Trans people ‘excluded in heart of democracy’ after Holyrood toilet rule change

[IwantToRetire]

The Scottish Trans and Equality Network has hit out at Parliament bosses’ decision following the Supreme Court gender ruling.

A decision by Holyrood bosses to ban trans people from using the toilets of their preferred gender at the Parliament will leave them excluded at the “heart of Scotland’s democracy”, equalities campaigners have warned.

Holyrood Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone said: “As Scotland’s legislature, it is vital that the Parliament fulfils its legal responsibilities.

“Our officials therefore took immediate steps following the publication of the judgment to review it in detail and to consider its implications for services and facilities at Holyrood.”

Extracts only from https://www.expressandstar.com/uk-news/2025/05/09/trans-people-excluded-in-heart-of-democracy-after-holyrood-toilet-rule-change/

The article title was so heart rendering I had to use it!

But actually more astonished to hear that Holyrood is committed to fulfilling its legal obligations. Strange then that they didn't when the Single Sex Exemptions were an active part of the law, that they didn't feel the need to enforce them!

I know that, you know that, they know that I'd just like them to be honest and admit it.

Keep pushing the conversation, and they will! They've nothing else. As wiser women than me knew when they suggested it, ten or fifteen years ago.

I find it wryly amusing that the women who are falling over themselves to be good little trans allies, calling themselves cis and full on I'll share spaces with TW are the ones that TRAs view as nothing more than useful idiots.

I don't wish harm on any woman, but I imagine most would change their minds if they were expected to take their flooded knickers off in front of the delightful Dr Upton.

I was a good little ally fifteen years ago. I'd still have told him to fuck off while I deal with that!

No one is excluded. Everyone is using the bathroom of their biological sex.

As usual, complete, hyperbolic victimization where there is none.

Could you see how many were in the cubicle or if someone had collapsed?

The Translucent statement from 2023, actually says that transwomen need both:

Unisex facilities are needed to ensure the health and safety of trans women who require them along with non-binary people, and Female toilets are needed to ensure the safety of both cisgender and trans women who need the provision of gender-assigned facilities that are not used by cis men. Where there is a Unisex toilet, a female toilet is also needed in the same locality, and visa versa.
Unlike those Gender Critical organisations, we do not believe that the rights of one demographic should be considered greater than another, and where there is a genuine overlap, both groups need a fair and safe solution. So to be clear, our position is that trans women are never subjected to any blanket bans or segregation and they must have the choice of whichever toilet is their individual preference. Trans & cis women and those non binary need the option of both Single Sex and Unisex toilets to ensure they have access to the one they are happy to use. We know that those Gender Critical will always have issue with any arrangement that allows trans women to use female spaces and they are never going to accept any arrangement we propose, but the law does not support their position and they have no legal right to harass or try to prevent trans women using any toilet facility. There may not be a solution that resolves every possible issue, but we believe our position provides for spaces that meet the needs of all those transgender whilst not impacting on any understandable claims of safety that women need in safeguarding from cis male predators.

It’s interesting because on translucent in February this year Robin said, ‘Toilets have individual stall for privacy and practice is moving to either provide individual toilet rooms with handbasin, or at least one such facility in group facilities. My friend with a colostomy finds that helpful as do those who are specially sensitive for religious reasons, personal reasons related perhaps to sexual assault or those trans people early in their transition.’
So Robin thinks the design does suit some trans people.

Also Robin Moira White (24 Feb 2025):
‘Male’ and ‘female’
There is no definition of ‘male’ or ‘female’ in the Regulations. There is no ‘common law’ definition of ‘male’ and ‘female’ in UK Law and I challenge anyone to identify it, despite the fact that quite senior Counsel, on occasion, have told judges with a straight face that there is.

@Keeptoiletssafe Jesus, that's the definition of having your cake and eating it.

So the desired outcome is clearly the Hampstead ponds position - a male space, a mixed sex space, and a supposedly female space that's also mixed sex.

Though we know access to unconsenting women is the whole point.

“Unlike those Gender Critical organisations, we do not believe that the rights of one demographic should be considered greater than another, and where there is a genuine overlap, both groups need a fair and safe solution. So to be clear, our position is that trans women are never subjected to any blanket bans or segregation and they must have the choice of whichever toilet is their individual preference.”

How can they say with a straight face that they do not believe the rights of one demographic should be considered greater than another? They do so while insisting that single sex spaces must always accept men into them.

They lie and lie and lie again and idiots eat it up and never consider women.

The ONLY explanation is they are narcissists.

There is no alternative explanation.

Divisions developing in Scottish Greens as it now seems Maggie Chapman signed off on the toilet plan.

Johnstone, the head of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body (SPCB), said access to toilets would be based on “biological sex” and that some of Holyrood’s facilities would be designated as gender neutral spaces, The Times reports.
The changes were signed off by the SPCB, which is responsible for the day-to-day running of the Parliament as a workplace and employer.
That body includes Green MSP Maggie Chapman (above), who found herself at the centre of a major storm after criticising the Supreme Court’s ruling as fuelled by “bigotry, prejudice and hatred”.
She narrowly survived a vote on a motion to remove her from her position as the deputy convenor of Holyrood’s Equality Committee last month.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/scottish-parliament-bans-trans-women-103106495.html

That's not what women want though, @HelloMyNameIsElderSmurf we want the communal female space. Not unisex. Unisex are incredibly dangerous for women and see an increase in sexual assault. Also, walls up to ceilings are dangerous because you can collapse and no one can see. It's the one thing that is not recommended. Toilet doors must always have gaps under the door so we can see anyone on the floor.

I wish trans would give over and stop trying to over-rule the SC, march, have petitions, threaten with with rape and being punched etc.

This is such a non-issue. No one is excluded. There are plenty of gender neutral loos for anyone who doesn't want to use the single-sex loo for their own sex. All are welcome. Any serious person wanting to be there for any purpose other than their own sexual gratification wouldn't give a hoot about this, would use a gender neutral loo and get on with their day. There are loos available when the need arises and there are far more important things to worry about. Single sex loos are also provided because this is an established right for all workplaces and public buildings

Won against the strongest and most serious attempt by men on women's rights in decades?

This movement has been malicious, deceitful and very, very determined in its assault. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and this particular political lobby has trained us to be very, very suspicious and constantly on alert. As are any women trapped in a relationship with abusive men.

It's not a 'non issue' if you have a coordinated and organised group trying to suggest this solution is unacceptable and using the opposite sex facilities to 'prove a point'. This is active harassment of women and potentially vouyerism.

That's the problem. I don't regard this as something we should ignore.

@RedToothBrush I mean that the thing they are making a fuss over is a non-issue. Their protests deserve as much respect as a toddler having a tantrum because they aren't allowed a 2nd ice cream. The protests themselves do demonstrate how dangerous narcissistic rage can get.

Absolutely.

It's scary.

This is something that seems to get glossed over in the call for third spaces [actually fourth spaces, the disabled toilet is the third space] as the obvious and immediate pandering solution to transwomen demanding to use the women's toilets: practicality and cost.

I hope the process of installing gender neutral toilets in Holyrood is monitored for cost in money, and cost in disruption.

Now take that cost, and that disruption, and think of the same process of installing building-regulation-compliant third/fourth spaces in older public buildings, many of them run by impoverished local authorities.

Where is the money to come from to build all these unisex toilets in existing building? Toilets which transwomen may refuse to use anyway because TWAW therefore they will insist on using the women's toilet? On a practical level, where is the physical space for a fourth toilet to be added in buildings which already have the three required spaces: women's, men's, and accessible/disabled toilets?

Bearing in mind that transpeople are a tiny proportion of the population, and that there's no objective reason for them not to use the existing toilets designated for their sex, the disruption and cost of constructing gender neutral toilets is hard to justify.

Though we know access to unconsenting women is the whole point.

As Dr Upton showed so clearly. There were women in the changing room with Dr Upton but he went after the woman/women who waited outside. The unconsenting and non believer woman/women are the prize there is no interest in the women who have rolled over.

Agree. It's the third spaces argument too.

There are plenty of women willing and happy to validate men's identities with their body.

Theirs are not the bodies that are wanted.

It's also well known that many men intruding on or worse upon women find that her anger or fear or distress is a much desired part of the experience.

I’m perhaps not describing the set-up correctly @FlakyCriticbut the toilets at the Queen’s Hall all face out into an open area and don’t compromise safety in the way you describe. I must admit I didn’t notice if there was a floor gap, I always check ceiling gaps as I do see those as a risk. The loos there are designed to get the maximum numbers of patrons through in a short concert interval and do a great job.

Also, kindly, you cannot possibly know that all women want a space that is specifically communal, I don’t think they do necessarily. I think women want spaces that are private and safe. Communality is one way to achieve that, but not the only way. This is a safe set up that works in a high-volume space.

The Queen's Hall -

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/edinburgh-venue-leaves-guests-confused-30319404

Goodness, what a difference two years makes… there was no confusion, certainly not around queuing because - shocker - there weren’t any queues as for once there were enough toilets.

Pishy seats I know is a concern, but let’s not pretend we’ve never walked into a women’s toilet and found it less than optimal in terms of cleanliness.

Am starting to sound like I work for the Queens Hall, I don’t. I just like their toilets and think they met everyone’s needs safely and at speed.