New wave of Trans Allies needed

[Barearse]

Trans identifying men are still men and still need to pee. It’s no longer a problem foisted on women to accommodate them in our loos or any other of our single sex female spaces and it never should’ve been.

I’ve had a few blokes say to me recently ’But what about the poor transwomen now? Where are they going to pee?’. My response to them is: ‘This is now a men’s problem for men to deal with. How about you lot become trans allies and welcome them all back into the men’s loos. And while you’re at it, you might want to address all that prejudice, discrimination and aggression at gender non conforming blokes that gave them all the excuse to come running into our loos in the first place’.

Trans Allies should no longer be about supporting trans identified men to decimate our rights. Their new role will be to support them to use the spaces and services for their biological sex, free from prejudice, discrimination and harassment. Go trans allies!

Same here. If I was ever caught by suprise I'd just make do with a bunch of loo roll - I'd never have asked a stranger for a tampon.
This is what made me doubt the story of the trans man who complained the police had harassed her in a Target store in the US. The story included a friend who was passing her a tampon and as that's a well worn TRA trope- I concluded the whole thing had been made up(or set up)

I don't understand this post. What does the Supreme Court judgment mean then?

The EqA provides that where certain bodies (service providers, employers etc) want to rely on single sex exemptions to the general rule not to discriminate on the basis of sex, they need to be truly single sex, so no persons of the opposite sex. That does not mean that a TW commits an offence by using the ladies loos. However they might argue that they are being discriminated against on the basis of gender reassignment if there is nowhere they can pee (though I'm not sure if that would succeed as the other mem presumably use the men's loos).

My understanding is that EqA 2010 has exceptions, not exemptions, where equality law applies differently.

Some men have a weird fixation about putting things inside other things. For them, tampons appear to be an expression of this fixation.

Ewww. I think I'd have had to have laughed with incredulity though.

Also apologies to @Scousemousey, I didn't notice your post before I said pretty much the same thing.

It's always tampons, isn't it? Never pads.

Nope, never had a girlie chat either
Had a friend hold my hair back when I was being sick. Does that count? We didn't chat much though.

"We just want to pee" because we're six pints deep, broke the seal an hour ago, and we're far from finished drinking

I’m not the PP, but they are correct in saying the SC ruling doesn’t criminalise individuals for using the wrong toilet.

The EA places obligations on organisations not to discriminate, so the duty is on the provider of the toilets to enforce single-sex provision where it’s provided (which obviously might involve ejecting someone from the loo or premises to ensure others aren’t discriminated against on their watch).

Trans people aren’t legally obliged to change their behaviour as a result of the ruling - it’s for employers, service providers, etc to manage the situation and ensure that their single-sex facilities are actually that. So it’s for the organisations to ensure they don’t discriminate against women by letting males into women’s facilities, just as it always has been.

Of course, there are other laws that might make a certain situation veer into criminal territory (nuisance, antisocial behaviour, harassment, etc), so it doesn’t mean the manager has no power to control what goes on in their venue. And obviously that works both ways - IMO, it’s quite reasonable for a woman to ask a TW to leave the toilets, but not to call them derogatory names or hurl abuse at them while doing so (obviously!)

Just to add - for public bodies who are also subject to the Public Sector Equality Duty under the EA, I would say it’s even more important for them to be crystal clear on their single-sex policies at the outset, to avoid women needing to challenge TW in the toilets. This can be achieved with clear messaging.

Ensuring that these two groups with protected characteristics aren’t placed in an awkward and potentially difficult situation in the first place is the best way for those public bodies to discharge their duty to foster good relations between women and trans people, which they’re obliged to do by law (especially now that the SC has clarified these are two separate groups).

I think that's unfair on (most of) us men. I definitely don't want creepy men to go into the Ladies toilets. They can use the Gents - but I will still be uncomfortable if they behave creepily. What I actually want is for them to stop being creepy.

No, because biological men would never do that, we know because that's what trans activists told us when we raised the same concern with letting transwomen in our spaces. No man would pretend to be trans, remember?

In reality, not a problem, because they can be removed anyway.