefore more than meets the threshold.

The good news for you is that because this provision covers not only sex but also gender reassignment, this is what would allow males who identify as trans to argue for alternative facilities to be provided to them under these circumstances (harassment in male toilets).

It does not however allow them to claim the right to access female-only spaces, because this provision does not have the effect of overriding the rights of female persons to single-sex facilities. The correct and equitable solution under the existing law is the provision of alternative spaces to people who identify as trans.

As they are commonly referred to as third spaces and third spaces already exist, which are known as accessible spaces, FPFW suggested the latter be used to meet this need.

Which, if you recall, is the topic of this thread, because that suggestion did not take into account that accessible spaces were created to provide an alternative solution for people with other specific needs, that is to say needs which mean they cannot access the standard facilities provided for males and females.

As you saw, FPFW were attempting to deliver an alternative solution to people who identify as trans that took their specific needs and rights into account and so did not force them to use the facilities provided for their own sex without in the process of doing so denying everyone else the right to single-sex facilities. However, FPFW did not sufficiently consider the specific needs and rights of a third protected group, those sharing the protected characteristic of disability.

That's not - as you insinuated above - because they are against disability rights like the far right, but because they had not taken the specific needs and rights (and views) of that third protected group properly into account.

FPFW have now listened to the many people who depend on accessible facilities, have apologised for their incorrect assumptions and thoughtless suggestions and have promised to consider the specific needs and rights of protected groups other than the group of people who identify as trans and the female people sex class when making policy suggestions in the future.

You'll find the sex-based exemptions on page 162 of the PDF (or page 150 of the EqA) and the harassment section on page 26 of the PDF (page 14 of the Act) using [[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpga_20100015_en.pdf
this link]] to a downloadable PDF version of the official text of the Equality Act.