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 what I was saying in response to another poster who was querying it.

@Talulahalula
As per the bit of the judgement

Transmen (females) who pass well enough and choose to
are no threat to men
so are free to continue using male spaces

The risk aspect applies 99% to males invading female spaces
and they are now barred.

Okay, so - quoting directly on the point that trans men should not be in same sex male spaces:

Re separate and single-sex services - paragraph 218 […] the provisions relating to single sex services can only be interpreted in relation to biological sex

Re communal accommodation Paragraph 225. Accordingly, a certified sex interpretation produces incoherence in the application of these provisions. Moreover, it is not necessary to achieve the purposes of either the GRA 2004 or the EA 2010. On any view, the plain intention of these provisions is to allow for the provision of separate or single-sex services for women which exclude all (biological) men (or vice versa). Applying a biological view of sex achieves that purpose.

[end quote]
the bold is mine. It seems clear to me that the judgement says that the provisions of the EA 2010 allow for trans men to be excluded from same-sex male space (presuming that the provision of such same sex space is proportionate).

I have read paragraph 221 and I think it means that women living in the male gender could only be excluded from female service provision, without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination, where reasonable objection might be taken to their presence, for example, because ‘the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken in the context of the women only service being provided’. However the example given higher in the paragraph is group counselling for female victims of sexual assault.
So yes it leaves open the question where male presenting, biologically female people might go in this instance.
I would say however that the responsibility/blame for this problem lies with the groups who misrepresented the EA 2010 and not with the law itself, especially given the 200-odd preceding paragraphs which explain the GRA 2004 and the EA 2010, the intentions of these and the absurdity of having a GRC-inclusive definition of same-sex spaces. So trans men (women) have been sold a lie and are potentially left with a problem which requires unpicking. Plus ca change. And I sympathise, but I think the judgement is correct.

I will look for what Maya has said as I am not getting what you say from the judgement. However I am not a lawyer.

I’m not getting it either.

Here is Maya's X thread
https://x.com/MForstater/status/1913185931290460333

But the absolute best person to read is Audrey Ludwig on both Twitter and Linkedin

Re trans men : in practice there are unlikely to be complaints from males especially if they pass, so there is no reason why they can’t just fly under the radar and keep going into the males. The law is the law but the only way these things tend to ever get tested is if there are complaints…

Thanks, I don’t have X but I can probably get on Linked in so I will have a read.
In the summary of the judgement (page 86), it says
‘There are other provisions [than same sex spaces for those of the same sexuality] whose proper functioning requires a biological interpretation of ‘sex’. These include separate spaces and single-sex services (including changing rooms, hostels and medical services), communal accomodation and others (paras 221-228)’

This seems unequivocal to me that trans men should not be in male same-sex space. It’s not just about threat but privacy and dignity also for men not to have biological women in the spaces listed above, which is also addressed further up the judgement.
I am indeed curious to know how such unequivocal language allows trans men into male sex spaces. That would essentially mean that gay men cannot have associations without biological women, whereas the right to do this is underscored in the judgment.

If you don't think it's fair on disabled people, don't suggest it. We get one loo, if we're lucky, and many of us can't wait as long as able-bodied people.

Is there any way of getting this thread if you are not on X? I looked at Audrey Ludwig in LinkedIn but I am missing this as well.
No rush, I am heading out but if anyone knows, please let me know.

There is also a difference in terms of consent to expose oneself to increased risk: a trans man choosing to use the men’s is knowingly and willingly actively choosing to expose themselves to that increased risk. The reverse is not the case.

There are of course still privacy and dignity arguments but for me, the safety argument is paramount in understanding the point I made earlier - namely the imbalance in impact/lack of equivalence between the sexes because it is the one that unequivocally always leads to a greater detriment to women.

Here it is on Nitter
https://nitter.poast.org/MForstater/status/1913185937170845780#m

@HelenaWaiting
The detriment caused to disabled people by gender identity cannot be understated

rainbow painted trains but no access ramps etc etc

Exactly. & as it should be.

If someone is running a club night & has booked the premises, however, my understanding is that they can continue with 'whatever'.

I'm raising it because I know a lot of upset/confused people, & I'm an openly GC goth who is bracing herself. I'm out of kilter with a lot of people I've been friends with for decades.

& yes, I've already been vocal & I've certainly lost friends.

So it helps to be able to say 'no no one is coming for your private social events!'

@PlayerOneReady To answer your question OP. I think there needs to be lots of discussions going forward which at last are happening. And proper risk assessments. But done as quickly as possible. Document T from last year is a good start but isn’t great for safety without a few tweaks. The DfE guidance needs so much more work and they need it to make statutory for safeguarding.

At the moment lots of places will be reconfiguring toilets to single sex. If there’s space they can add a universal one. I think this ruling gives more people the confidence to know and to speak out. But these single sex toilets should not be enclosed and private for safety reasons. Particularly for those with invisible disabilities which includes epilepsy and heart conditions.

What I have observed on YouTube, in newsletters and in real life, is that young women who are adamant they don’t want to use women’s loos, end up using the women’s even when other loos have been converted for them and labelled gender neutral. A very small school study in America definitely had more boys liking the gender neutral toilets. There’s a realisation amongst women that they feel unsafe from the men that go in there with them, and that the gender neutral toilets are messier, smellier, and sanitary pads etc if available, are messed with. This is now being talked about more which is good. But in reality, it appears that ‘gender neutral’ options are mostly used by interested men and desperate women who are time limited when the ladies queue gets too long.

I would prefer there to be as few mixed sex toilets as possible for safety reasons.
No one appears to have risk assessed them for safety v privacy. Not even the government nor the DfE. Which is horrendous for those who have been harmed.

The statistics for serious sexual assaults inside schools are horrendous. As are those for public toilets.

We do not need more public toilets that are private and mixed sex.

When people finally start researching, looking at data and analysing toilet health and safety, including VAWG, they will come to the same conclusion I have. We need to be realistic and not be afraid of debating.

Also no suitable standard DfE designs in secondary schools for those with invisible disabilities (with risk of collapse)!

Thanks, the bit highlighted in Maya’s thread is what I also say at the bottom of my post at 19.13, namely that trans men could be disallowed into women’s same sex facilities in certain circumstances.
So there is no disagreement. I thought we were debating the point that trans men could use male facilities (so what you say at 16.58 unless I misunderstood), which they cannot. Maya does not suggest that they can.

@Talulahalula People like Buck Angel might get barred from female spaces.
So be it.
Buck is not a physical threat to men - as she regularly says.

The reason that the case was brought by Women's and Lesbian groups
is because we are the ones at risk.

As I say, I thought we were discussing a different point.

There is already space for trans people. For trans-identifying men, it's the gents. For trans-identifying women, it's the ladies.

As in the second point you make here.
The answer is no, trans men cannot use men’s if they like.
In addition, as is also now clarified, there may also be certain circumstances where trans men may not use female spaces (para 221). This is part of the consequence of presenting male, for example, with a beard. I don’t think we are disagreeing on that point.

Why does this example of the bleeding obvious need to be explained over and over again?
Got to give trans people their own spaces to avoid discriminating against them… 🤦‍♀️

My last post here just now as I feel I have spammed the thread somewhat.
I agree that there is an increased risk, but the matter of consent is two-way. If even one man does not consent to a trans man being in male space, the implications are the same as for a trans woman being in female space, there is no consent. The matter of proportional risk is irrelevant. Men have to consent as well as women.
Both risk and consent are irrelevant in terms of the law, which has now been clarified to mean neither sex should be in the other sex’s single-sex space.

Including one of my previous, university, employers. The policy was lifted wholesale from a model policy published by AdvanceHE, who mysteriously broke the link to it on their website when they rebranded from ECU.

Find a picture of Buck Angel and put your hand over her face from the nose down. She suddenly looks female.

The brow bones don't lie. I would have thought that several months of mandatory mask-wearing five years ago would have ensured that everyone realised this.