A worrying thought about the SC judgment

[PlayerOneReady]

Is anyone else concerned that what may happen now, in reality, is a big increase in ‘gender neutral’ facilities as organisations realise they don’t actually have capacity for a third space, at least in the short term?

And we all know from what we’ve seen in theatres, etc, that that will end up with effectively one ‘Men’s/with urinals’ and one ‘Gender Neutral’.

It was this story in today’s Times that made me think about it. I’m especially worried about gym changing rooms etc. Would we have the right to challenge if this does happen?

story:

Equalities watchdog inundated with questions on trans women ruling

https://www.thetimes.com/article/557269e6-2902-4b30-b873-4fac87ba6253?shareToken=131768232050262c20823acf6fe87c92

This is reassuring, thank you.

Some businesses definitely already do this. London theatres for example, where the historic nature of the building makes it hard to add in extra spaces.

The easiest, cheapest and most legally compliant option is to have one single sex female facility, and redesignate the men's facility to all gender.

This way, there are no issues with trans people having difficulty using a facility that they are not comfortable in and women have their facilities protected.

Men could argue sex discrimination, but imho they are more likely to object to trans women in their facilities than women or trans men and they would have to prove excluding women and trans men (but not trans women) is proportionate, appropriate and necessary.

What I'm concerned about is, looking on Linked In, there are lots of posts (from lawyers!) along the lines of 'this judgment doesn't change anything, transwomen (with or without. a GRC) can still access female only single sex spaces.' This is NOT what the judgment says. It says you can have a single sex only space so long as its a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (so for example, you have a woman only shelter for reasons of safety, a woman only hospital ward for reasons of dignity and privacy etc.) And a service provider is entitled to exclude transwomen (with or without a GRC) and men so long as the single sex space is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. So long as the single sex female only space can be justified (and justification is very easy to achieve) you can exclude all males from that space.

People are fudging this by saying that the 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' doesn't apply to the single sex space itself, but to the consideration of whether to allow transwomen into the space. So when considering whether to let a transwoman into the space you would have to apply a case by case analysis and consider whether the exclusion is proportionate and in pursuit of a legitimate aim. This would mean in some cases transwomen would be let into single sex spaces.

The black and white text of the Equality Act and the judgment makes it plain that you don't commit discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment if you don't let transwomen into a female only space, but already there is confusion being sown by people saying you would discriminate against transwomen if you didn't consider their individual case and whether it was proportionate to exclude them. The Equality Commission has said they will be publishing guidance which will basically say in all caps that transwomen won't be permitted into female only spaces, but I fear this will just be ignored.

Absolutely. Lazy language by me there. Apologies, I meant mixed sex.

Indeed. So many organisations had (still have) policies that explicitly stated that employees were not allowed to question (e.g.) a man's presence in the female changing room.

It's not that easy to make facilities "gender neutral". If they are mixed sex, they need to comply with HSE requirements, i.e. toilets will need to be converted to fully-enclosed, self-contained (i.e. with washbasins) cubicles. That is going to cost an awful lot of money for (e.g.) a university to do all over its campus. Money that they don't have.

Asked an architect; built from scratch new builds it’s relatively easy to incorporate the right number of loos, including various sizes of disabled loos, that are fully contained with sinks. It’s also generally preferred by the client as most people do seem to prefer this. So going forward this may happen. You also make sure they can be unlocked from outside in the event of an emergency. (Often can be done with a coin. Tho potentially issues there?)

(We had a disagreement about how often someone may become seriously unwell in a loo and need help, if not a disabled loo. Would appreciate stats on that, though they’re going to be different moving forward as not all loos currently are fully contained height.)

his perspective is that a particular issue is the cleanliness, as men are much worse. Also, schools prefer single cubicles as less / no graffiti.

it’s near impossible and v expensive convert what’s already there space wise to fulfil correct requirements.

architect I spoke to was v surprised that places had just renamed what was already there as “all genders” as was adamant “you can’t do that.” (Consider him reeducated!)

@WeeBisomthat is worrying

if people can only use the toilets of their gender at birth then there will be a lot of male presenting people in the female toilets. This will be extremely easy for cis men to exploit by claiming they are trans male and therefore entitled to be there. This concerns me way more than the occasional trans woman in the cubicle next to me. The real issue here is cis men who are a risk to women and that is where the focus for change and protections should be

But on the whole 'male presenting' females will understand why they are challenged and their stature, hand size, and voice will also indicate which sex they really are.
Male sex people can be challenged and asked to leave or the police called etc as was the case for decades until recently.
Or trans people can campaign for third spaces which is something I suspect most women would get behind.

ps I presume by 'gender at birth' you mean 'sex'.

Especially when they can whip out their government-issued identity documents - passports and driving licences - which declare that they are female.

I think the next implication will be that passports will need to correctly state sex, with gender alongside if so desired.

There haven’t been any male groups campaigning against women using male loos as far as I know.

Trans charities really should be raising money to campaign for and fund safe third spaces. Just as women did. Women have had to raise a hell of a lot of money to fund these cases to simply make sure the law as it always and already was, was being followed.

I know several trans men and honestly you wouldn’t know. Personally I think a third space makes most sense.

The most likely thing in many cases is that disabled spaces ( which is already sex neutral ) will be rebadged - given there are so few transgender people

how that pans out for disabled people will depend on the environment but the overall growth in number of disabled people over the last decade or so far exceeds I think the number of transgender

indeed I am pretty sure that happened in my workplace - one disabled loo became the “anybody” loo - although women were warned off because of the male aiming problem which seems very widespread ( like their piddle)

It is such a shame that Stonewall et al have put so much time and energy in trying to break women's single sex spaces rather than campaigning for a third space.

And this is the problem. Trans women had all the rights for employment, non discrimination etc. But they wanted more, they wanted in on women's single sex rights too. They went too far, and if there is now a bigger pushback that is a consequence of that.

TeenToTwenties
By the way, by saying it has to be 'policed' are you saying that trans people would willingly and knowingly break the law? For hundreds of years sex separated spaces has worked, it really isn't that difficult.

That was before Stonewall and others told transwomen they had the right to use single-sex spaces and convinced many public and private bodies that this was the law. To them, this feels like an important right is being taken away and some aren’t going to accept it without a fight.

There is an also a significant contingent of males, regardless of gender identity, who enjoy transgressing women’s boundaries. This law clarification won’t stop them, especially when they have government-issued identity documents which proclaim they are female.

Any building built before 2015
just needs the signs switched back to how they were before the madness started.

Any facility used by employees has to (under the 1992 regs) provide single sex toilets, washrooms and changing facilities

I suspect companies and organisations will fall into line VERY fast because they know that they WILL lose if taken to court.

We probably know different ones. One i know passes fairly well, one really doesn't (but seems to think they do).

Will trans organisations now stop talking about going into the women's toilets and get on with campaigning and fundraising for third spaces?

I know that gender dysphoria isn’t required to be trans anymore but if it were then I think it’s a fair argument they would be entitled to use the disabled toilet due to their disability of gender dysphoria.

Most places have a separate disabled toilet. I expect it's cheaper just to put a "gender neutral & disabled" sign on that door instead of building a separate third space. As it's an enclosed individual room I think this wouldn't cause any issues.

Female toilets are for females.
Males, no matter how they identify or what pieces of paper they carry use the men's.
Middle class women of a certain age will make sure of it.

I think there will be a lot of TRA trans men (female at birth for clarity) who almost completely pass who will be using the ladies to make life difficult for the shop (or whatever) they are in…I feel really sorry for the teenage Saturday shop assistant in primark etc who are going to have to deal with women saying there’s a man in the ladies and the TM saying “I’m female”