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.

Correction:

female sex class, obviously not female people sex class

You may wish to sweep the oppression of trans people under the carpet and pretend it never happened.

It’s obviously a case about the oppression of gay men, so no it doesn’t demonstrate much about trans people.

However if somebody were prosecuted simply for cross dressing, it would also demonstrate that people suffer discrimination because of sex, not gender identity.

Women weren’t allowed to vote by declaring themselves Male and the men in your example wouldn’t have escaped prosecution if one of them told the court they identified as female.

I don’t think it’s possible to apply modern concepts of gender identity to history because women had so few rights. This is why women find terms like ‘cis’ offensive.

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.

Again, you need to explain what ‘trans’ means or this doesn’t make sense.

@CharlieParley

I'm well aware of the gender critical mangling of the law in an attempt to prove trans women can be banned from women's toilets. Unfortunately every major legal body disagrees, as has at least one court, as does the Government and crucially as does EHRC who provide guidance to the court on equality laws. It would be a truly brave organisation that ignored the overwhelming consensus of professional legal opinion on the basis of amateur speculation.

jj1968
When you talk about transwomen, will you define exactly who you mean by this term? Specifically, since both men and transwomen are male, will you explain exactly how the transwomen you refer to differ from men? I am looking for objective criteria, so that when such a person enters a women's space we would know that that person was a transwoman, and not a man pretending to be a transwoman.

@merrymouse

I agree it's difficult to unpick historical cases although Boultons mother testified in court that they had presented as female from the age of 5 and there court and newspaper reports that used female pronouns when referring to them.

But oppression of trans people is hardly a historical phenomena, its less than a decade after Lucy Meadows suicide following being monstered in the right wing press.

[quote jj1968]@CharlieParley

I'm well aware of the gender critical mangling of the law in an attempt to prove trans women can be banned from women's toilets. Unfortunately every major legal body disagrees, as has at least one court, as does the Government and crucially as does EHRC who provide guidance to the court on equality laws. It would be a truly brave organisation that ignored the overwhelming consensus of professional legal opinion on the basis of amateur speculation.[/quote]
Can you explain why you think quoting from the Equality Act is 'gender critical mangling of the law'?

Transwomen can quite clearly be banned from women's spaces because they are male, and sex is a protected characteristic. This is not 'mangling' of the law, it's stating the law.

And yet EHRC disagree. Hmm professional equality lawyers vs amateur speculation on an Internet forum. Tough one.

@jj1968

And yet EHRC disagree. Hmm professional equality lawyers vs amateur speculation on an Internet forum. Tough one.

Are you saying that EHRC have removed the protected characteristic of sex from the EA? Can you provide a link to this?

"If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your gender identity. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing, intends to undergo or has undergone gender reassignment"

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination

Disabled people are well down the pecking order. The toilet facilities that we absolutely need seem to be fair game nowadays, don't they.

Charlieparley

(b) the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

I think this works both ways, with both actual sex and perceived sex - which does put trans people in a difficult position.

Some people pass, most people don't, but other people are also more or less good at being able to tell.

If a woman objects to a passing transman in the loo that is a reasonable objection (since how are they to know they are female).... but you can't make clear rules based on 'passing'.

So a trans person may find themselves unable to use either facility (either because in one direction they would be breaking a specific rule, and in the other they would be opening themselves up to intrusive questions ).

I think in practice areas with sex-based rules are not going to suit everyone - since they require people to be straightforward and upfront about their sex.

So the thing the Equality Act asks is is there a less discriminatory approach than making everyone chose either the male or female door - and there is a less discriminatory approach - which is to provide a unisex alternative (i.e. an area without a sex based rule) . The Equality Act doesn't say a service provider must do this, but it is more inclusive and in a larger building would, I think, be justified.

The EHRC (and the EOC before it) were too deferential to the doctors who told their patients that they could use opposite sex services (indeed they could use them as a diagnostic test to see if they really were trans). None of them said - hold up, this is not in the doctor's gift to give permission for -- people can change their bodies but this doesn't overrule the need for clear rules and consent in relation to other's bodily privacy.

[quote jj1968]"If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your gender identity. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing, intends to undergo or has undergone gender reassignment"

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination[/quote]
What is a gender identity? I don't believe it has any meaning in law. If a man looks like a man, but says he has a feminine gender identity, why should this override the physical reality of his body?

And you still haven't told me what sort of person you're talking about when you mention 'transwomen'. Is it just any man who claims to have a feminine gender identity? Or is there more to it?

I think in practice areas with sex-based rules are not going to suit everyone - since they require people to be straightforward and upfront about their sex.

Allowing people to be legally recognised as the opposite sex and the law conspiring to hide their true sex was a mistake IMO.

People should never have been encouraged to hide their sex or masquerade as the opposite sex with legal backing. We've ended up with a society which is going backwards by reinforcing gender stereotypes and becoming less tolerant of gender nonconformity and diversity.

@jj1968

And yet EHRC disagree. Hmm professional equality lawyers vs amateur speculation on an Internet forum. Tough one.

The EHRC does not have the power to overrule the Equality Act. No matter who works for them. It is the regulatory body set up to enforce the law by providing guidance to all those who need it. It has, from its inception, misrepresented how the sex-based exemptions work in relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Because it consulted only trans rights organisations in drawing up the relevant statutory guidance.

Furthermore, it has already removed the most egregious misrepresentation of the Equality Act by quietly deleting some parts of guidance you're quoting starting in 2018 and making the rest unavailable recently. Also in 2018, they publicly acknowledged that there is a difference between a male person who is legally female through a GRC and a male person who identifies as trans but remains legally male in deciding any access rights to female-only provisions. Which I have linked to in response to comments from you several times now.

So, the EHRC no longer staunchly defends its misrepresentation of the Equality Act. And it now faces a Judicial Review aiming to compel the EHRC to not only correct its misrepresentation of the Equality Act, but also to compel it to advise all organisations, businesses and services of its errors in interpreting the Act and to issue, provide and publish correct guidance. In more detail, here is Ann Sinnot's explanation of where the EHRC stands:

On 17 February 2020, AEA wrote to both EHRC and GEO and provided a list of unlawful guidance identified by AEA. Protracted correspondence with both organisations then followed.

GEO maintains that its guidance is correct.

On 23 March 2020, EHRC - dismissing the unlawful guidance as mere “inconsistencies” - acknowledged that the guidance needed to be amended but was vague as to when that would take place.

Finally, on 14 August 2020, EHRC provided AEA with a list of recently amended guidance. Only six documents have actually been amended, the rest have just been made unavailable – links lead to ‘Access Denied’ or ‘Page Not Found’.

HTH

@MForstater

Charlieparley

(b) the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

I think this works both ways, with both actual sex and perceived sex - which does put trans people in a difficult position.

Some people pass, most people don't, but other people are also more or less good at being able to tell.

If a woman objects to a passing transman in the loo that is a reasonable objection (since how are they to know they are female).... but you can't make clear rules based on 'passing'.

So a trans person may find themselves unable to use either facility (either because in one direction they would be breaking a specific rule, and in the other they would be opening themselves up to intrusive questions ).

I think in practice areas with sex-based rules are not going to suit everyone - since they require people to be straightforward and upfront about their sex.

So the thing the Equality Act asks is is there a less discriminatory approach than making everyone chose either the male or female door - and there is a less discriminatory approach - which is to provide a unisex alternative (i.e. an area without a sex based rule) . The Equality Act doesn't say a service provider must do this, but it is more inclusive and in a larger building would, I think, be justified.

The EHRC (and the EOC before it) were too deferential to the doctors who told their patients that they could use opposite sex services (indeed they could use them as a diagnostic test to see if they really were trans). None of them said - hold up, this is not in the doctor's gift to give permission for -- people can change their bodies but this doesn't overrule the need for clear rules and consent in relation to other's bodily privacy.

Yes, I agree. The Harassment provisions also work both ways and for this reason and the reasons you state above, alternative solutions should be provided.

The EHRC already mandates this in its 2014 Technical Guidance to schools, but that's obviously at a much smaller scale and in less difficult circumstances. Here arrangements with individuals are of course possible, but where this isn't feasible, like with a cinema, there should now be either a unisex or a mixed-sex facility offered in addition to single-sex ones.

As a mother of sons often travelling on my own with them, I would welcome them and I certainly would have used them. Frequently. I would have felt much safer had I been able to use such a facility at the airport, for instance. Although from about age eight or nine they were too old for the women's toilets, they hated going in the men's alone and didn't feel safe. I used to wait directly outside the men's, which was not a comfortable experience (and frequently made worse by the behaviour of some men). Fathers of girls, especially those too young to manage the toilet on their own, have a similar issue (again made worse by the behaviour of some men).

But oppression of trans people is hardly a historical phenomena, its less than a decade after Lucy Meadows suicide following being monstered in the right wing press

What happened to Lucy was tragic. But there are more deaths through suicide of men than trans people. Men are actually higher risk of suicide than anyone else. Woman attempt it a fair bit but their methods are usually less violent than when men do it so women don't succeed is the wrong word but you know what I mean.

And yes what do you mean by the term transwonan becuase the definition has somewhat expanded now. And realky think about it. You are honestly believing in the oppression of , well let's just say that Straight white XY people have convinced you they are the most opressed. More so than the female babies dumped on trash heaps and the black women 5 times more likely to die in chikd birth.

Just think about it

[quote ListeningQuietly]@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 ?[/quote]

jj have you missed this?

Getting an answer to that ^ would be a first.

jj have you missed this?

They won’t answer. They’ve ignored several similar questions from myself and others.

They just cherry pick posts and toss a bit of word salad around. I’m not really sure why people bother engaging as it’s a waste of time.

I’m not really sure why people bother engaging as it’s a waste of time.

No I don't get it either. There's no point. It's all word salad, gas lighting and no depth or understanding.

Thought so.

I’m not really sure why people bother engaging as it’s a waste of time.

It keeps them busy on this thread and doesn't mess up the whole board?

I’m not really sure why people bother engaging as it’s a waste of time.

For the lurkers. I think it's important to show how robust the arguments are on both sides. I think jj's deflection and reluctance to answer straightforward questions is quite clear. I'm actually surprised that jj has hung about for so long.

I'm still hoping that jj will provide us with some definitions as requested. It's important that we have definitions for words which are used in laws which have such a profound effect on our lives as women. As jj has shown, if these words are not properly defined, they can be interpreted in different ways by organisations, and this can greatly affect the ability of women to participate fully in public life.

.... doesn't mess up the whole board?

😂

There's a certain type of person who, regardless of their embarrassing lack of knowledge or understanding is determined to prove others (usually women) that they're wrong with much accusatory flapping and blustering.
The original thread was well argued and amazingly those involved in the original proposals, listened, thought about it and changed their mind with good grace. So very typical of women and a shame it then descended into bowls full of incorrect word salad. But we've seen it before.