Maya Forstater at the Stonewall Conference

[Arran2024]

This came out from Maya in an email today:

"I went to the Stonewall conference on Thursday. I wanted to see what it was saying about the Equality Act and the Supreme Court judgment. It was a strange experience. The sessions were subdued and the attendees, who were mainly leads of LGBT network groups, were there because they had been paid to be there as part of their jobs. About a quarter left at 4pm, before the event ended, presumably because they had clocked up a working day and had no reason to stay. It had none of the jubilance, humour and spirit of resistance and camaraderie that characterises LGB Alliance conferences.

Stonewall had clearly allocated a minder to me. She was friendly enough and stepped in to de-escalate when a Gendered Intelligence stall-holder aggressively accused me of causing huge harm to transgender people.

Stonewall had performatively relabelled the men’s and women’s toilets in the main conference area as “gender neutral”. But most men and women voted with their feet when using the toilets previously known as men’s and women’s. My minder told me there were single-sex toilets on the floor above, which seemed an odd way of organising things since there were only a handful of trans people at the conference and it was clear that almost everyone, even among Stonewall LGBT network leads, was more comfortable with separate-sex facilities. There were many more men than women; and a few ventured into The Toilets Formerly Known As The Ladies’ (explaining to women surprised to see them that it was now gender-neutral), but I didn’t see any women going into The Toilets Formerly Known As The Gents’.

There was no Q&A after any of the plenary sessions and barely any mention of the Supreme Court judgment, other than oblique references to “challenges”. But I talked to the participants about it. One woman asked: “Why is everyone talking about toilets?”. Another said it was causing a huge practical problem at her workplace because some sites had no unisex toilets. I was surprised and asked whether there weren’t already unisex accessible facilities. “Oh yes,” she said with an expression of great sadness at the dilemma she had created in her own mind: “We do have those, but you can’t expect trans people to use them.”

Well, no one should be using the accessible/disabled toilets except those they are legislated for - people with disabilities. I have agreed with Maya’s stance on everything previously, and am in awe of her courage and tenacity at going along to a Stonewall conference, but I do not agree that transpeople should just co-opt accessible toilets.

I noticed that too, I was hoping she was setting a trap for the Stonewall person to say 'Yes of course trans people can use the unisex accessible toilet!' and Maya could say 'Aha! gotcha! ignoring disability rights as well as women's rights!' [more eloquently of course].

Alas no. Nobody's perfect. Maya comes damn close though

I understood that to mean toilets that were accessible to both sexes, rather than ‘accessible toilets’ So, single sex toilets, plus unisex toilets, plus Accessible / Disabled toilets.

I hope that's the explanation

I have an interesting take on the reply by the Stonewall person:

“Oh yes,” she said with an expression of great sadness at the dilemma she had created in her own mind: “We do have those, but you can’t expect trans people to use them.”

In our NHS audit, many policies explicitly stated that transgender people should never be asked to use disabled/accessible (and therefore single-person) facilities. The reason for this (if given) was never “because these are for disabled people,” but rather because it would be demeaning or othering for the trans person.

@MarieDeGournay - I have always thought she is amazing, and I think that’s why this one thing grates so much. As a disabled woman who very much needs accessible/disabled facilities to participate in society, I just can’t fathom how anyone can feel it appropriate to shift the burden onto the already paltry supports we have fought so hard for.

I thought accessible toilets weren't like disabled parking spaces. Disabled parking spaces are only for blue badge holders who have evidenced to the blue badge issuer that their disability warrents it. If you temporarily can't walk you don't get to use them unless you have a blue badge. Accessible toilets are for people who need them, including IBS, no baby change in the ladies / gents, take a pram in with you, broken leg.
A school I went to was a boys school that opened up to a very limited number of girls, they just rebadged the disabled toilets to be disabled and girls. Not being welcome in the men's or women's seems reasonable grounds to use the accessible toilets.

I was surprised and asked whether there weren’t already unisex accessible facilities. “Oh yes,” she said with an expression of great sadness at the dilemma she had created in her own mind: “We do have those, but you can’t expect trans people to use them.”

I don't know whether to laugh, or cry at that.

Put it this way, @Love51, if everyone and anyone uses the accessible/disabled toilets because it seems a good idea, then the people who HAVE to use them because they can’t use the regular toilets will be unable to even go to those places.

I’ve had to stop attending a certain venue because the female and male regular toilets are down a flight of about 5 stairs, whereas the accessible/disabled toilets are on the same level as my seating. I can’t get down the stairs to use the female toilets, so when everyone else who can’t be bothered to walk down the stairs use the only 2 accessible/disabled toilets available for me to use, I end up being excluded from attending at all.

Disabled people had to fight for access to facilities so that we could actually partake in society and be in the community. I just wish some of the women who now have had to fight for female legally protected rights to be respected would offer disabled people the same courtesy.

accessible toilets used to be toilets that made it easier for people with access issues to use them, rather than toilets reserved for disabled people.

Women with prams, people with small children as well as people with disabilities.

Also that it was ok to use them to reduce the queue.

Obviously being as quick as possible and not forming a queue there, so they were free as soon as they were needed by someone else.

That was before Radar keys, obviously.

Radar keys are not used in my state (although something similar is used in other states in my country). The only option for people like me is for an accessible toilet or disabled toilet to be used by the people they were originally introduced for - otherwise I am completely unable to attend that place.

This article from the Critic seems to fit nicely here

https://thecritic.co.uk/come-off-it-stonewall/

Is Freddie Attenborough any relation?

Very interesting. Of course, people knew this and still ploughed on, refusing to let nurses have sex based changing facilities for example, and even now lots of orgs seem to be ignoring the Supreme Court judgement and carrying on as before.

Stonewall definitely seems to be the fall guy though. Their influence has dropped like a stone. The Gov announced this week that it wasn't going to be reforming UK surrogacy laws after all. Many people thought that Stonewall was tilting towards fertility rights and treatment, particularly surrogacy for gay men, as its new big issue and the Gov clearly hasn't listened to them.

as its new big issue and the Gov clearly hasn't listened to them.

Reproductive justice as the bridge to this (and beyond) was shaping up to be a substantial push.

Sounds like things went nicely respectful and within the law.
Good, and the person Maya was partnered with did her job well, definitely escalating any possible violence.

Not a fan of stonewall but Let's give praise where it is due.

Accessible toilets were designed and campaigned for by a disabled architect back in the 1960s, and were always specifically for use by disabled people. They were never intended to be a handy option for able-bodied people.

Just as women rely on men not to encroach on women's spaces, disabled people rely on able-bodied people to respect the fact that accessible toilets are for disabled people.

Re-badging the accessible toilet as the 'gender neutral toilet' is depriving disabled people of hard-won rights which have been fought for since the 1960s, rights which can be overturned overnight at the behest of a tiny number of trans people 'uncomfortable' with using the toilets designated for people of their sex.

To be fair, whether orgs have suitable facilities for transwomen isn’t women’s problem to solve.

Obviously there needs to be separate provision from disabled toilets in the long run, but realistically, no-one expected everyone to be on the phone to builders the very next day after the SC ruling.

Bloody toilets again.

But it is an overdue discussion. I think a lot of blame goes to doctors last century who blithely suggested cross dressing men use women's spaces as if it were part of their treatment, and never even thought of asking women if it was okay with them.

So yeah, now we need to discuss. And yeah by and large not women's problem. But fwiw the options on the table as far as I can see:

1. Encourage people to use their own sex facility as far as possible. Campaign for acceptance of nonconformity. However, I don't think the SC ruling changed the fact that forcing trans people into spaces against their beliefs can be seen as discrimination, and some kind of alternative may need to be provided.

2. Deem crippling dysphoria as a suitable reason for using accessible spaces. It's a small additional number of users. Providers would have to ensure that the additional users did not mean provision was inadequate. As a rule of thumb I'd suggest if the accessible is already also the baby change, adding in the occasional trans person is neither here nor there. I don't think it's necessarily a great affront to all disabled users. When understanding of a particular condition progresses to the point of realising sufferers need to be included in access arrangements, that should happen.

3. If the number of added users under 2) made provision inadequate, then additional accessible might be needed.

4. In larger venues, where there are multiple toilet options, there is possibility of remodelling some as a group of single user unisex loos. NOT changing the labels on the doors of existing facilities, that will just take away from women who are not going to want to be in a space with urinals.