Bridget Philipson- TW should use toilets according to biological Sex.

[LizzieSiddal]

On R4 at 7.50!!

She said she spoke on behalf of the government, they welcome the judgement and it is now clear, provision must be based on Biological Sex!

Apologies for posting then running (have an appt to get to). but didn’t see another thread on this.

(If you have the sounds App you should easily beable to go to 7.50 and listen)

One of the biggest differences between males and females is the voice. So a quick conversation would sort out any possible confusion.

I believe Erishkigalangcleg is referring to this

Ben Bradshaw on the world at one hoping for single gender spaces

and brought up transmen for once

and said how hard transwomen would find it to pee in a bottle in a men’s ward - so propagating the myth that most have surgery

Ben Bradshaw on World at One now saying that trans men, who look more like men than he does, will be in the women's toilets and Baroness Faulkner shouldn't be listened to because she is not a trans ally

Labour are the party who wrote the Equality Act and inserted 'gender' into it, creating all this mess in the first place.

TRAs sudden concern for butch lesbians and TIFs since the SC ruling has been truly touching.

( Yes, that is sarcasm).

Because men might see their penis and transwomen would feel embarrassed/undignified/unsafe presumably? In which case, why doesn’t this apply to the women who might see the transwomen’s penis? So blind to women

Ben Bradshaw is a man and this simply doesn't affect him, his mere opinion is of no value here. The decision has been made and has been clarified and accepted by the government as of today. If they want unisex toilets then make the men's toilets unisex so that men, trans identifying men and women can use them. They can then keep women's single sex spaces for actual real women only. As far as I can tell they have to have a good reason not to provide an appropriate single sex space for women.

What has made Starmer and the Labour party suddenly change their minds? For years they have been anti women, why change now?

If all you needed to do to be read as male was wear a hoody and jeans, the world would be a different place.

”Maternity leave you say? By George I thought you were a man!”

”Just going out for a run in the dark - don’t worry I am wearing a hoody!”

”I popped on a hoody and was elected President of the USA!”

Because the TWAW and if you don’t agree you’re a bigot campaign has been incredibly popular. Younger politicians and commentators do actually believe TWAW because they have been programmed to do so but I think people like KS just didn’t want to pick a side and therefore ended up looking really stupid. The SC ruling has been incredibly clear about the law so they have to now come down on one side or another

I am not a fan of Starmer but I think we should take his statement at face value. It is a waste of effort that needs to be focused on the next phase, to push for more.

I would love an apology but that is unlikely to happen and pushing for one is a distraction.

I think we should use his speech and the of Phillipson as a springboard to drive the work that will be needed to undo the stealthy erosion of women’s right’s throughout aspects of daily life.

They are in government so can’t avoid responsibility.

Except as the ruling clarifies, there was nothing wrong with the Act. It specifies sex and gender as being separate - it’s been conflated by powerful pressure grouos but the Act itself made it clear in the first place. All the judgement does is confirm it.

I’ve been mistaken a few times too. I’m not terribly butch but I used to work in a job that was pretty much all male and me and the assumption was you were a bloke possibly not helped by the shapeless, ill fitting, high vis male uniform. Clocked as female as soon as I opened my mouth though

There was no need to introduce gender reassignment as a protected characteristic particularly in such loose terms. Those with genuine gender dysphoria are protected under the PC of disability.

Just a reminder that in workplaces employers are legally required to provide single sex facilities under workplace regulations - which is why we can expect to see the forthcoming humiliating collapse of the Fife & Darlington nurses cases where nurses have been punished by their NHS Trusts for complaining about having to undress in front of men. Presumably major compensation for these women forthcoming.
Also Kemi B introduced new regulations for building new non domestic buildings specifying that:
"Changes to building regulations will mean that new non-domestic buildings, including restaurants, shopping centres, offices and public toilets will be required to provide separate single-sex toilets for women and men. Self-contained, universal toilets may be provided in addition, where space allows, or instead of single-sex toilets where there isn’t enough space".
Presumably the government are stymied if they wanted to introduce women unfriendly changes as they're under so much scrutiny now.

If it’s inwards opening and big enough to push a body out the way to get in I suppose that’s ‘acceptable’? In all toilets nowdays you should have a mechanism to get in, whether it’s a key or reversing a hinge.

There so many different and historical designs out there. Document T was written to try and bring some order. However it was sabotaged by a Stonewall campaign. Firstly they got a big letter writing campaign going for the consultation - fair enough, but it skewed the conversations away from the other protected characteristics. But then the commission (by a private company) that should have looked at design for people with long term health problems -based the evidence to enclose some designs on what transactivists liked. That private company won a Stonewall award.

There should be equality and impact assessments done on toilet design based on all the protected characteristics including invisible disabilities such as diabetes, heart conditions, epilepsy. None of which regarded the ‘gaps’, as far as I can see, and I have really looked hard, in the documents leading to Document T. Door gaps were never discussed other than transactivists preference for enclosed designs.

My comments for the consultation were never published or acknowledged although I did write into the consultation with evidence. As did others.

The above is all a bit rushed as I am out at work so sorry for typos.

The suggestion that if we all allow transwomen to use women's facilities, all this confusion will magically evaporate is utter nonsense.

Genderists posit that anyone should use any space they please. Yet they also require spaces to be pretendy 'single sex' in order to 1. allegedly keep the special males safe from other males and 2. satisfy the validation requirements of men who want to feel womanly.

The reason women have been challenged in women's spaces is precisely because they claim that males are able to use women's spaces.

The social contract has been undermined and damaged.

The SC judgement is the first step in reparation.

I have always wondered whether the 1st XV at Cambridge are supposed to choose the toilets where they feel most comfortable when they go on a pub crawl, or whether some men are supposed to know that they are still the wrong kind of men, and would be thrown out.

(apologies for stereotyping rugby players. For all I know they don’t drink these days).

I think they have both realised its unpopular and that the TRA arguments don't hold together under scrutiny. Starmer became a bit of a national joke with his previous comments on this issue, with those comments becoming an ongoing news story in their own right. I think he wants to shake that off .

Over the years, more and more real life cases of the problems that arise when you allow men to say they are women, have hit the newspapers. This has made the public realise its all nonsense, and dangerous and unfair nonsense to treat men as if they are women in all and every circumstance. They've realised that more was being asked of them than being polite to unhappy men who said they were women, and they don't like how its actually affecting real women and girls.

Furthermore the country is in a mess and many people are living under financial stress and very unhappy. Everyone feels there are big issues the government needs to address. They will be seriously pissed off if the Government now wasted time and energy trying to change legislation to give men rights to be women instead of sorting out the large structural problems that are making life harder for many citizens, whether housing, health or COL.

Finally the supreme court ruling gives the Labour government a way to escape the mess they got themselves into by saying they are just following the law.

Basically I think Labour have finally realised that most of the public are fed up of this nonsense and want it to end.

I don’t have a problem with banning discrimination against people who present as a different gender (even though I would prefer the whole idea of ‘gender presentation’ to be a non-issue I recognise men in dresses would get discriminated against), and neither do I think it’s a disability. The only issue is that people tried to conflate sex and gender, which the act doesn’t do, and never did, as the ruling confirms.

The men's ward will have bed pans as well, men need to use one for at least half the time.

It's really scrapping the bottom of the barrel time, for excuse making.

Do men routinely use urine bottles in multi occupancy wards without drawing the curtain?

I 100% agree with this.

Statements by KS and BP are really positive, regardless of what you think their internal motivation is for them.

They are exactly the statements we needed to hear to know the Government was taking seriously the SC judgement and will work with EHRC to produce guidance to see the SC ruling is implemented, thus undoing the past decade of false information TRAs had fed into public and private organisations.

BP and KS statements show that TRAs have lost their influence in government. And the guidance will mean they have lost it in public bodies too.

Its not over yet, but I really don't think things could realistically be much better for us than they are now. Things are good.