What right to a single sex space do I have and how?

[Avocadowoman]

I saw a comment on another thread and it got me thinking. The comment was (broadly):

'A woman's right to a single sex space cannot co-exist with a transwoman's right to enter a woman's space based on gender identity'.

That is undoubtably true. If a transwoman enters a female space that space is no longer single sex.

However I am unsure what legal rights exist to give women the right to single sex spaces. The trouble seems to be that the law seems to assume that they are something someone will want to provide, and go from there.

Workplace regulations mean I have the right to a single sex toilet at work (but we all know how many workplaces ignore that in their transgender policies).

I haven't looked into prisons legislation.

But I think everything else is based on a providers right to provide a single sex service. If they choose to provide one great, if not I don't think I have the right to one.

If a provider chosses to open a female space to transgender women without a GRC, the people who are being discriminated against (legally) are, I think, not women, but men who would like to access that space but who are turned away and do not say they are transwomen. This makes it much harder to deal with through litigation, I think.

Clearly females are discriminated against in the same way by not being able to go into male spaces if those male spaces are open to transmen without a GRC, but that doesn't help me if what I want is a female space.

If my religion was one which forbade me to (for example) undress with men, then possibly the lack of provision of a single sex space may be discrimination due to my religion - but as it happens that is not my religion so that doesn't help me.

That means that where the single sex space is provided by the government (prison, hospital, school etc) it is the government we can petition to keep those spaces single sex. And that is useful because the government would not want to have a policy that is 'hypothetically discrimatory' if I can put it like that (eg discriminates against a woman who wants to enter a male single sex space, even though that is less likely to happen).

But sports, for example, therefore need to be taken up with each provider/governing body.

Am I missing something? Ot do women actually have very few 'rights to single sex spaces' compared to 'the right to provide a single sex space'?

A transsexual with a GRC is legally female "for all purposes".

Excerpt for the potential sex based exemptions specifically made in both the EA (many of which can potentially exclude GRC holding transsexual males where proportionate means to a legitimate aim) and GRA. Please don't patronise the women on FWR, many of whom know these laws inside out.

Trying again...

Around the age of 8 or 9 years old, mums begin to ask boys to use male facilities rather than continuing to use female facilities. This is for the comfort of other female users not because we think that they as individual boys will harm us.

There is no hard and fast rule around what age it happens but rather an informal social contract that the female loos, changing rooms etc are just for females-and-their-very-young-boys and if a boy is getting quite big that it's no longer an appropriate place for him to be.

Girls continue to need to use female facilities because of the physical provisions associated with menstruation. I am genuinely unaware of why an adult non-menstruating transsexual might need the physical provisions of a female loo.

These young boys are, by virtue of their age, more vulnerable than any adult. Yet, by and large, around the world millions of young boys safely use male single sex facilities every day.

If we believe that male single sex spaces are such dangerous places in which the very most vulnerable people are bound to be attacked - why on earth are we letting 8 year old boys use them independently?

So, Blue or any other transsexual out there, can I ask again, if there was a nice, fourth mixed sex additional space designed for all the people who would be happy to use a unisex space, (so parents out with their young opposite sex children, trans people, people who are not bothered about needing a single sex space) would you use that in preference?

Or would you still choose to use the female toilets [also dormitories, swimming pool changing rooms etc], bearing in mind that women (and girls) who are strangers cannot possibly know whether or not you possess a GRC or what type of surgery you may or may not have had and some women may feel a need to exclude themselves from a female space because of your presence?

So if you cannot use the disabled loos, and choose not to use the men's loos, where would you like the women to go who cannot use a space where there is someone they perceive as male?

Where do they go? There's a woman currently in my town who would like an answer to this; there's no public toilet left anywhere in town that she can enter now.

Should she use the disabled toilet? Not leave home? What are her options here?

But as we can't ask if you have a GRC and no surgery or medication is necessary to obtain a GRC, how are we to distinguish you from any man who says he is entitled to use these spaces?

What really, really annoys me is this law keeps getting quotes.
But it got passed by the back door without any democracy at all, it affects fifty percent of the population and we weren't consulted.
And yes, there will be women who are surveyed who don't mind (I probably would have been one of them, gaily giving away private spaces because I was a fit liberal young thing) but there are people who do mind.
It in my mind, is the failing of our government. As far as I am concerned it's not a law enacted in good faith.
Furthermore, if the Muslim council, fair play for women etc try and repeal it I think they'll have a lot of support.

So majority should always have precedent?

You're the one minimising the feelings of hundreds of thousands to millions of women as insignificant and cancelled out by a presumption that the majority don't mind.

I personally feel the needs of just 3k male people (who are the only people you appear to think need special treatment, which TRAs would strongly disagree on), could be accommodated differently while respecting the needs of the women who absolutely need female only space. We'll have to agree to disagree on that issue.

What about the fact that the majority of women in a Gov survey stated support for post op transsexuals? Do only those who support your position get a say?

Another survey they conveniently forgot to publicise for every women.

In reality you'd likely just continue to use the ladies as you ignore the reasons why it should be single sex anyway.

I will continue to use the ladies as the most appropriate place to satisfy my physical needs in line with what is permitted by the law. You are free to campaign for changes but I cannot see after decades the law will decide to remove all transsexual provision.
If you want to continue to view me as a man that is your perogative. The very stereotypes that are bring dismantled to allow more freedoms to women are being used to describe the male biological sex without exemption and justify the exclusion of transsexuals.

could be accommodated differently while respecting the needs of the women who absolutely need female only space

That different accommodation in the eyes of the law is discrimination. And what I need is not met in male spaces.

Why on earth should women compromise, what’s in it for us?

Look at it this way, if someone wanted to come into my home and sleep in my spare room I’d say no, if they said I only want to sleep, what’s the problem? I’d still say no, if they moved in anyway and said let’s compromise, we both want to sleep here so let’s discuss it I’d still say no.

*What about the fact that the majority of women in a Gov survey stated support for post op transsexuals? Do only those who support your position get a say?

Another survey they conveniently forgot to publicise for every women.*

Would you be saying that if it supported your position? Of course you wouldn't. Why is anything that disagrees with you invalid?

@BlueLipstickRocks

In reality you'd likely just continue to use the ladies as you ignore the reasons why it should be single sex anyway.

I will continue to use the ladies as the most appropriate place to satisfy my physical needs in line with what is permitted by the law. You are free to campaign for changes but I cannot see after decades the law will decide to remove all transsexual provision.
If you want to continue to view me as a man that is your perogative. The very stereotypes that are bring dismantled to allow more freedoms to women are being used to describe the male biological sex without exemption and justify the exclusion of transsexuals.

What has this to do with stereotypes? If men were more accepting of gender non-conforming men there would be no issue. It is the macho stereotypes that cause your issue with other men. It is nothing to do with women and our battles against stereotyping.

What about the fact that the majority of women in a Gov survey stated support for post op transsexuals? Do only those who support your position get a say?

This is like Groundhog Day. No one gets to consent for me. I do not consent to any biological males in female spaces where I expect privacy and dignity. It doesn't affect those women who are so careless with other women's rights if they can't invite in biologically male transsexuals, it's not to their detriment.

The arguments used here, the dismissal of women's voices, the lack of consideration for women and girls to be even asked for their consent are pretty much the same as those of the TRAs, for me.

@BlueLipstickRocks

*What about the fact that the majority of women in a Gov survey stated support for post op transsexuals? Do only those who support your position get a say?

Another survey they conveniently forgot to publicise for every women.*

Would you be saying that if it supported your position? Of course you wouldn't. Why is anything that disagrees with you invalid?

Post-op.

But that's not what we are dealing with any more, following the Garcon v Nicot case. The general public don't know what exactly they're being asked to accept.

...& if there's an individual unisex space available, you'd use that instead?

What is spot on is the statement that my goal is to blend back into society as much as possible as women. That does not mean I see a toilet as a therapeutic facility but simply the one that best serves my clinic needs.*

Does this mean that you are limiting access to transsexuals, who are post op, with a GRC but also they must 'pass' too?

Otherwise what does 'blend back' mean in this context?

That different accommodation in the eyes of the law is discrimination. And what I need is not met in male spaces.

And some discrimination is legal. We will all have to see how it pans out in court eventually. I do accept that there is a higher bar to exclude male post op transsexuals with GRC, but it is provided for in law.

The needs of women who need strictly female only spaces are not met by spaces with any males in them at all.

I absolutely support post op transsexuals like Miranda Yardley.

Miranda understands that having an operation doesn't change anyone's sex. Miranda makes a point of using male toilets and has never had any trouble.

However, Miranda is kind enough to actively campaign for third spaces for people who feel that they need them.

Why on earth should women compromise, what’s in it for us?

The compromise is already in law. You clearly don't agree but the law permits a legal change of sex - fact.

The compromise was that a change of legal sex was a strictly controlled process that means only those transsexuals who followed a certain process would be protected by the law. Stonewalls bad advice his distorted that but the law is clear.

What was in it for men when women stood up for their rights? Its about equality. Throughout history a majority always opposes the minorities. Back in the 80s look at what happened when gay marriage was introduced? There were protests and riots on the streets declaring the ruin of society.
As a society we protect those who need protected. We support the vulnerable. What's it it for you is that it's morally the right thing to do.

Miranda understands that having an operation doesn't change anyone's sex. Miranda makes a point of using male toilets and has never had any trouble.

However, Miranda is kind enough to actively campaign for third spaces for people who feel that they need them.

Indeed. I've met Miranda several times.

I absolutely support post op transsexuals like Miranda Yardley.

You know Miranda isn't post op right? Miranda now identifies as a gay man.

You support transsexuals that don't inconvenience you in any way is that it?

Its not a valid argument. "Person A doesn't need X so person B doesn't either." As quite clearly stated trans people are very diverse.

And some discrimination is legal. We will all have to see how it pans out in court eventually. I do accept that there is a higher bar to exclude male post op transsexuals with GRC, but it is provided for in law.

The law provides for it in certain exemptions - not as a rule.

Do you really think after decades the law will revoke all transsexual laws? Will my birth certificate by changed back?

Its also possible those exemptions could be removed- some are campaigning for that.

It will take years for things to change and none of us know how that change will go. Self ID could still get in - there's enough money behind the agenda.

She said quite clearly why she supports Miranda. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a woman to support a male transsexual who understands women's concerns and respects our feelings.

To be honest had a been asked a few years ago I'm sure I would have cheerily voted for trans people to do whatever they want.
But now I have a child, with a disability. It makes me consider the vulnerable in society, who, I am ashamed to say, in the past I dismissed because I wanted to be seen as liberal.