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.

For me there are two incidents which have brought the Equality Act into focus for me.

The first is Sarah Summers' legal action against the Survivors' Network and JK Rowling opening up Beira's Place. We know that rape support services are considered to be a situation in which providing single sex services which exclude even trans people with a gender recognition certificate is considered to be justifiable because the Equality Act literally gives this example in the legislation. And yet women cannot access single sex rape crisis support because organisations are refusing to provide it. Even though the law says it is legitimate to provide these services on a strictly single sex basis, the organisations providing them are saying that it is not legitimate and that women who want this are bigots who need to reframe their trauma.

The second is the recent judgment in the Scottish Court of Session, where Lady Haldane interpreted the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act to include legal sex even though I think it is obvious that this is not what was intended by the legislators.

That's why the Equality Act is now coming under scrutiny and why I would like to see not just a clarification that sex means biological sex, but also positive obligations on organisations to provide single sex spaces and services where appropriate.

Male is a sex category - not a gender.

A transman is a woman/female who for whatever reason prefers to present in 'masculine' ways.

On-line is not the real physical world, though. In the real world sex is very evident no matter what someone wears or how they present themselves.
It is now increasingly common to see men presenting as women - but everyone can see that they are male. It is not an on-line conspiracy. It is the evidence, and instinctive recognition, of one's own eyes and senses.

My dog can tell the difference between human males and human females.

My dog isn’t some sort of super genius. anyone who
works in animal rescue will tell you it’s incredibly common for abused animals to be scared of men.

If a dog can tell at a glance, why would humans need to eyeball a cock & balls or analyse a cheek swab?

Humans are mammals. Mammals are great at sex recognition.

Oh those hips do not lie!!

Yet, so many people like to think those hips don’t talk either!

Yes. They are.

And this contributes to the ever false impression that there is majority acceptance of those male individuals using female single sex spaces. We have male posters who come onto FWR and tell us constantly that no one can tell because they pass so well because no one has ever said anything! And not one of their friends or family or work has ever mentioned it. In fact, not one woman has ever said a thing!!!

It must be a crushing and cruel feeling to realise that they have no fucking idea what women and girls think despite being full of confidence that they are a woman. It must be even worse that after having their arse handed to them on this board that they will never know what women and especially all those who they believe are close to them actually think. Because coming onto this board and bragging about how they pass, they realise that female socialisation means that women and girls will rarely express an opinion to a male person in a toilet that they feel will cause them harm.

And strangely, with so many images of male people shouting angry abuse and placards now abusing women floating around in the internet … they then also wonder why the majority of women and girls now fear to say a word that might cause a male in a female toilet to react. Who would have thought it,eh?

The freeze/fawn element of fight/flight often seems to come into play when women encounter males-with-gender-identities in female only spaces and/or female focussed communities.
Women are often far nicer to men who claim to be women than they are to other actual women - see any fashion/make up FB group or subreddit for examples. Fawning is a self preservation instinct.

Words having meanings.
Sex = man male female woman
Gender = masculine feminine

Never have man and woman meant masculine and feminine. Maybe you just learnt the words wrong originally so are confused because it is very difficult to see how you can be genuinely asking this question.

Ooh, it's been a while!

Worth watching this right to the end. Note the sign-off.

https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1709843794135331064

Sarah Summers' case really opened my eyes to how some people (unfortunately a female relative is included here) really twist their thinking to uphold 'TWAW' in regard to this case.

Having given her a breif overview of the case, her reply was 'what about the TW?' She they spoke to a female friend who works in a related field (eg psychology) and she told my reletive that a woman who couldn't cope with having a TW in their group therapy, clearly wasn't 'up to' group therapy, or some such nonsense.

It's all twist, twist, twist. The woman must be in the wrong, the TW's needs are paramount at all times. Who cares is the woman was fine with female only group therapy, that's irrelevant! The woman must have some kind of mental weakness, this means they don't get - no, deserve - group therapy.

Do you need to see someone's cock to know for sure if they are a man in that case? Or do a full analysis of their chromosomes

No, we have these things called eyes. Also, are you saying only men have penises? Tut tut.

I encountered a transwoman in a shower block recently. I am strongly GC and do not want to share spaces like this with males, but I just exchanged a polite word with him and went about my business. If I'd said something it would have caused a huge fuss and I was on holiday with relatives and didn't want to ruin their holiday. Should I have said something? Possibly. Would it have made a difference? I doubt it - I've become fairly pessimistic about people upholding single sex spaces.

And for those who think it's hard to tell - male-pattern balding, male distribution of fat, deep voice, bright pink and skimpy clothing a women of that age would never wear, male-typical tattoos.

I know this absolutely which is another reason why it's so fucking annoying that the Tories are using it as a vote tool when they could have actually dealt with it over the last 13 years. Labour are fucking annoying because they haven't listened to the women in their own party saying this.

And for those who think it's hard to tell - male-pattern balding, male distribution of fat, deep voice, bright pink and skimpy clothing a women of that age would never wear, male-typical tattoos.

Hand size, Adam's apples, foot size, shoulder width, shoulder shape, jaw shape, brow shape, nose shape, wrist shape, leg length to body length ratio and the gait. If in doubt watch them walk. It isn't one single factor that allows you determine sex visually it is lots of tiny little differences that taken individually aren't conclusive (some men don't have a visably Adam's apple, some TW will have their Adam's surgically altered or will wear clothes/jewelry to hide it) but put a slightly receding hair line with a strong jaw line and big hands and broad shoulders and legs that are short compared to the body and you start to join the dots. The answer to but how can you tell? Isn't cock or no cock and it's not a DNA test it's by observation.

In my young free and single days I never once ended up starting to get down and dirty only to have to say 'ooops sorry I'm going to leave now I thought you were man but now I can see that isn't the case' now admittedly my research wasn't massively extensive but none of my friends either male, female, gay or straight ever end up having to do that.

30 years ago we didn't approach someone on the dance floor and say excuse me what are your pronouns before asking them to dance but we all managed to cop hold of someone of our desired sex. If it was impossible to tell who is male and who is female without checking the contents of pants surely the odds say out of the many dozens of pairing that happened in our student house at least one of them would have been wrong but no, gay male and straight women only ever brought men back and straight men and lesbian women only ever brought women back.

I agree it is fucking annoying. And what is worse is that women in the party are trying to table discussion, after Starmer’s supposed ‘concessions’ and they cannot. It makes no sense if Starmer was using the common language meaning of female and not trying to use the definition under law for when the EA exceptions are not enacted.

That he and the party has said nothing since, is all too concerning. Maybe he too will say something at conference… the conference that labour women still couldn’t get a stand at.

That clarity would be very welcome.

@Snufflebabe05

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

It is more confused than it should be perhaps but let me try putting it like this. IF you redefine the words that were used to write a law you can make an argument that the law has changed without any democratic scrutiny or that ever having been the intention of parliament. Whilst I'm not a lawyer it is unlikely that such an argument would hold up in court.

In the 1992 legislation women and men were not defined as society had a clear universally understood meaning of the terms. (Adult human female / adult human male). The meaning of the law as written is therefore the same as it has always been.

In the 2010 legislation in an attempt to avoid such redefinitions making the law unclear a woman is defined for the purposes of the act as 'a female of any age' and a man as 'a male of any age' as of 2010 no-one had yet sought to appropriate male and female as identity words rather than sex based words. So at the point it became law the intention was clear.

Failure to provide single sex toilet facilities could leave your workplace in a vulnerable position as to discrimination on the grounds of sex and or religion / belief.

I would like to know that two !

*too!

Was there not a case brought against the nhs, where a woman was used as a comparator to a transwoman, re changing facilities? I think the transwoman was successful, but I could be remembering incorrectly.

The nhs should have challenged the ruling, as it was bonkers, but I don’t think they did.

Sheffield NHS?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11027471/Trans-NHS-worker-wins-discrimination-case-confronted-underwear.html

https://www.thehrdirector.com/legal-updates/legal-updates-2022/transgender-nhs-worker-wins-gender-reassignment-discrimination-claim-concern-among-staff-woman-naked-waist-changing-room/