Trans bathroom access - the equality act is 13 years old so why is there such a challenge on it now?

[Snufflebabe05]

Really trying to understand views I’m hearing online, at work, in media.

Anyone who is transitioning, has transitioned, proposing to transition is legally allowed to use the bathroom which is aligned to the gender they see themselves as. No evidence needed, no proof of medical info etc. This has been the case since the Equality Act launched in 2010. Any business who doesn’t allow this is breaking the law. Unless there is a proportionate and reasonable reason (gym changing rooms can be an example). The majority of locations wouldn’t fall into the exemption though.

Toilets are aligned with a relevant Health and Safety legislation, where bathrooms are provided for men and women, so by gender.

So why is the uproar now? Why is it now that we are hearing about “women-only spaces”? Is is the media? What has changed?

Genuine, honest question as keen to understand.

"So why is the uproar now? Why is it now that we are hearing about “women-only spaces”? Is is the media? What has changed?"

Can't speak for others or say this as fact, but I'm of the opinion that the uproar started alongside the movement within trans ideology that pushed for trans people to be accepted as their preferred gender at any point during their transition, not just when they "pass" societally.

I believe this probably originated in the US where you have to pay for that sort of healthcare, so people would essentially be "too poor to transition".
(I used to do art for the furry community and this was often something people would post about as being an issue - a lot of furries seem to be a part of the LGBT community and very much sign up to gender ideology)

Then we obviously know that a lot of MtF elect to keep their genitalia as is, so they would then join that movement as well. Shortly after that comes the, "some women have penis's" argument.
One domino after the other really.

This is a section of the explanatory notes relating to the EA

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/26/1

Its worth a read.

The exemptions exist, and are laid out. But the likes of Stonewall have repeatedly sort to misrepresent what they mean.

One examples is as follows:
Considerations of privacy or decency might require a public changing room or lavatory attendant to be of the same sex as those using the facilities.

A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress.

Later on you have this:

Schedule 16: Associations: exceptions
904.Schedule 16 contains exceptions from the association provisions in Part 7 of the Act.
Single characteristic associations: paragraph 1
Effect

905.This paragraph allows an association whose main purpose is to bring together people who share a particular characteristic (such as a particular nationality, sexual orientation or a particular disability) to continue to restrict membership to such people, and impose similar restrictions on those who can exercise the rights of an associate, or who can be invited as guests.

906.It is however unlawful for an association to restrict its membership to people of a particular colour.
Background

907.An exception for associations which bring together people who share a particular protected characteristic was provided in previous legislation in relation to race and sexual orientation. This exception has been extended to cover all of the protected characteristics in line with the prohibition on discrimination.
Example

A club for deaf people can restrict membership to people who are deaf and would not need to admit people with other disabilities, such as a blind person

There's pages and pages and pages of details on exemptions.

My point here is that, NO WHERE does it state that transwomen have full access to Female toilets. Indeed, where it talks about employment, it states that the sex of the person employs matters for reasons of decency and dignity and you CAN exclude a transperson for certain jobs even if they have a GRC.

The fact that there has been an explosion of people identifying as trans is crucial to understand the major difference between 2010 and now.

In 2010 you wouldn't have had large numbers of male university students declaring themselves to be non-binary and then making a point of using the women's facilities for example. Gender Reassignment was a very small pool of people who were in the process of seeking to obtain a GRC or already had one and permenantly transitioning. It wasn't people who were self IDing on a day to day basis with no commitment to even trying to get a legal document.

And therein lies a lot of the issue.

The GRA has been shown as not fit for purpose and the Equality Act has been undermined by the deliberate conflation of sex and gender. When the EA was written this conflation just didn't exist in this way. Its an example of how langugage corruption has been deeply cynical and deliberately motivated to remove legal protections which DO exist in law by confusing matters and saying they DON'T exist.

And thats why there is a problem now.

Its clear that the GRA is basically really badly written law and the EA is proving exceptionally hard for women to use to protect themselves because of political manipulation by trans supporting groups having huge amounts of unaccountable influence.

We effectively have the actual law and Stonewall law which has got ahead of the actual law (and is unlawful). When challenged we now have one clear example of Stonewall advice being a pile of crap and I suspect we will see further examples in time.

The law needs proper clarification as a result - which states that sex is not the same as gender. And this will cause an issue for individuals who have got ahead of the law, whinging that they've lost certain rights. In truth they've ridden roughshot over the law at the expense of others and behaved appallingly. They've demonstrated they can't be trusted so it needs spelling out better. And its not being liked. Whats more is they DO have rights protected in law, for self expression its just they don't want protection in their same sex, they want to erode the protections of the opposite sex.

Its a car crash of misunderstanding which Stonewall stand at the head of. They've done the majority of the misleading. Its THEM who have let down transpeople. Its THEM who have failed to campaign for third spaces etc. Its not women rights groups on a mission to be 'anti-trans' and remove rights...

Any man is "legally allowed" to use women's toilets, OP, not just the ones that identify as women. Hope this helps.

The other big reason for the uproar is the Tavistock scandal and the car crash that is Mermaids.

The fact that it's starting to be recognised that harms are being done to minors, and that there's been a runaway train of not considering a whole host of other explanations and ethics is an issue.

Children transitioning were looked on as legitimatising transitioning. Especially since it was girls who were doing it.

Historically it had only been older males who transitions making it look like a male sexual fetishism.

By having a collective lumping together, there's the power to say 'but what about transmen?'.

However actually there are still really two very distinct patterns going on - older males and teenage girls. And that raises some pretty fundamental questions that no one wants to talk about because it's 'offensive'.

People are starting to notice though, and the collapse of Mermaids credibility and the scandal still being unveiled at the Tavi is a pretty big deal.

When once people were willing to indulge it, because they are nice people with good intentions without questioning what was happening, they are starting to go 'hang on a second, this isn't a neutral act, bad things are happening, this isn't right'. Because they are still nice people with good intentions.

This all matters.

The optics of males screaming and carrying placards to 'kill terfs' aren't great. People are starting to go, hang on that's not very nice. Neither is vilification of JKR when what she said was very measured and reasonable. Again nice people with good intentions are saying to themselves, 'why do I want to be part of that situation which really isn't ok?'.

And then there's the visuals of women sport and the injustice of it. Good well intentioned people don't like injustice.

It's a drip drip that all adds up.

That's why now.

My understanding from what I have read is that the equality act forbids anyone of one sex class from being treated differently from another of their sex class. Ergo a transwoman being biologically male cannot be treated less favourably than any other biological malE.

(Tried and failed to quote RedToothbrush) This is a really useful post. Thank you.

This is the HSE guidance I referenced: https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/workplace-facilities/health-safety.htm#article

Bullets 3 and 4. Is this a mixture of sex and gender?

Where is the legislation re same sex toilets in a workplace?

Please, I am really trying to understand and learn. I’m doing lots of my own research but tripping up with certain points.

The Workplace (health, safety and welfare) Regulations, to which the HSE refers, were published in 1992 and have not been amended since.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/contents/made

It used the words “men” and “women” because 30 years ago “men” meant exclusively male people, and “women” meant exclusively female people.

Edited to add link to primary source.

Where is the legislation/guidance to support the “single sex” toilets point?

I’m trying to understand some discussions at work re toilets.

Are toilet facilities only ‘legislatively led’ by this HSE guidance?

Also a useful link -

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

The use of the phrase 'safe spaces' by many TRA's is, I believe, a deliberate attempt to dilute in the public's minds the single sex legislation which is in place. I've seen many scoffing at our 'hysterical need' to feel safe, ignoring the fact there are exemptions allowed in law.

In addition, if single sex exemptions are a nonsense and anyone can use any service etc according to their gender and only now there's such a fuss, then why have several organisations campaigned to have them removed?

womansplaceuk.org/2018/06/25/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

And as a pp says, why is it always toilets? (or 'bathrooms'). What about hospital wards, rape crisis services, prisons, etc etc etc.

It’s not HSE guidance. It’s legislation. HSE are the regulator. What don’t you understand specifically?

And in any case, toilets are largely a red herring in this debate, which is about the dignity and safety of female people and their need to be able to use single sex facilities wherever they may be physically or psychologically vulnerable.

https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Toilets-matter.pdf

This may help.

Also the exemptions allowed in sport -

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/14/5

The first thing to understand is:

Man = adult human male
Woman = adult human female

These are sex based terms not gender based

To answer the question “Why toilets?”

It’s because this is the current focus of a discussion at work. I’d like to understand a bit more. Appreciate it’s a far broader subject.

The Sex Matters attachment is helpful. But still speaks to “same sex toilets”. Is the HSE legislation out of date in so fact that they talk about gender? And this is because it was produced before society began to speak to sex and gender being different?

I’m trying to find the law that states workplaces same sex toilets. And I can’t?

Not trying to provoke here. Simply trying to understand the law so I can feel equipped in these discussions.

Ok. But not everyone agrees that this is the case? As in, many believe that gender and sex are seperate? Is that where the issue is?

I.E - Sex is Male and Female, Gender is Man and Woman?

Gender is feminine and masculine

Actually, I think very few people believe this.

Gender critical feminists largely believe that male and female are the words for the two biological sexes, and that men are male people and women are female people. We don't agree with defining people according to "gender".

Trans activists have been saying for years that man and woman are genders, and now they've got basically the entire political establishment saying trans women are women with a straight face, they've moved on to saying trans women are female and trans men are male, i.e. they now want us to believe that male and female are also words for genders. Of course this would mean we no longer have words for biological sex, and if we no longer have words for it we can no longer protect it or even discuss it. This is the whole point.

The reason the Equality Act now needs updating is b ecause in 2010 when it was passed nobody thought it was necessary to state that sex means your real, biological sex rather than your "legal sex".

Because the 2004 Gender Recognition Act uses the words male and female to refer to genders, without bothering to explain what the fuck they are using any of these words to mean.

As someone else has said sex is male, man, female and woman. Gender is masculine and feminine. The problem is the forced colonisation of the language and the deliberate changes to the language used for example transexual - transgender- transwoman to trans woman. Its a deliberate attempt to confuse. How many people actually know that trans woman refers to a male bodied person?

The legislation (not HSE legislation, it’s just legislation) is not out of date. Man = adult male person; woman = adult female person.

Subsequent legislation and a good deal of deliberate obfuscation has blurred these definitions, but it does not retroactively change the meaning of the Regulations.

Really, do they? Or are they just afraid to say the emperor has no clothes?

In your first paragraph, which legislation do you mean?

Is there currently a law which says what sex and gender is? The difference?

And is there a law which makes clear that single sex toilets are required?

Or, (and I’m confusing myself) is the HSE law saying two separate toilets, by sex (when gender wasn’t seen as being something different to sex?) However, this is now being interpreted differently in that the wording that is used is now aligned (in terms of current society) to gender?

Section 212 of the Equality Act defines

‘man’ means a male of any age. It does not mean gender it means sex even though others would like to suggest otherwise.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and-gender

'Example: A small cafe with limited space and facilities for public use has separate lockable, self-contained male and female toilets with hand basins in single units. To ensure they are fully inclusive, and to make the most effective use of the available facilities, the cafe decides to make them all gender neutral.

Example: A community centre has separate male and female toilets. It conducts a survey in which some service users say that they would not use the centre if the toilets were open to members of the opposite biological sex, for reasons of privacy and dignity or because of their religious belief. It decides to introduce an additional gender-neutral toilet. It puts up signs telling all users that they may use either the toilet for their biological sex or to use the gender neutral toilet if they feel more comfortable doing so.

If the toilets you provide for service users are also used as staff toilets, you will also need to take account of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 which require employers to provide a certain number of toilets and to provide separate toilet and washing facilities for men and women in some circumstances. Guidance can be found on the Health and Safety Executive website.'

Workplace Health Safety and Welfare Regulations (1992)

www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/toilets.htm#:~:text=The%20relevant%20legislation%20is%20the,provided%20at%20readily%20accessible%20places.

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/20/made

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/21/made

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/24/made

The specifications given for toilets v urinals required also make it obvious that there is a sex based reason for giving such specifications.

Yes, I’ve been reading about HSE - however, it consistently refers to providing facilities for “men and women”.

It does go on to saying about female sanitary provision.

So, if I ask my work - are toilets by sex or by gender, what is the correct (in line with the law) response?