Another frustrating LibDem reply

[ExLibDemEdinburgh]

Name changed for this but I’m a regular reader and intermittent contributor here.
I’ve written to both my MP and MSP (both Lib Dems) recently about their response to the Supreme Court ruling and it’s just so depressing. Below is the latest reply I have to the Scottish Parliament toilets issue. Is it worth continuing to engage with them or now they know my opinion are they just going to ignore me? FWIW I’ve engaged with my MSP previously, met him on a couple of occasions and been invited by him to talk to one of the ministers on an issue I wrote to him about, I’ve also had a good relationship with one of his aides who is also my local councillor and has supported our community (unsuccessfully) on a local issue.

Here is the reply I got today:

“Thank you for taking the time to write to me about my decision to sign the open letter to the Presiding Officer and other Scottish Parliamentary authorities about the interim policy regarding bathroom use on the Parliamentary estate.

Let me say from the outset that I accept the judgement of the Supreme Court clarifying the definition of a woman as it pertains to the Equalities Act. It provides some welcome clarity. However, I believe the guidance subsequently offered by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, insisting that public bodies now designate bathrooms on the grounds of biological sex at birth misinterprets the reach of the judgement in its extension to bathroom use.

Former High Court Justices, Baroness Hale and Lord Sumption have both provided helpful analysis of the verdict and clarified that while it allows organisations to designate single sex spaces on the grounds of biological sex, it does not compel them to- it is a matter of organisational choice.

I personally believe that designating bathrooms on the basis of biological sex will create more confusion and anxiety than currently exists around bathroom use. Trans men, who may have full beards would certainly be challenged when using the female toilet that they are compelled to and vice-versa. Then there is the matter of by who or how this is policed. Indeed, the EHRC have been rightly criticised for the suggestion that organisations should challenge bathroom users for their birth certificate. It takes us into a set of circumstances that are frankly absurd.

My overriding motivation is that we uphold people’s rights whether they are trans or women or otherwise, from an atmosphere of respect and acceptance. We should absolutely prioritise women’s safety, but the threat to that comes not from the Trans community, but from predatory men.

I appreciate that you may take a different view but thought it best to be straight with you.”

I would share that with the EHRC, as it's a perfect illustration of how women's rights and safety are going to be lost behind a whole lot of waffle and penile drift.

Acceptance and safety for women AS WELL as the very very special is what the judgment was all about.

Isn't this wrong though? I thought it was compulsory for work places to provide single sex toilets and changing rooms (if applicable) for employees.

Nothing to do with the judgement. Just always been the law.
The judgement was about who can use those spaces.

We should absolutely prioritise women’s safety,
Unless it makes some men sad...
but the threat to that comes not from the Trans community, but from predatory men.
Which includes predatory men...

I can 100% believe that the LibDems are still spouting this bollocks. I am another ex-LibDem and some years received a pile of meaningless waffle without a single answer to any of the substantive questions I had asked.

So yes, send it along to the EHRC. It's going to take a large legal rocket up the party's arse before it starts to see sense again.

But Not My Nigel and It's Complicated.

The TRA argument seems to be that sex = biological sex was for the purposes of the EA only and that it doesn't apply to the workplace legislations use of women and men which mean something other than biological sex.

It's true that the supreme court ruling was only in respect of the EA but the same definition must surely also apply to the workplace legislation.

That would be my take on it.
I can understand that TRAs will be deliberately misunderstanding the law but not politicians. There's really no excuse for this level of stupidity whether it's deliberate or not.

Alex is totally smitten with the men in dresses . The politicians are not willing to apply the court ruling for fear offending the men who get kicks out going in women’s spaces.
don’t expect much better from MP, she away fairies as well

Where are all these ‘bathrooms’ that the public are sharing? Have we suddenly moved to America or are people actually having a soak in the tub with strangers wandering in and out? Why can’t they use the language in the EA10 - toilets/changing rooms. Saying that if they are referring to it as the Equalities Act they sound pretty clueless.

I had an email from the LibDems today - all about a conference to protect trans rights, rights in sports etc.

I deleted it, otherwise I would have posted the full rubbish here.
Instead, I asked to be unsubscribed from emails.

When the Transwomen are women brigade can give me a reason why some men should be allowed in women's changing rooms, and women's sports, and exactly what rights they have lost, then I might listen.

@spannasaurus It's true that the supreme court ruling was only in respect of the EA but the same definition must surely also apply to the workplace legislation.

It think it's important to insist that they be explicit that this is what they're arguing. It's a barely plausible legal argument that transparently tries to subvert the SC ruling by making the UK body of law that references sex incoherent. It's an irresponsible and silly argument to make and it leads to sound bites worse than "some women have penises." When politicians begin to realize that they'll be made to account for that interpretation and have their quotes fed back to them, I would expect most will back away.

The same also goes for the other tactic of making public same sex services unisex and resigning them -- e.g. by depicting the facilitates provided in bathrooms: urinals in one room, baby changing stations in the other.

I has always assumed that this guidance from the HSE on workplace toilets was informed by the EA.

ie the HSE didn't randomly talk about having separate toilets for men and women in their guidance here. https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/workplace-facilities/health-safety.htm

That under the EA the provision of single sex services etc., are based on the recognised need for safety, respect and dignity.

If the HSE guidelines aren't informed by the EA why did the EHRC include in their interim guidelines toilets as the most obvious service / facility to be impacted by the Supreme Court ruling.

So although the ruling was only in relation to the EA, it is important as the concepts of discrimination and alternatively the need to accept that protected characteristics can claim "special treatment" are the basis on which issues such as toilets are settled. As opposed to Stonewalled campaigners barging in and saying we say it is this.

Why not send the HSE guidelines to the MSP and ask him if he thinks these guidelines should be ignored.

I wonder if he even knows they exist?

‘I personally believe know that designating bathrooms toilets on the basis of biological sex’ has the capability to save lives and prevent assaults. The clarity that the Supreme Court has given means this is now doable.

I agree that we should absolutely prioritise safety, but the threat to that comes from the public toilets being mixed sex. When you can’t ask a member of the opposite sex to leave a set of public toilets, indeed if there’s any ambiguity, the reality is that even the design of the single sex toilets becomes private.

The safest toilets are single sex toilets with door and partition gaps. The gaps are there for health and safety. In order to save someone in a medical emergency you need to know they are having a medical emergency! They happen in toilets as that’s where you go when you feel ill and the ‘strain’ puts pressure on the body so it can lead to a heart attack or stroke.

Mixed sex, private toilets in public spaces are dangerous for anyone medically vulnerable, and particularly for women and children who are most likely to be sexually assaulted. Privacy ensures there are no witnesses to a crime. Gaps prevent assaults because perpetrators don’t want to get caught.

Mixed sex, private toilets are least unsafe for healthy men.

If the Lib Dems are really concerned about safety as a priority, they should insist the single sex toilets in Parliament are single sex toilets and they have door gaps in them. This would mean the parliament building is a safer and inclusive place for those who are medically vulnerable (including those with certain disabilities such as diabetes, epilepsy etc), women and children.

Which is the safest public toilet design in this picture? If the Libdems think it’s the one on the left then they are advocating for single sex toilets. They have got to respect and accept that single sex toilets are safer.

In case it wasn't clear (which rereading my post I think it wasn't) what I was was suggesting is that MPs/MSPs should be forced to make the explicit argument that there are many types of women in UK law, for example EA 2010 women and Health and Safety Act 1974 women. And that some of them are biological female (EA 2010) and some of them are gender identified female (HASWA 1974), and on the basis of that employers may, indeed must, allow women and transwomen (but not other men) into women's toilets. This is obviously a very silly argument to make, and even the most fanatical TA would likely have the self dignity to avoid making it.

Thank you, can you suggest a question I should ask in reply to elicit this response please? I’m having an intense brain fog moment!

"whether they are trans or women or otherwise" in the response from the MP/MSP

What is "otherwise"? Are men now in the same category as animals in the view of this politician from the illiberal undemocrats?

See the subtle misandry going on there. And the illiberal undemocrats wonder why Trump got elected. 😆

I wouldn't bother to respond, just refer to EHRC. They think the ruling is wrong and are determined to disobey it on any grounds however slight.

There's various legislation that mandates different treatment of the sexes (prisons, schools, workplaces etc), in situations not directly addressed by the EA. I assume either that there is a 'subject to' clause somewhere in the Act, or that the legislature thought that they didn't need to say that, if the law tells you to do it, it can't be illegal discrimination!

(EA only covers services (Schedule 3), Associations (Schedule 16), and Positive Action (Section 158))

Does this call for a declaratory action, about whether sex means sex in every law?

Or about whether it is always illegal sex discrimination against women, to provide only a mixed-sex space where the law or custom call for single-sex ones?

(The latter is perhaps weaker, because men are entitled to privacy too, but can't demand it under equality legislation, because lack of it affects both sexes equally, if you disaggregate it from safety.)

What I should have added to this (it was silly o’clock so wasn’t thinking clearly) is that this is directly related to Health and Safety at work legislation. For example, The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 states that employers must provide a working environment that is ‘so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work’. So regardless, you could argue single sex toilets (with door gaps) are a reasonable adjustment for those medically vulnerable people that need them and also women and children due to assault prevention . That means single sex toilets. Building Regulations, certainly Document T (in England), state that mixed sex toilets have to be enclosed and full height.

The Lib Dem reply was about safety. If they truly want safety for anyone at their most vulnerable, then they need to start changing building regulations so mixed sex toilets have gaps in (that’s never been done recently to my knowledge and would be incredibly unpopular) or go with the safest design of single sex toilets. They should, at the very least, be an option.

Toilet design directly affects the safety of medically vulnerable people. The Lib Dem’s need to think about why they are fighting this - it certainly isn’t for safety.

Lib Dems all over the place:

Lib Dem leader EdwardJDavey on IainDale
last night, asked a Qn on Supreme Court ruling. Ed says:

• LDs accept SC ruling
• When challenged says 'many of us have learned a lot...along the way we have made mistakes but now we have the Supreme Court'
• We should 'uphold the law'

https://x.com/LibVoice4Women/status/1930569294825271682