Transmen

[southbiscay]

There has been a lot of discussion online about which toilets transmen can use. Especially due to the part of the judgement which suggests that it may be legal to exclude them from women’s toilets, and they may not be able to legally use the men’s either.

Going back to basics, the protected characteristic of sex in the equality act does not permit discrimination between men and women. However, there is an exception whereby you can discriminate if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. When a service provider uses the exemption, it is generally in order to provide a female only space because that can very easily be shown to be a legitimate aim. The corollary of providing a female toilet is that another toilet is needed for men, thus creating a male toilet. But it was never the original objective to create a male toilet, it is just a result of having created a female one. So on that possibly dodgy reasoning, would it be legal for a service provider to provide one female toilet and one mixed sex toilet? Because if it is then it would appear to solve the transman question. I know there have been plenty of service providers who have thought it perfectly reasonable to convert the women’s toilets to an all gender toilet and keep the men’s as the men’s. I doubt this was ever legal, but would it be legal the other way round? I’m not saying that men would be happy with this as a solution, but frankly, I don’t care given we’ve been expected to put up with the reverse. What I do care about is leaving transmen with no realistic solution.

Hoping those with much more of a handle on this than I do, can shed some light on it.

tbh, i think any woman who deliberately alters her appearance to make herself look manly should be prepared to be challenged if they use the ladies.

And a challenge need not be aggressive, just a gentle "this is the ladies" and a smile.

I've redirected a couple of men in the past when the signage hasn't been clear (and they've been a bit drunk) and it doesn't need to presage hand-to-hand combat

Let's keep aiming for a society where male people use men's toilets, female people use women's, no-one pretends they're the opposite sex for these situations, and no-one is violent to anyone in the toilets.

Yes it seems like a pipe dream, particularly the last bit, but there are some things that men need to sort out for themselves because they affect everyone else.

Lots of interesting comments but I don’t think my initial question has really been answered. Essentially, I care about where transmen fit into this judgement, partly because they’re women and partly because many of them have been lied to by the Internet, the medical profession and trans organisations.

The essence of the judgement is that single sex spaces mean just that: single sex. So, In the absence of gender neutral spaces, transmen go to the women’s toilets. And transwomen go to the men’s. However, the part of the judgement that refers to passing transmen potentially being able to be excluded from women’s spaces, when at the same time being able to be challenged to leave the men’s space seems iniquitous.

It’s all very well Maya saying ‘well just provide third spaces’, but that just isn’t going to be possible for lots of service providers – for example a restaurant. Of course a passing transman could use the men’s toilet and nobody might be any wiser. But if you are a transman and want to stick to the letter of the law you could find yourself without an option and I’m afraid to me that just doesn’t seem fair.

Hence why I am asking whether it is legal under the exceptions in the equality act for a service provider to re-label the men’s toilets as unisex and keep a women’s only toilet as well, or does that amount to sex discrimination against men? I don’t think it should because men don’t have the same need for a single sex space, even though they might prefer it. I realise men might not like this solution but frankly I don’t give a damn - for years now we have seen women’s toilets routinely labelled mix gender while the men’s remains unaltered.

It’s all very well Maya saying ‘well just provide third spaces’, but that just isn’t going to be possible for lots of service providers – for example a restaurant.

It’s not women’s rights campaigners’ job to come up with the solution for the trans population or for venues.

Tiny venues like restaurants would probably be best off having a few individual toilets so that only one person is in there at a time.

I don’t personally think it would be fair to do away with men’s toilets, as it will indirectly discriminate against men who aren’t comfortable peeing in front of women, but again, this isn’t women’s problem to solve.

In the same way that the EA doesn’t specify the logistics of how venues should actually organise their toilets, I don’t think anyone is going to be able to come up with a one-size-fits-all solution to the issue of how trans people should be accommodated. The law is now clear, and so it’s up to individual venues to work out how they can ensure everyone is accommodated.

It’s all very well Maya saying ‘well just provide third spaces’, but that just isn’t going to be possible for lots of service providers – for example a restaurant. Of course a passing transman could use the men’s toilet and nobody might be any wiser. But if you are a transman and want to stick to the letter of the law you could find yourself without an option and I’m afraid to me that just doesn’t seem fair.

apart from the fact that the TRAs have suddenly remembered that trans men exist, i find it hard to care.

It is a bit FAFO and they are now in the FO phase. Having said that: I am still of the opinion that they use the ladies, unless they are really really manly. Then the men can budge up, for all i care.

I think a lawyer with specialist knowledge would need to answer to know for certain, but I think it would be breaking the equality law as outlined in the ruling. Men are as entitled to single sex spaces as women.

Don’t get me wrong I’m absolutely delighted and over the moon about the judgement. I’ve been a long time in the gender wars and it seemed that this day would never arrive. However, there is a risk that an unintended consequence of the ruling could be for service providers to default to providing only unisex toilets when they don’t have the money or room to provide a third space. This would be unfortunate to say the least

No. Not the accessible.

Nope. Some women who have taken wrong sex hormones and undergone extreme surgeries might have to face natural consequences of their actions. Their actions must not be used as emotional blackmail in a puerile attempt at a gotcha to punish pesky women for wanting to protect our sex based rights. Remember the requirements for single sex spaces involves more than just toilets. A lot of transmen are clearly female though so their presence in women’s toilets won’t be an issue

It is about protecting women’s sex based rights. If a woman has altered her appearance so drastically that she is indistinguishable visually from men then she might has some problems to navigate.

This isn’t something that we as women need to provide the solution for. Politicians and lawmakers should be responsible for sorting out the mess.

In an ideal world, and if there were any true justice, organisations like Stonewall that have deliberately confused what the law said and created an industry out of selling inaccurate DEI training packages and providing bullshit policy guidance to businesses and public bodies would be held financially liable for their actions. But sadly they will just cash in on this to sell more bullshit to captured organisations.

TRAs are absolutely now attempting to use transmen as a gotcha. They don’t give a shit about them usually and the media have been disgraceful in their failure to highlight that the FWS case covered sex based protections for transmen in respect to maternity, abortions etc that the Scottish Government were gappy for them to lose

a lot of people with a trans identity gave thankfully not started on a medical pathway. The females will be able to use female facilties. Those that have gone a medical pathway might face difficulties. The fact though that the judgement confirms that they could legally be excluded doesn’t mean they will be but they may have to put up with being challenged

I think it's a really difficult question. Imo it all comes down to whether an individual passes or not. But passes according to whom? I think it's quite normal in law to consider what an average, reasonable person would do/think and take it from there so I guess that's the starting point.

TM tend to look quite ambiguous imo although a picture online is so different from how someone appears in person and I do think unless they're unusually large or have a thick beard then size and mannerisms would give most away.

I looked up the prison stats and there appears to be 1 transman in the male prison...the other 48 are sensibly housed in the female estate. It appears the reverse is the same with 2 transwomen potentially in the female estate and the remaining 225 in the male estate.

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hmpps-offender-equalities-annual-report-2023-to-2024/hmpps-offender-equalities-report-202324#transgender-prisoners

Imo it all comes down to whether an individual passes or not. But passes according to whom?

According to whoever interacts with them in the single-sex space (employees of the service and other service users) at the time.

If a woman sees a transman in the female toilet and thinks they’re a man, they will probably look a bit harder to see whether they think they might be a trans-identitying biological female before making a judgment as to whether to challenge them or inform staff. So it will all depend on what that woman at the time thinks.

I would imagine most transmen will be left alone to use the female loo as women are typically pretty good at judging someone’s biological sex. And for the bigger ones who do look like men, they will likely use the men’s with no bother and no-one will be any the wiser.

Individual transmen will come to know which category they fit into pretty quickly from their interactions with others now that single-sex spaces are allowed again, so I should imagine that any confusion will be short-lived.

I don't think you can lawfully have a situation where women's privacy and dignity is protected from transwomen, but men are not afforded the same protection from transmen.
I don't agree that transmen look more convincing than transwoman. But even if that were the case, then it makes the situation worse not better in that men could be more easily tricked into a false sense of security

But the the reasons for legal sex discrimination aren't always symmetrical e.g. with sport.

Men are not vulnerable to women in the same way that women are vulnerable to men.

They do have the the same right to privacy and dignity, but I don't think it's always correct to treat men's needs as equivalent.

Isn't that the whole point of equality legislation though?

I'm not sure that there is a real problem here. In its submission, the EHRC claimed that declaring that sex means biological sex would make para 28 redundant and therefore sex can't mean biological sex. The SC showed how para 28 could still be operable if sex means biological sex. The SC didn't say that para 28 must be applied, only that it could be applied. I can't imagine that many SSS providers would consider applying the para 28 exception to exclude "passing" transmen.

I think we have to realize though that it is not neutral to require third spaces. It's placing a burden on businesses. And I'm not convinced there is enough justification to place that burden on businesses for what are essentially cosmetic alterations entered into voluntarily.

Not necessarily

It’s not about equal treatment. Women’s rights to single-sex spaces is not about treating everyone the same but rather about recognising that we have particular needs related to our biological sex

I think the big difference is that "transmen" who want to live in the male world very quickly learn that they have to keep a seriously low profile or else it simply won't work.

Men simply will not accept the stuff that women have had to deal with with the whole "transwoman" situation. What's more, as many have said, men are much more prone to violence, and that could very, very easily be directed towards "transmen" who tried to push a "transmen are men" agenda.

Not an ideal situation ... but I honestly think that's the difference.

Not RTWT so sorry if someone else said this. Not an original thought by any means....

I think we have to realize though that it is not neutral to require third spaces. It's placing a burden on businesses. And I'm not convinced there is enough justification to place that burden on businesses for what are essentially cosmetic alterations entered into voluntarily.

I agree, third spaces are not neutral. People talk about them as though they will solve the problem. They won't. They will just be another mixed sex space for female users to be at risk in. Trans-IDing men won't want to use them because what they want is access to women's spaces.

Can you imagine providing third spaces for other people who have modified their bodies in such a way that it makes others stare at them or makes other service users uncomfortable? How about these people? Some of them believe that they are tigers, or dragons, in just the same way that trans-IDing people believe that they are the opposite sex. Should they have third spaces, or do they accept that they have made these choices and have to live with the societal consequences?

I'm glad I wasn't in those Men's toilets you used, when I was in my teens. I would have been so horribly embarrassed. If this was in a nightclub, probably not much of a problem, but men, and particularly teens and young men, can be very sensitive indeed about being seen undressed or partially dressed. As most men are heterosexual, the presence of women is particularly likely to be confusing.

I have always assumed that single sex spaces can be communal with cubicles, and that third spaces would be single rooms like disabled toilets, though they wouldn't need to be so big. So anyone who was happy to do so could use the third spaces. As someone with intermittent bowel problems, I would welcome this option in addition to the gents that I would normally use, and the ladies that I would never use.

So, essentially, you'd like more toilets in general.