How would you word the legal policy on single sex spaces to exclude men?

[CrazyOldMe]

Given that most tradesmen are male, how do we word the law to prohibit men from not entering female safe spaces, yet allow plumbers etc inside when necessary?

Put up as sign informing women if male service staff are present at that time.

Exactly - you change the signage when it isn't single-sex. Same as you change signage or labelling whenever anything changes.

Come on, why is this so hard?

Agree with you @NecessaryScene Some posters are making very heavy weather of hypothetical situations where we already have solutions or where one is easily found.

It feels like a deliberate attempt to make the SC’s simple, clear ruling (of the bleedin’ obvious) into something that will make navigating daily life more complex and onerous; it really won’t.

It's also so that if something goes wrong, the usual suspects can say "see, told you so, you brought on yourselves" or some such nonsense

Unless it’s a paramedic or police officer in an emergency, surely you’d know in advance if a male is visiting?

Most places they just put up a sign on the odd occasion there’s a man fixing something in a female-only space, then women can choose whether to enter, go elsewhere or wait.

If women are already in a space and a workman needs to go in (e.g. toilets), the man usually shouts to see if anyone’s in there, then waits until all the women are finished before putting a sign up and going in. Or they send a female staff member in to check if anyone’s in there and give the women the opportunity to choose whether they’re ok with the man coming in or whether he should wait.

This kind of thing happens all the time - we’re typically quite good at understanding the rules around single-sex spaces, especially the workmen who’ve been dealing with this stuff their whole careers. It’s not a new concept.

Ask anyone older than about 20 how these things used to be managed.

These comments do smack of “if men can’t have these things, nobody can”.

there were no issues with managing any of these things until about 10 years ago when self ID was adopted.

I was in a supermarket toilet recently with my 8yo DD and a male member of staff came in, unannounced (I heard the door/footsteps so I was aware someone else had come in when I was in the cubicle) to undertake a facility check. I don't think this is unusual BUT it would have been nice to have a sign to say, "Facility checks / maintenance may be undertaken by both female or male staff members" as I got a bit of a shock when I went to wash my hands to find a hurly burly bloke topping up the loo roll and I wouldn't have wanted my DD to have encountered him by herself - which is why protecting SSS is so important.

This

honestly i have no idea why people are finding these things so difficult…to hear some talk you’d think that single sex provision is a brand new thing

How do you tie your shoes if you cannot think of a solution to this

The law is already worded adequately in this regard: it talks about providing single sex services and plumbers etc. are not there to receive the service.

There are also provisions which allow employers to only employ women where needed.

OP here.

To be clear, I’m a gender critical as they come. I do not want men in women’s safe spaces whilst there are women and children in them. No ifs, no buts.

However, given that in some circumstances, men will have to enter, we need to word the law to reflect this.

Yes, a sign is a good idea. it should be universal to aid women who don’t speak English/ have learning difficulties. The law should stipulate this too.

And no to male cleaners when the toilets are in use.

This is completely irrelevant to the ruling

It’s about the provision of services. The plumber is there for a different reason. In my experience a sign or a person at the door warning that a man is present has sufficed.

Surely everyone has seen the signs about male cleaners in motorway services loos etc etc.

Men going about their legitimate work have never been a problem and still aren’t. This is a complete non-issue.

If it's routine checks normally there is a sign that's says Male Attendants. Who often shout first.

If it's a plumbing issue, if you have more than one set of ladies toilets you close that set for maintenance while the plumber is working. TBH he might need to turn the water off anyway

@CrazyOldMe "However, given that in some circumstances, men will have to enter, we need to word the law to reflect this."

which law? The law hasn't changed.

btw male cleaners do sometimes need to enter when the bathroom is in use eg at big train stations where they will literally not be able to clean if waiting for it to be empty.

There are signs up explaining that.

you are creating a problem from zero. Why?

I want the law to state that men cannot enter women’s safe spaces under any circumstances except an emergency. Full stop. No ifs, no buts.

However, that isn’t possible due to male tradesmen and cleaners needing legitimate access, so we need a well written policy that reflects this, but still excludes opportunistic men.

The EA covers indirect disability discrimination, etc already, so there’s no need to explicitly state the specifics of every possible scenario within the statute itself - it’s down to the organisation in question to work out the needs of their services users and to accommodate them, and where they fail to do this, the person who’s been discriminated against can bring a claim under the EA (typically, complaining to them and citing the law is enough to get them to take action in most scenarios).

Are you referring to the wording of an individual organisation’s policy that you are trying to redraft in light of the ruling, or are you suggesting amendments to the Equality Act?

I don't see a problem.
When I worked briefly at a leisure centre, I was allowed to enter the Boys' changing rooms & toilets by simply knocking and saying "woman coming in for a reason". Nobody complained.
I could even enter the Men's "in an emergency" (there never was one).

Male attendants could enter the Girls' and Ladies' if arranged in advance. The same situation could apply.

These sort of things have been useful in the past...

The law specifies that it is about who can use the service/join the association/be employed in the job/count towards the quota. Not about all possible people who may enter a space for all reasons.

That would be down to individual policies, not the law. And would vary by need - for example there's no reason why a male electrician couldn't come into a WI¹ meeting to fix a light (probably in a public hall - it's the association that is single sex, not the space). But there are reasons why a male maintenance or cleaning worker might not be welcome in the women's side of a mosque, or in a women's refuge.

These places already have policies in place specifying whether men are allowed for certain purposes, at certain times, only when accompanied, only in specific parts of the building, or not at all. No law could or should cover them all.

These are non-problems.

¹ If the WI were actually single sex, which of course it isn't.

Have you ever been in a woman's toilet?

'Yes, a sign is a good idea'

Quite. And an idea that is implemented in women's loos from one end of the country to the other.

Sorry can i ask something

the ruling clarified what a woman is in relation to the equalities act of 2010

there is no clarification of what a man is as that wasnt what was being considered

so a transman can still use the gents?

i may have missed something in the ruling as i haven’t read the whole thing