‘Gender-neutral’ lavatories are an invasion of women’s privacy - Kemi Badenoch

[IwantToRetire]

I would never have guessed when I first became an MP how much time I would spend looking at toilet policy. But, increasingly, my job is spent legislating for common sense and stopping people determined to do destructive things.

A decade ago, there was no need to clarify who could use which toilet. However, in today’s world, some are trying to redefine biological sex to mean however one chooses to identify. This has led to multiple instances of organisations, <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/15i3m/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/03/31/kemi-badenoch-gender-neutral-toilets-rishi-sunak/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">from schools to music venues, removing single-sex (male only or female only) toilets and replacing them with “gender-neutral” versions.

That is why today the Government is setting out clearly what the difference is, and what best practice toilet design should look like. The debate around sex-based rights has become confused. Basic tenets of everyday life, such as the right to privacy in a single sex space, are framed as transphobic by a vocal minority of activists.

Women should have exclusive access to public toilet facilities reserved specifically for them. Men should have the same. Female loos must have cubicles, while male ones can have urinals. Transgender people should have privacy. The sign on the door should clearly tell you what to expect.

The Conservatives are the only party of common sense. <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/15i3m/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/08/09/suella-braverman-set-firm-trans-guidance-schools/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">We won’t sit idly by as schoolgirls get infections because they feel uncomfortable using “gender-neutral” loos. We will never be ashamed of defending the right to privacy and dignity for all. No matter how trendy the opposition or how vocal the outrage, we will intervene where common sense disappears.

Extracts from longer article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/13/gender-neutral-lavatories-are-an-invasion-of-womens-privacy/

Also available via https://archive.ph

NB there is an existing thread about this proposal (from last year) because the Government have now published the guidelines. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4870722-female-only-toilets-will-be-guaranteed-in-new-buildings So discussion on toilets is ongoing.

Just thought it might be interesting to have a thread to see what the response of others parties might be to this, if at all. Not to duplicate discussion on other thread.

Presumably this is more than KB making a leadership bid, but the Tories do seem to let her make public statements relating to "common sense" (eg EA article) in contrast to other Ministers who are still in the foaming at the mouth little englander mode when making statements / comments.

Sorry Pho. Have I misread your post?

Either way. My point stands that anyone can have any opinion. It is not up to male people or female people who have ‘never an issue’ with gender neutral or unisex provision to either make demands about female single sex spaces or attempt to shame any woman or girl who wants single sex spaces enforced for any reason.

have your unisex space. Leave single sex spaces and enforce them via allowing female people to ask someone male to leave or call police or security. And stop with the attempts of male posters attempting to parse and diminish the current effects of these issues.

The doubling down is clear and doesn’t help tran people. That time has started to pass, a new tactic is needed .

From the Equality Act 2010
Schedule 3 - Services and public functions: exemptions
Part 7 - Separate and single services:

^Gender reassignment

28(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2)The matters are—

(a)the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;

(b)the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;

(c)the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.^

So it is perfectly legal to provide single sex loos and ignore the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

So why isn't this generally enforced?

The main reason is assumption. The majority of providers respect the social contract and assume that everyone else will do the same. Then women who are subjected to men who ignore the social contract put up with it rather than make a fuss.

The next reason is uncertainty. What does a woman do if she encounters a man in the women's loo? Can she approach the man and dare she? Does she know the provider's policy on single sex spaces? Does she know the details of the EqA? Easier to be pissed off and leave it.

This uncertainty continues. If the woman complains to the provider's representative, what can they do? Do they know the provider's policy on single sex spaces? Do they know the details of the EqA? Do they know what legal power they have to eject the man?

The final reason is fear. If the provider has a policy of declaring the loos as single sex spaces under Schedule 3, Part 7 of the EqA, puts up appropriate signage and briefs their staff that they must take any legitimate action to remove any person who is using an inappropriate loo, what will happen? Will there be a SM campaign against them? What about TripAdvisor? Will there be demonstrations outside their premises? Easier to not go down that road.

This is the dystopian reality that we have today and that so delights DadJoke. Given that the social contract has collapsed, we need a change in the Law. Entering a facility intended for the exclusive use of the opposite sex, unless for a legitimate purpose such as cleaning or repair, should be an offence under the Sexual Offences Act as should enabling another person to do so.

What exactly is the problem with using a toilet that doesn't conform to your gender identity anyway? No-one needs to be affirmed by a loo.

I think this is a really good question. I don't have a gender identity so as a biological female I share the ladies loos with people who I don't share an identity with and it's never been a problem.

Exactly. We do know that when girls only have access to mix-sexed facilities they often avoid them and end up with UTIs. That's an actual, tangible problem with no female facilities. There really is no argument for getting rid of them that doesn't rely on anything more than males being considered more important than females.

They're not affirmed by a loo. They're affirmed by the other "ladies" present.
So they can admire each other's lipstick and swishy hair and share tampons, you know, like we all do when we're in a public loo.

Yes. It is about the interaction at the mirror. But we also know it is about the masturbatory opportunity for some (either there and then or afterwards). And it is for the intimidation factor / claiming victimization of micro aggressions.

There are so many reasons for the access to female single sex spaces. What is important to note is that there seems to be a complete lack of male people prosecuted for attacking trans people who are also male in male toilets and changing rooms in the UK. So, they will be safe with the other male trans people if they choose to use male facilities or choose to use unisex alternatives.

It is a small group who demand access and some of them, from their own self published videos of either their threats or their erotic experiences are not the people who are like the constant stream of ‘nice mates’ that some posters assure us are using them. The fact that there are not women posting threatening toilet videos or videos of them masturbating in female toilets is usually overlooked…. Female porn masturbation in female toilet vids don’t seem to be the growing category…. Whodathunkit!

I think that is what is so depressing.

Because once there was a social contract.

Nowmost people have either actively given up on it, or just dont think it is worth bothering about.

And everyone, including politicians, could so easily have said, you are allowed under the EA to provide single sex services.

Is it just because it is seen as a women's issue?

I think there still is a social contract for the vast majority of people. As a bloke I can say that none of my friends would feel entitled to enter a woman's toilet or changing room. Any one that does is exactly the sort of person that should be kept out. They should be challenged every.single.time. I called out a bloke who walked into the women's toilet the other day. He claimed it was a mistake and maybe it was. Doubtless there is less chance of a violent reaction as a man but it is important to call it out.

Well yes, I imagine a man calling it out would get a very different reaction, sadly.
Good for you, though.

Firstly, thanks for taking action. Not everyone does.

Would you have done the same if the man you called out was dressed in traditional female clothing? And, if you did and they gave you a "I'm a woman so this is right" what would you have done?

You have actually pointed up my first point. You observe the social contract. Your mates observe the social contract. So you assume that the social contract is working. IT FUCKING ISN'T!

Not surprising as this is the Guardian, but this is an example of how the left attempt to deflect from the actual issue by trying to make out that because it is a women's issue its all just a joke. And because its a tory who wants to improve provision for women they can not address that issue but indulge in whatabouterry.

Kemi Badenoch wants gender-specific lavatories in new venues, but is it wise to release more excrement into our fatally compromised sewage systems?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/20/as-britain-drowns-in-filth-the-tories-want-more-toilets-kemi-badenoch-lavatory-tsar