Disability Rights: 50% of trans people are disabled

[Pluvia]

The full statement is here:
https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/disability-rights-uk-opposes-uk-supreme-court-ruling-‘biological-sex’?srsltid=AfmBOooL_DLt2ICsIzkNI8RfYmVptrvAcV4Z6sTZCnqR3o97kzFnwEFH

The opening paragraph is this:
Disability Rights UK is deeply saddened by the UK Supreme Court’s ruling that declares trans women are not 'biological women'. As part of a movement that has always called for ‘nothing about us without us’ – we’re particularly concerned by the court’s exclusion of Trans voices in their decision, and their failure to be led by the lived experience of one of society’s most silenced groups. Decisions about any group’s rights should never be made without the involvement of those most impacted.

Later it says:
Around half of Trans people are also Disabled. Government policies already place disproportionate barriers on accessing vital healthcare, and now this ruling also erodes their protections against discrimination.

Can it really be true that half the T population is disabled? All those strapping young men and women who've turned out to hiss and spit and threaten over the years would suggest otherwise. So would the huge, angry TW who has cut a decimating swathe through every woman-only service in my area, or the men in pink at last week's trans rights march moaning about the loos at Waterloo.

Is this lining up disabled loos for TWs?

whatever i feel about transfolk in general, i am in the scheme of things, first and foremost, disabled/a wheelchair user.

i don't want Trans People being forced into disabled toilets.. disabled people have enough issues with non disabled folk, parents with babies (because some twat put the baby change in there) and other such arses using our bathrooms, without pushing perfectly able bodies Trans people in there. We often have a SINGLE room we can use, which we have to share with everyone who needs it, while abled people have a whole room of cubicles to go in.

The disabled toilet is NOT an acceptable alternative to sex specific bathrooms.

IF you're not disabled, you have no right to say there is 'nothing wrong with TW using disabled loos' and you shouldn't be using them yourself either.

PhilippaGeorgiou, We are in total agreement about the accessible toilets not being a consolation prize for able-bodied transwomen furious about the Supreme Court decision that they are not now, nor never have been, entitled to use the women's toilets.

I have so far not noticed any TRA saying they want to encroach on disabled people's spaces (unless of course, they have a disability, in which case it is not an encroachment, it is their right).
Have you seriously not been aware of trans people who are not disabled claiming to be entitled to use the accessible toilets?

Here's just one recent example:
A trans woman has resorted to handing out disabled toilet keys after she said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the definition of a woman left her community fearing for their safety and with “no other option”.
Sarah Marsh, 55, described it as an “emergency measure” taken after the UK’s highest court confirmed the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act “refer to a biological woman and biological sex” in a long-awaited judgment delivered last week.
Trans woman to hand out disabled toilet keys as ‘emergency measure’ after Supreme Court ruling | The Independent

That's just one example, I'm sure there are hundreds more, of able-bodied trans people asserting their 'right' to use the accessible toilets, because they are trans and although they are physically capable of using the non-adapted toilets, they choose not to.
Their most common 'justification' is that men who identify as women will get attacked in the men's toilet, although there is no evidence of that happening.

Disabled people have enough issue fighting for our own rights, never mind having to take up the Torch of Transfolk for a 'unisex' loo that ISN'T disabled accessible because abled people think its fine and our needs don't matter.

But its typical attitude, disabled people are always bottom of the heap.

I thought of mn the other day as I saw a new kind of sign for a toilet. It had ‘accessible’ and then the disabled sign but also a person with half skirt / half trouser which I assume was something to do with gender.

In addition to male / female doors and signs.

@MarieDeGournay No I am seriously saying that I am not aware of that because I have better things to do with my life than spend it reading all about trans issues. And I do not appreciate the implication that I must be lying to be unaware of some trans person who thinks they have a right to our accessible spaces. I have made myself clear, I think, but for the avoidance of doubt, I do not give a flying fuck who you are - MN poster, TRA, leader of the Conservative party, entitled able bodied person or God themselves - stay the fuck out of our few accessible spaces, and if you do not need an accessible space it is not yours to use or to give away.

yes, thats the unisex bathroom sign. usually found on single cubicle/room toilets in smaller places.

Or magic idea ..... men stay out of both spaces.

That neatly is problem solved for tiny teeny group of women who can't sex a the humans they meet in person between women and men and therefore assume that means that the women they cant sex are lesbians

Is it meant to mean transgender can use the same facility as disabled people?

That isn't it's intention, no.

The grey area is where it depends if its a specifically 'disabled' toilet, or an 'accessible' one.

If it has that sign on, its more likely an 'accessible' toilet, probably has the baby change in too, so you do get those signs on to let people know men/women can both use it as well as the disabled.

This is what some of us already hate, the drip drip drip of the loss of the disabled loo as just for the disabled, because its easier to shove uncle tom cobbley and all in there rather than make another cubicle for baby change.

Anybody at all can use it.
So if there is Qing
Its 3 Q system
"M" and "F" and "here if its shorter"

So the wheelchair user gets to use it after Qing behing M or F who dont need the transfer equipment

Firstly you could ask a few questions before leaping to conclusions and giving me a telling-off. My DS is on DLA for invisible disabilities so I’m quite aware of the range of issues people face both in the actual disability and the benefits applications.

Secondly I only knew about this person’s benefits because next to their video they posted a newspaper article where they were quoted talking about their claim for PIP which was for movement problems/mobility restrictions.

So no “PIP claimant badge” but published media of confirmation of the PIP, that it was specifically the mobility benefit and then the 15minute inciting violence against women rant. There was not a lot of scope for misunderstanding tbh.

Standing in one spot does not indicate they can move or don't have mobility issues. If you wish to report them as making a fraudulent claim, do so in the proper way. Otherwise do not make such claims here and excuse yourself by saying your DS is on DLA. You are simply adding to the pile on people with disabilities - which is exactly what you did. I do not condone inciting violence against anyone, whoever they are. But (allegedly) being a reprehensible human being is no reason to attack them on the basis of their disability. It is up to neither me nor you to judge whether they are genuine claimants, the DWP itself says fraud is so low they calculate it at 0%, and it is their decision whether someone is genuine or not. So report this person - you seem to think you have evidence. It was the conclusions that you have leapt to that resulted in my comments, and I stand by them. How would you feel if someone were questioning your childs DLA because they saw them doing something that they thought they shouldn't do? That would make your child and you a liar, wouldn't it? Not nice, is it? There's enough "people with disabilities are frauds" around without people who should know better than to judge others disability helping out.

You’re making a lot of assumptions but they weren’t standing in one spot. They were very mobile and animated; pacing up and down etc. I’m not going to link to the video as that would be encouraging a “pile on”. I know what I saw and their named condition didnt entirely match their presentation - thats not having a go at them for their disability. I’m questioning their integrity - which is also in question due to their speech. Reporting them for formal investigation seems worse to me than mentioning them fleetingly on this thread but I’ll think about that if you think that’s the “proper”thing to do. Seems harsh to me though even if do disagree with them

Or do they ‘identify’ as disabled? Sorry if that sounds flippant but disabled really can mean anything these days - eczema, mild dyslexia, a one off episode of depression.

It doesn’t surprise me at all, because these types of people generally love labels and feeling like an oppressed minority.

(I’m very obviously disabled btw - this is not a disability bashing post)

This isnt that unusual among people with some degree of emotional need or learning need or MH issues

Among many service users that Ive worked with over decades, quite a high number of them use things like crutches or wheelchairs or wear bandages or braces for non existent conditions. They will tell you what the condition is but its never been diagnosed. Some of these are teens/early adults, usually on the spectrum but not always.

Its more and more common, I dont remember the significant numbers of them years ago even though its happened, now it happens a lot.

FFS, has Disability Rights solved all the numerous issues facing the UK disabled population? I can only assume they must have done if they're diverting their attention to focus on trans rights instead.

I'll be so relieved next time I go to London to see all the tube stations made accessible. And it will be joyous never again to go to a hospital that is using their disabled toilet as a store cupboard. And how wonderful that PIP rates and carer rates are now going to afford people a decent standard of living. Surely all these must have come to pass if Disability Rights UK have moved away from their core mission.

@Kindersurprising If they are in receipt of PIP - which is what is claimed - then they don't "identify", they have serious impacts assessed by the DWP as significant.

@KnottyAuty I’m questioning their integrity
No, you are outright saying that their disability is a lie. You have said - repeatedly - that they claim PIP and that their observed behaviour is inconsistent with that disability. You have concluded that their PIP claim cannot be true...
"I saw a video of someone on the post SC-ruling rallies who gave a rousing 15 minute speech into a megaphone with great vigour with no sign that they should be entitled to the PIP they claim" If that isn't an outright allegation, then I don't know what is. You are questioning their integrity based on the content of what they said AND their claim for PIP which you say is not evident from their public actions. Either have the integrity of your own conclusions and act on them - or accept that you have every right to dislike what they say but you have no right to question their disability. Attacking someone based on their disability is low and unnecessary.

Or worse, his dilating on the toilet floor!

... while abled people have a whole room of cubicles to go in.

In the Ladies, yes. In the Gents, because of urinals (which are efficient for men peeing), it is common for there to be a single cubicle - for example in a large pub. I certainly sympathise with people who need a loo equipped for physically disabled people such as wheelchair users, and I don't think a frequently used disabled loo is a great place for people who could use an ordinary one.

It's not just trans people who could benefit from an additional gender neutral toilet - additional to disabled provision and single sex shared provision. Parents of older children with particular needs, parents of babies, men and women who can't always wait for a cubicle to become free in the single sex rooms, and disabled people who really don't need their specialist toilets cluttered up with people who don't need the aids such as handrails and long lever taps.

Gosh you're determined to pick a fight with me, aren't you?🙄

Just because I read some newspaper articles online, or follow links on here (Feminism: Sex and gender discussions - which you are on too) about one of the major social and legislative issues of the day doesn't mean that you have 'better things to do' than me.

I didn't imply you were lying, I genuinely found it hard to believe that someone taking part in discussions on this board had not seen many examples of TRAs laying claim to disabled toilets.
Now that you've read about a TRA actually handing out RADAR keys to able-bodied trans people, you have that information.

When you say 'I do not give a flying fuck who you are' you weren't directing that at me personally were you?

And what about 'stay the fuck out of our few accessible spaces' ?- also not directed at me personally I hope. I've been saying that - minus the 'fucks' -
in my many posts on this subject, so there's zero justification for directing that at me.

I repeat what I said in my last reply to you:
We are in total agreement about the accessible toilets not being a consolation prize for able-bodied transwomen furious about the Supreme Court decision that they are not now, nor never have been, entitled to use the women's toilets.

I agreed with you on your main point.
Truce? Shake hands and agree about disabled toilets being 100% for disabled people, full stop?

If you want a good example of how invisible disabilities are actually invisible when deciding policy, try and look for them in the government commissioned report for Document T. Document T are the regs for all public toilets and office toilets (a few exclusions such as schools) that came into force, after long consultations, last year.

The government commissioned a private company appointed by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to carry out research into the toilet requirements of the population of England in the built environment, _in particular disabled people and people with long-term health conditions._The government also did a second consultation. I wrote a lengthy response to detailing the statistics and need for door gaps but none of these issues were mentioned on published consultation results.

Considering they were looking at the requirements of people with long term health conditions, in the whole 171-page document there was no mention of words: seizure, faint, diabetes, cardiac, heart, epilepsy, syncope, endometriosis, asthma, menorrhagia. There was mention of ‘stroke’ in reference to a grab rail. There are two pages of lists of references to handrails. However a floor-to-door gap is vital in design for those having a stroke and those who are frail because of a previous stroke, so it can be seen they have collapsed from outside the cubicle for timely rescue. They did discuss studies for crotch heights for trans and non-binary users of urinals.

The justification (evidence and literature) for the fully enclosed toilet designs for this group comes from two American sources. These are a restroom design for a Minnesota high school and an American paper from Joel Sanders and Susan Stryker. In a recent Harvard talk (April 2024), Sanders said that transgender access to public restrooms rekindled his interest in queer space so he set up the ‘Stalled’ company with Prof Susan Stryker, but he admitted he did not have enough data on whether his designs worked as so few had been built. The reason for the fully enclosed idea is discussed in their paper referenced: ‘A better solution, supported by many transactivists, and increasingly found in trendy nightclubs and restaurants, is to eliminate gender-segregated facilities entirely and treat the public restroom as one single open space with fully enclosed stalls.’

No safety concerns of fully enclosed cubicles were acknowledged on rescue times. No analysis has been done on the safety on fully enclosed cubicles. The only data was the Minnesota school questionnaire asking high school students to answer questions about the all-inclusive restroom design (shown as very open plan, with security cameras, separate sink rows). Full height ‘walls’ were rated in 3rd place for safety from the pre-supplied answer list. Only 43% of pupils, who knew both the old and new inclusive restroom types, preferred the all-inclusive model (to whatever their old restrooms were). The difference equates to the tick box questionnaire results of approximately 35 girls and 83 boys.

Therefore the recommendation for fully enclosed cubicles is from a tiny amount of poor evidence and literature, focused on a different group. Their ‘evidence’ bears no resemblance to any of the designs of UK toilets in Document T. Their ‘evidence’ does not take into account the most common long term health conditions, nor any analysis related to collapse.

I did not expect that this was a reason that some designs had changed to enclosed toilets when I started looking at this. It was through ploughing through all the consultation documents trying to find why my voice wasn’t heard for people with invisible disabilities and health conditions. The private company that did the report won a Stonewall Gold Award the year after this was published.

https://consult.communities.gov.uk/energy-performance-of-buildings/toilet-provision-in-buildings-other-than-dwellings/supporting_documents/Annex%20D%20research%20on%20toilets.pdf

I know it's probably unlucky to make that comment on a thread where someone with disabling eczema, admittedly rare, would see it, but still:

Eczema very much can be a disability if you have it so severely you need regular antibody injections, have suffered a lifetime of infections and antibiotics, fail to hold down a job due to constant pain and doctor's appointments, months of steroid withdrawal, insomnia from ceaseless itching, never-ending open sores across your full body, and you cannot regularly use a shower due to the pain. There has also been shown to be a significant psychological impact on sufferers. So let's maybe not play the "disabled can mean anything these days" game when you don't actually understand how chronic illness can impact people.

I know most people don't consider it, so this really isn't getting at you in particular, it just really bothers me still that people throw these "mild" illnesses around as an example of a fake disability when I know from experience just how disabling it can really be. This is exactly why other disabled people on this thread have been saying not to make assumptions about what any one person's disability does and does not entail.

@Keeptoiletssafe
They did discuss studies for crotch heights for trans and non-binary users of urinals.

Oh FFS for 100% FFS as if designing for public spaces did not include children of both sex.

And unless even if someone is doing cosmetic surgery on 8 year old girls ......

That is an example of virtue signaling by the ignorant.

And I will bet there are studies if not how can their own OH employees come up with science based mods to toilets. Whats a half decent sample size for a thesis data set these days and that would be a better project than trying to imagine a design that only a "transperson" (either sex) could use.

I am betting if sued the same organisations HR & Legal would find the examine any available document to prove no breach.

But urban design thought
single use toilets are also popular because of the way we build highrise today.
It takes the plumber off site to a factory setting which creates a plug and play unit which is crained in and stored until its comissioned.

So time is money and less people on site saves money.

Private companies are for-profit organisations so cost will be a key design element for most other clients so even without indutry lobbying thats a design bias that pulls into design regs suggestions.

It was accessible that part was written.

I’m not sure the half skirt is a good idea if they want yo
limit to baby change and for disabled people. It does seem to imply a gender criteria when single sex were also available.

If the sign just had a baby change symbol and disabled I think people would know it’s for both sexes. That’s if people don’t want the gender aspect to give accessibility.

@MarieDeGournay I didn't imply you were lying, I genuinely found it hard to believe that someone taking part in discussions on this board had not seen many examples of TRAs laying claim to disabled toilets.

Taking part in A discussion that came up on Active and commenting on disability. I genuinely find it hard to believe that you think "this board" is the only thing people read - or even that people choose to read it routinely.