Good Law Project's latest claim - fact check?

[teawamutu]

I'm sure there must be some arrant bollocks in here somewhere, because Jolyon.

But is there anything worrying in this?

goodlawproject.org/ehrc-backs-down-on-single-sex-toilets/

It’s my prediction that there will be fewer women’s spaces as a result of a general rule mandating restriction of single sex spaces by “birth sex”. Employers and others will move to a gender neutral model to avoid inevitable resulting difficulties and there will be fewer services for women.

this is the fault of the people advocating for such an unreasonable and untenable rule because of their obsession with and hatred of trans people.

So you are blaming women for men's actions then.

Good to know.

First rule of misogyny, that is.

Most workplaces already have single sex facilities in place. This will continue; and maybe some will add in another unisex option which may involve a single occupancy room with integral basin which anyone can use.

I'm quite happy to share with trans people. No hatred of them at all. I just want to have something in common with them, my sex.

Nope. I am blaming unreasonable and transphobic people for their lack of reason and transphobia and the resulting consequences (which will be worse for women).

There is no such thing as a 'gender neutral' model. Not one that works within the law, anyway.The term 'gender neutral' will be replaced by the word' unisex' and that will have to mean a single occupancy room such as you already find in small coffee shops and other small businesses. This will not work for larger organisations or workplaces though...as they require multiple toilets according ti the number of staff.

This will continue to cause upset and law suits because it is discriminatory . The only real way out will be gender neutral everything

But women were already losing 100% of their single sex provision in order that some men were allowed to choose their preference.

Even if true, which I doubt, how is slightly less actual single sex provision worse than none?

whatever words you insist on using it doesn’t change the substantive point that there will be fewer facilities designated specifically for women

People will have to get over their 'upset'. It is not discriminatory to provide two options for people...one allocated for their sex, and one other option if they don't feel comfortable with that. what is discrciminatory is permitting male people into female facilities, or not providing a safe compliant toilet option for their staff.

The term 'Gender Neutral' is a boat that has sailed; has had its day. Unisex is the correct terminology.

They are not going to get over it because their fundamental being is at stake. To the contrary you will have to get over this because sharing some spaces with a few trans women hardly affects your life at all. If you don’t get over it the result will be fewer services for women, which will affect your life somewhat, although not as much as the current proposals will affect trans people.

whatever words you insist on using it doesn’t change the substantive point that there will be fewer facilities designated specifically for women

And if this happens it will be entirely the fault of the men who pushed for the right to enter women's spaces and those who supported them.

Sorry, but people who have adopted such identities are going to have to get over it. If it is just a toilet (which you consider unimportant for women) what's the big deal? Toilets are not there to validate 'identities'.

Or maybe men will stop creating "difficulties"?

They are not going to get over it because their fundamental being is at stake. You will have to get over this because it actually hardly affects your life at all.

Men not allowed into women's spaces: their fundamental being is at stake.
Women not allowed to keep men out of their spaces: hardly affects their life.
Really?

The real question is whether workplaces will understand and respect the law.

I think it's becoming pretty clear to everyone that you cannot label a space "women" and exclude men from it if you are allowing trans women to use it.

Unfortunately I think some organisations will simply relabel women's spaces unisex, believing that this has resolved the problem. It will take more litigation to establish that where you have traditional single sex toilets with gaps over and above the doors and shared wash basins, these are not suitable to be repurposed as unisex toilets as they do not provide sufficient privacy.

Once it becomes clear that unisex toilets need to be fully enclosed rooms with wash basins, organisations will have to decide whether they are willing to rip out perfectly serviceable single sex toilets and replace them with fully enclosed individual toilets, which will reduce the overall toilet provision as you cannot have the same number of toilets per square metre of floor space. At this stage in the game I think some organisations will abandon the idea of unisex toilets and quietly direct trans people towards accessible toilets instead. (Which may cause problems for disabled people if the accessible toilet provision is not sufficient for the number of disabled people using the facilities.)

Some organisations will seek to demonstrate their commitment to trans people by retrofitting their facilities to make everything unisex. They will then discover that there are certain disadvantages to this. The Barbican are about to discover that people needing to use the toilet during a fifteen minute interval are not thrilled about longer queues due to a reduced number of toilets, and that there is a consequent loss of revenue caused by people buying fewer drinks at the bar and, ultimately, fewer tickets to events. Some other organisations are also likely to notice drops in profitability or productivity caused by people spending more time queueing for the reduced toilet provision and less time spending their money or making money for the business. I would also expect them to have to deal with an increased number of complaints about safety and cleanliness. They are likely to come to the conclusion that they should have just accepted that trans people would be pissed off, rather than pissing everyone off to accommodate trans people (who will still not be happy).

Your final throw of the dice is to suggest that there will be fewer female only facilities. I think you are mistaken. Males are not female......and female only spaces are meant to be for females only...this is usually for reasons of biology and bodily difference - to preserve and protect female dignity.

Men with trans identities can safely use a third, unisex option without harm to themelves, or else they can use the men's.

🎯

Indeed.

If it's unproblematic for women to share toilet facilities with male people when they would rather not do so, it's also unproblematic for trans women to share toilet facilities with other male people when they would rather not do so.

If you think it's OK to upset female women but not OK to upset male women, you obviously do see them as men and believe men are superior. Which means you are lying when you say trans women are women and lying when you say you are a feminist.

How can you tell that any man is ‘cis’

There will be a few organisations, I'm sure..the most captured. but most will comply and most are already compliant anyway. The only change now is that it is clear that the law states that single sex facilities are for people of that sex only. Those that have already implemented non compliant unisex facilities will have to adapt in order to be compliant.

A few more court cases and legal proceedings will bring most to their senses.

This is a “no news” update. It’s morally dubious if linked to fundraising imo.

The situation still is:

• self ID is not the law
• toilets and changing rooms are single sex
• toilets in banks with thin partitions and banks of sinks must be single sex
• fully enclosed private cubicles including loo and was basin can be used by either sex.

Given that the vast vast majority of toilets are in banks they’ll still be single sex because they can’t be offered as unisex.

Their final statement is disingenuous and misleading as a result: In other words, an employer does not need to provide single-sex toilets

Weasel words - stirring up trouble - loathsome

It is not discriminatory because male and female people are equally provided for and trans people are either one or the other. Trans women are male.

Just because something causes upset does not mean it is discriminatory.

Anything less than pretending they are women at all times and for all purposes is going to cause upset for trans women.

And pretending trans women are women at all times and for all purposes is going to cause upset for women.

So you cannot win, either way someone will be upset, so it might as well be trans women.

Why is it discriminatory?

It is not transphobic or unreasonable for women to want penis free spaces. The law is on our side, not yours.