Single-sex lavatories to be mandatory in all new public buildings

[ChristinaXYZ]

I really like the phrase “forced sharing” - I think we should use it more often as it sums up the lack of consent in shared facilities - unlike the neutral sounding 'gender neutral' .

Anyway, good news - I think this is building something that was initially announced by Robert Jenrick last year but got a bit lost after his demotion:

"New office buildings, schools, hospitals and entertainment venues must have separate male and female lavatories, ministers will declare this week, in a move to rein in the “forced sharing” of gender-neutral facilities.

The Telegraph understands that the Government will formally announce that it is acting to prevent non-residential buildings from being built solely with “universal” lavatories. The move will involve changes to building regulations and planning guidance.

The plans, being spearheaded by Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister, were quietly approved by ministers last month after Mrs Badenoch was warned that some children were avoiding using lavatories at school because they only had access to gender-neutral facilities.

Mrs Badenoch has insisted that it is both legal and “important” to provide single-sex spaces for men and women."

If we could replace Boris with Kemi I'd be a very happy woman.

read more

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/07/02/single-sex-lavatories-mandatory-new-public-buildings - Telegraph has excelled itself with coverage this last week or so.

To be clear, this provision will not affect the right transgender people have to go to the facilities which match their gender identity. Toilets are not single-sex in the EA2010 sense.

Really, why would single sex female toilets be open to males? Surely any decent male person would not intrude on the privacy and dignity of the opposite sex? The Equality Act also makes clear that males who identify as women are not considered to be members of the female sex class and can be excluded from single sex provision. They also , because of their male sex, don't lose their rights to do certain jobs assigned only to men nor their right to an aristocratic title assigned only to first born males.

There is no law designating sex in toilets. There is only culture and societal acceptability.

Kemi understands that forcing mixed sex facilities on women and girls is unpleasant and detrimental, and is saying so publicly.

No one wants mixed sex toilets, but they have been intimidated into not saying so. Kemi making a stand is going to stop that intimidation.

Correct. Because under the EA people with the PC of Gender Reassignment do not have an absolute right to access spaces reserved for members of the opposite sex.

That's my point - thank you . Transgender people have been using the correct facilities, perfectly legally, for decades. Insisting on single-sex facilities makes no difference. There are no loos in the UK which are single-sex in the EA 2010 sense, and no prcedent for such a regressive step being "legtimate and proportionate."

There is, I'm afraid. Women are saying no.

Kemi is making it quite clear that these toilets are for women only. Hence offering a mixed sex option, too.

if you are male, and use female toilets, please stop.

There are no loos in the UK which are single-sex in the EA 2010 sense, and no prcedent for such a regressive step being "legtimate and proportionate."

From your username DadJoke (and your male-centric perspective) I presume you are a man.

Why would you describe women having access to single sex spaces when they are undressed and vulnerable as a 'regressive step'? What's your agenda?

if you are male, and use female toilets, please stop.

Second this. Women do not consent to males using female spaces.

So telling isn't it.

Having to hide behind a loose interpretation of equality law, where it was never considered necessary to be more specific because they thought decency would prevail.

And now Kemi has seen that decency did not prevail and so she's having to take steps to make these few self entitled males behave appropriately.

'I don't have to be decent, because the law isn't yet forcing me' is not much to crow about.

Again - what do you plan to do with the females currently excluded from everything so that male people can have their preferred choice of everything?

Not giving a fuck I'm afraid is not an option. Inclusion and accessibility aren't TQ+ only. Nor is male supremacism an ok way forward.

And incidentally, why this never ending demand that female people put male people's interests first and selflessly be kind and do what male people need and want ?

But no reciprocal requirement at all that male people should consider the female people they're displacing and ordering to 'reframe their trauma' and abandon their cultures and religions or just deal with exclusion?

This is wholly sex based thinking isn't it? That male people get and have no responsibilities for others, while female people give without expecting in return.

Which kind of proves no one actually believes that TWAW at all, and therefore this is solely about male people's dominance and freedoms over female people's rights. And fuck off with that.

If it's about tolerance then the TQ+ lobby need to have a major word with themselves about managing to accept that other people have needs too, and not everything can be all about them.

@DadJoke

There are no loos in the UK which are single-sex in the EA 2010 sense, and no prcedent for such a regressive step being "legtimate and proportionate."

You have no basis to make this statement.

1. Very few organisations specify that their toilets are gendered but not sexed. Most toilets are assumed to be single sex by users and the people who put them there (hence the signs saying male/female and the urinals only present in one of them).

1. Single sex toilets have been the norm for a century or more. Personally I find it inconceivable that a court would overturn this but there is no case law specifying either way. Trans men have challenged when the single sex exemption has been rigidly enforced by a particular premises (for example GAY nightclub) but it's never reached court, presumably because it would have failed.

1. This doesn't affect passing transsexuals so you are talking about an interpretation of the equality act where (for example) male-presenting men who are 'trans' can use women's loo's but male presenting men who aren't trans can't. The law just doesn't support this.

That is exactly why they have worded it as it should not be at the expense of "female provision".
Toilets should be unisex, including (male men, non-binary and transwomen) and female (women, spilt arses, menstuators, child bearers, womb owners) call us what you like

Clarity on the fact that females should have separate toilets.