Interim guidance from EHRC is out

[impossibletoday]

https://x.com/HeadWarriorTWM/status/1915853104421167211?t=qbUrcHVdtPyqVB1uZ5depA&s=19

The problem with this is that there is a minimum requirement for the number of male and female toilets for a given number of people that work there.

Most architects will minimise, as far as possible, the amount of space given to toilets so that more space is available for other purposes within the building.

Moving to a "majority gender neutral" situation (assuming that currently the minimum number of toilets have been provided) will mean that extra toilets will have to be constructed.

How would your colleagues feel about losing some space in the staff canteen or other areas in order to build more toilets?

Additionally, don't 'gender neutral' toilets have more issues with hidden cameras?
Furthermore you would need sanitary bins in 100% of toilets rather than only in the ladies as currently which is an additional ongoing cost.

Could we please stop referring to unisex or mixed sex toilets as gender neutral?

Single sex toilets should be gender neutral, men should be free to use the men's toilet regardless of their gender.

OMG… how funny would that be? We may be neighbours?

Am wondering whether one of those retail units could be converted into a real BlueStocking cafe?

with a Gerbil play centre next door?

Unisex toilets and changing rooms are known to increase risks to women.

And the Supreme Court, and the EHRC, really could not have been clearer on the intention of the judgement, aka the intention of the EA2010.

No government is going to repeal the EA2010, so sex in the EA2010 was, is, and will remain, defined as the universally understood meaning of sex (i.e., reproductive class) and not by some made up definition that ignores basic science.

And for anyone who is still misunderstanding the intentions, or who plans to ignore the judgement and the law, can be referred to Arkell vs Pressdram

@MissScarletInTheBallroom it would also explain the ‘overthinking’ about trans access to loos as it would be a significant issue if you live in my town as we have a higher than the national average sized TQI+ population/visitors. Especially on the 925 train for those rushing to catch 10am lectures and workshops.

I don’t wish them any ill will - many are people that my kids went to school/college with. My DD was one of them. But I do anticipate a few local paper and FB rant-page posts about ‘Neo’ and ‘Mildred’ being challenged in the loos.

Yes, I hope this fact isn’t forgotten in the rush to justify ONLY having unisex spaces, rather than asserting single sex spaces and finding an accommodation or 3rd space for those that need them.

I think the labelling works well when it involves the provision of a third space to accommodate those with the PC of gender reassignment.

I don’t think it should be used when this is the only provision/ where single sec provision is missing.

You may be underestimating him and he’s a decent person and will choose to abide by the law.

Which means what the Supreme Court decided and new guidance has said. No access to single sex spaces for trans women (biological men). This includes your friend. Will they follow the law do you think?

She always has and will continue to be a decent person however she responds to this, but I expect she’ll seek out neutral spaces where available

I see male people with transgender identities leveraging any aspect they can to convince women that they should be allowed access to female single sex spaces. Emotional pleas referring without awareness to their past decades of ignoring female people’s needs, threats about female people coming in to scare female people, and on and on.

But this is a strange one? Leveraging having to take a niece into the toilets as a reason for continuing access. Gosh, it is like no male parent or family member ever had to find a solution. One that didn’t require access to female single sex spaces when they were not female.

x.com/theonlyguru/status/1916119089782677906?s=46

How çan you be a decent person and knowingly enter places you know you should not be? Everyone talking about their lovely TW friends who are so nice and respectful of women, but who use women’s spaces when women have stated they need single sex spaces for their privacy, safety and dignity
seem to be describing really not very nice people. How arrogant must you be to decide your want to be validated trumps another person’s need for privacy, safety and dignity. Surely if TW were women, they would do as women are conditioned and expected to do, and put others first….

And where not available? What will your friend decide, do you think?

This.

Whatever happened to the word 'unisex'?

No, not however your friend responds. There’s only one decent response possible here.

I think following the law and not breaking it is part of that.

There’s no reason think your male friend won’t respect guidance, given you say they are decent. They probably wouldn’t steal either.

I don’t know, but I do know she feels the same discomfort about sharing spaces with men that we all do

In a work situation an employer would have to discipline an employee for creating a hostile environment. It’s the exact 180 of what happened to Sandie Peggie. Except Sandie was on the right side of the law.

So he should understand that it would be cruel (and unlawful) to inflict that discomfort on women by using our spaces.

But the fact your friend is uncomfortable sharing male spaces is not women’s problem to solve, womens spaces are not there for anyone who might feel a bit uncomfortable in the gents.

To show solidarity you can go into the men’s together. Like when you were students and the queues for the ladies were too long. As long as you have wing-women you’ll all be perfectly fine

Excellent. So you male friend understands that female people may be distressed by their presence in the female toilet. And should never have been using them in the first place.

Belief and surgery has fuck all relevance to the acceptability for any male person to be in a female single sex space. Respectful male people stay out and always did.

Clarity is absolutely what is required, and what's been delivered.

A law that needs to be understood by service users, service providers, employers, employees.

Luckily, it is simple enough that children have been able.to understand it from the age they start school.

Boys mustn't go in the girls loo. That's it.

But surely me entering a male space with her would be just as illegal and wrong as the other way around

But then PP would be breaking the law as she is a woman and it’s a men’s single sexed space?