Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Clarity help

5 replies

Herewegosummer · 27/04/2025 06:36

I read the Equality and human rights commission update.

In workplaces and services that are open to the public:

  • trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex
  • in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities
  • however where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use
  • where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided
  • where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by either women or men

I don’t understand the second paragraph. When would trans men or women not be permitted to use their own biological single sex space?
can anyone help with an explanation?

OP posts:
Brainworm · 27/04/2025 06:55

The SC ruling used the example of a female who has taken steps to look male and does look male. They highlighted that it would be reasonable to exclude such females as their presence undermines the purpose/experience of being in a single sex provision.

The usual suspects are trying to make out that this is incomprehensible. However, there are significant differences between someone who presents as butch and or is hirsute, and a female taking testosterone in significant amounts.

Lots of women with PCOS have facial hair, some women take testosterone as part of HRT treatment, it is not difficult to differentiate these women from females with trans identities who take testosterone.

Furthermore, people should follow the law……in the same way they should not drive if they don’t have a driving licence, if their car isn’t insured, or if their safety belt isn’t fastened.

The SC ruling is clear. The interim guidelines are clear. There is a difference between disagreeing and not understanding.

Original poster
Herewegosummer · 27/04/2025 07:00

And this paragraph

  • where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by either women or men

So, for example, at The Old Vic and other theatre's where they have converted both the previously men’s and women’s single sex toilets all into mixed sex, is this is now unlawful?

Is it unlawful because they have the possibility to provide single sex toilets but only provide multiple mixed sex facilities. Is this unlawful based on the indirect discrimination that mixed toilets disadvantage women due to a) privacy of different biological bodily functions and needs. And b) the increased risk for women due to male violence/sexual assault?

It seems clear from the above that even floor to ceiling cubicles do not fall into the category of unisex provision if those cubicles are all within one room. Only single rooms, as one would find in a coffee shop etc. complete with sink and definitely not multiple cubicles within a separate toilet room.

Am I understanding this correctly?

I intend to write to several restaurants and theatre's if this is correct.

OP posts:
TheMarbleRun · 27/04/2025 07:23
  • in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities
I would be surprised if, once a more detailed guidance comes out, this is recommended/allowed in more than a very limited set of circumstances. I'm not in favour of a blanket application of it, but it clearly says in some circumstances. I think it might apply to places with open showers, where people can potentially be naked. Or rape centers, where transmen might be excluded from some women only groups and be offered an equivalent service at different times.
GargoylesofBeelzebub · 27/04/2025 08:34

TheMarbleRun · 27/04/2025 07:23

  • in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities
I would be surprised if, once a more detailed guidance comes out, this is recommended/allowed in more than a very limited set of circumstances. I'm not in favour of a blanket application of it, but it clearly says in some circumstances. I think it might apply to places with open showers, where people can potentially be naked. Or rape centers, where transmen might be excluded from some women only groups and be offered an equivalent service at different times.

I heard Akua reindorf speaking about this section. She agreed with you that it would be rape crisis centres for example that use it. It's case by case. Not a blanket exclusion.

Hoardasurass · 27/04/2025 10:42

Herewegosummer · 27/04/2025 07:00

And this paragraph

  • where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by either women or men

So, for example, at The Old Vic and other theatre's where they have converted both the previously men’s and women’s single sex toilets all into mixed sex, is this is now unlawful?

Is it unlawful because they have the possibility to provide single sex toilets but only provide multiple mixed sex facilities. Is this unlawful based on the indirect discrimination that mixed toilets disadvantage women due to a) privacy of different biological bodily functions and needs. And b) the increased risk for women due to male violence/sexual assault?

It seems clear from the above that even floor to ceiling cubicles do not fall into the category of unisex provision if those cubicles are all within one room. Only single rooms, as one would find in a coffee shop etc. complete with sink and definitely not multiple cubicles within a separate toilet room.

Am I understanding this correctly?

I intend to write to several restaurants and theatre's if this is correct.

Yes it is but it was always unlawful as mixed sex facilities must be single fully enclosed rooms with a sink in them to be legal.
There are strick rules around what is legally classed as a unisex (mixed sex) facility and what is not. The venues that just changed the door signs from male/female to all genders broke those rules and laws.
If a venue has space for single sex facilities and does not have them or enough of them then it's indirect sex discrimination aswell.
Basically all these places seriously fucked up and now need to go back to single sex facilities or face the consequences
Edited as posted to soon

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread