Ladies and Gents loos to return!

[Theluggage15]

In the Telegraph: Return of ladies and gents lavatories, as ministers tell architects all new buildings must have separate facilities
Buildings which already had unisex lavatories, which are shared by men and women, also face having to install partitions.

‘These changes will help to maintain safeguards that protect women and the proper provision of separate toilets, which has long been a regulatory requirement, will be retained and improved.‘

Apologies I don’t know how to do share tokens. This is great news!

Fantastic that they are going to regulate for it but then they will need to enforce it.

I hope so, but I want an explicit and unequivocal statement from the Government that toilets are segregated on the basis of sex, not gender, and that must be used according to biological sex.

Seems like good news. I am cautiously optimistic.

I'm pleased to see Lord Lucas (who helped bring so much attention this by speaking in the Lords) already starting to hold the government to account

twitter.com/LordLucasCD/status/1393692717004251138

And I look forward to seeing builders setting about the loos in the Old Vic in particular.

@RedDogsBeg

I hope so, but I want an explicit and unequivocal statement from the Government that toilets are segregated on the basis of sex, not gender, and that must be used according to biological sex.

I am extremely pleased with this govt decision but I also have the nagging doubt mentioned here by RedDogsBeg

Okay I have just been on another thread about this, and loathe as I am to say anything supportive about the Tories, they have gone out of their way to say the sex means sex.

It is those organisations who have gone through the Stonewall training who say sex means gender.

We should at lead take the opportunity this Tory government has given us and hold buildings, services and whatever to account.

Excellent news. I hate gender neutral toilets which were pushed through with no consideration for women

Is the anti women / anti safeguarding tide starting to slowly turn??

Coincidentally I read this Vice article earlier about the toilet consultation. Spoiler, TRAs weren't happy about women'a wishes and needs being considered:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3geyv/uk-government-accused-of-reigniting-culture-war-over-gender-neutral-bathrooms

There is also little to no evidence that cisgender women feel unsafe in current provided facilities so we are concerned that the government is creating a false narrative by which to exclude trans and GNC [gender non-conforming] people,” We Exist added. “This government is happy to start culture wars in an attempt to divert from their many, many failings in dealing with the pandemic, and this is no different.”

Gendered Intelligence (GI), a charity working to improve the lives of trans people, also disputed the evidence behind the government’s consultation. “Toilet facilities is a key area where trans, non-binary and other gender diverse people face barriers to access,” it said. “GI query some of the givens stated as part of the outline for the review. It states that ‘over recent years there has been a trend towards replacing female-only toilets with gender-neutral toilets’. We would welcome evidence to quantify this statement.”

“Our intentions to seek inclusive and available public toilets for trans, non-binary and other gender diverse people does not seek to undermine or compete with women’s rights to also have access to private toilet facilities,” it added. “There is no hierarchy of rights – it is a matter of support and access for all.”

@persistentwoman

Is the anti women / anti safeguarding tide starting to slowly turn??

Not to mention the 'anti-what the EA laws actually say' tide.

Another thread has a link and longer extract from the telegraph piece - I don't think they do sharetokens.

Well well well ... www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4246028-Well-well-well

There is also little to no evidence that cisgender women feel unsafe in current provided facilities

There is plenty of evidence that mixed sex facilities are a greater risk to females and children.

There is also little to no evidence that cisgender women feel unsafe in current provided facilities
How so we formalise that evidence? Presumably if one woman writes to her MP then that disputes that. It's 'feels'...

‘These changes will help to maintain safeguards that protect women and the proper provision of separate toilets, which has long been a regulatory requirement, will be retained and improved.‘

What kind of women though?

Women women, or does that include women with penises?

GI query some of the givens stated as part of the outline for the review. It states that ‘over recent years there has been a trend towards replacing female-only toilets with gender-neutral toilets’. We would welcome evidence to quantify this statement.

There is plenty of evidence of this happening, but then if GI don't want to look they will resolutely refuse to see it.

Our intentions to seek inclusive and available public toilets for trans, non-binary and other gender diverse people does not seek to undermine or compete with women’s rights to also have access to private toilet facilities,” it added. There is no hierarchy of rights – it is a matter of support and access for all.

Well that is bollocks, where and when have GI been campaigning for additional gender neutral spaces for trans, etc., alongside single sex spaces? They haven't as they have pushed the mantra, along with Stonewall, that toilets should be accessed on the ever shifting, indefinable gender identity which wipes out single sex female only toilets at a stroke.

Disingenuous much?

”Our intentions to seek inclusive and available public toilets for trans, non-binary and other gender diverse people does not seek to undermine or compete with women’s rights to also have access to private toilet facilities,” it added. There is no hierarchy of rights – it is a matter of support and access for all.

No one ever had any issue with providing additional mixed sex facilities for those who prefer them.

The issue with demanding “inclusive” toilets for “trans” is that they need women to use them. Otherwise it is just an additional facility for men, which is not what trans activists typically mean by “inclusive”

Women are needed as props.

Anyway, regarding the new rules; what is the definition of a public building? Is e.g the Old Vic public, or can they argue they are private?

they need women to use them. Otherwise it is just an additional facility for men, which is not what trans activists typically mean by “inclusive”

Women are needed as props

Well this is right, isn’t it. It’s not just about wanting to pee in peace. It’s all about validation and being seen.

Good. There should also be steps taken to include a gender neutral facility where this is feasible (don’t say it’s a space issue because the same argument was made about women’s toilets and disabled toilets and we got round it). Anyone uncomfortable with a sex-segregated space can use that. Also, I’d like a policy that, where possible, toilets are self-contained rather than cubicles and stalls. For both sexes. I think most people would prefer that level of privacy, eg being able to get undressed to rinse clothing and being able to clean up after a period-disaster.

Article is archived here:

archive.li/FpdA1

It makes me very uncomfortable feeling so positive about the Tories

Great so women finally being recognised, defined and provided for again.

Women - biological women that is. Their own space.

@RedDogsBeg

I hope so, but I want an explicit and unequivocal statement from the Government that toilets are segregated on the basis of sex, not gender, and that must be used according to biological sex.

Yes, but these are two separate (though related) issus in my mind. We are losing single sex palaces precisely because organisations don’t want to have to face up to the ethical and practical problems of self-ID, combined with a different (but again related) strand of [“progressive”. often contradictory] thinking that is saying we don’t need single sex spaces anymore.

We need single sex provision and therefore we need the infrastructure to allow for it. In a lot of settings the problems caused by self-ID are negligible and having single sex provision will do its job of providing dignity, privacy and safety. There does of course remain the [bigger] battle over the definition of single sex, but we need to hold the line over single sex provision in order for there to be any point to that conversation.

In my view, this is unequivocally great news. Was this the result of that consultation on technical matters? In which case congratulations to anyone who contributed.

[quote ChristinaXYZ]I'm pleased to see Lord Lucas (who helped bring so much attention this by speaking in the Lords) already starting to hold the government to account

twitter.com/LordLucasCD/status/1393692717004251138[/quote]
This is why we should not be too quick to abolish the hereditary peers. We don't want them replaced with a bunch of back-scratching "yes men".

Another quotation from the Vice article:

”In the past, the government has been accused of the weaponising trans issue to win votes in swing seats. In 2019, shortly before the December election in which the Conservatives won numerous “red wall” seats, Pink News reported that the government had been polling “culture war” issues like trans rights to see whether it would win the party votes”

Wish the Labour Party would carry out some research to find out what the general public and their constituents actually want, instead of continuing to push their holier-than-thou agenda. Imagine accusing a political party of weaponisation because it tried to find out what people feel about important and contentious issues!

Well this is good news, but I wonder if it will apply in Scotland, or are we a lost cause up here?