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/

*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.

Hahahahhaha this is new feats of twisted and diabolical brilliance in GC circular logic. Hats off to you 😂😂. Will be bookmarking this one.

There are building regs to stop this happening. I do agree we need to be careful that more universal provision isn’t added. It’s dangerous. Most single sex toilets are safer by design.
I have been campaigning for safe toilets for everyone. Everyone is safer going to single sex toilets that aren’t fully enclosed. For that, people need to go to the toilet of their sex. If there’s any ambiguity, even single sex designs go enclosed.
’Gender neutral’ designs are dirtier, less hygienic and dangerous for the occupier.

These accusations have lost their impact. You are fighting a losing game.

Best just to accept reality then get on with your life; respecting that others have established rights and protections too.

Maybe one day you will also understand its relevence.

How is their fundamental being at stake?

I’m not clear what argument you are making.

If you are suggesting that acknowledging their sex is traumatic because of dysphoria, there is certainly an argument for reasonable accommodation and that is unisex facilities.

You are wrong. Toilet design changes when there’s ambiguity which creates dangerous situations for everyone.

What’s at stake is life - literally. So yes, it does affect a lot of people.

The Supreme Court ruling has the ability to save lives.

The bare minimum provision is fine - why wouldn’t it be. Employers aren’t going to suddenly spend money where they don’t need do. And most employers have the required number of male and female loos.

Most feminists absolutely say “cis”. You don’t own feminism and thank god for that

Those will be the sort of “feminists” you know, not the ones that the vast majority of us know, who prefer to use language that isn’t deliberately made elaborate, obscure and misleading.

They'll be the kind of feminists who have sat around bleating helplessly whilst women's rights have been rolled back in America.

The law is clear, we don't have to get over anything at all because it's not changing anytime soon.

Men fundamentally aren't women and women fundamentally aren't less equal to men. This is all in the Equality Act 2010.

Get over it.

A feminist is a woman who centres and/or prioritises female people in their thinking. Their wider political ideology, if they have one, is not as important.

Possibly but possibly not. I agree that to avoid controversy women only services will be cut/not offered in the short term.

But over time the market will return because in the end there is a need there and businesses need turnover.

The Building Regs were altered last year and they include familiar single sex banks of loos still. Unisex are much much more expensive and they take up much more space. People commissioning buildings will provide minimal unisex due to cost unless theyre ideologically driven to focus budget on loos.

So I predict in the short term there will be less stuff/fewer spaces & services for women. Then over time there will be extra small third unisex spaces added and more women only stuff will return. It won’t happen overnight because this all took 15 years or more to creep in.

It will eventually get balanced out to a sensible position but sadly women will never trust “the authorities” again and will have to remain weirdly hypervigilant about all future legislation. Because clearly the law and policy makers think we aren’t worth bothering about. That’s the real discrimination in all of this. Profoundly depressing

I just want to know how you tell that a stranger is ‘cis’.

Translation: shit, that's a great point and I don't know how to refute it

We shall have overcome. Free at last. Free at last. Thank god almighty we're free at last.

They are usually wearing a rainbow lanyard, a big badge, a shemag, and at weekends a face mask.

I’m still confused.

You have said that you don’t want to share toilets with a cis man, but that you are happy to share toilets with some male people.

You haven’t explained how you tell the difference between these male people.

Thanks for a reasonable response/ discussion of the actual point.

I agree unisex are much more expensive and take up more space, which is why I believe that there will not only be fewer services designated specifically for women, but also fewer facilities over all.

I disagree with your long term predictions, if the current climate/ 'rules' stay as they are. However, it is my prediction that we will ultimately move past this, when there is greater levels of understanding and acceptance of being trans.

That's my point. If feminists in America spent less time fannying about with pronouns and including trans women, and more time focusing on the actual sex based needs of actual female people, they wouldn't be one of the only countries in the developed world without reliable access to abortions and the only country in the developed world without paid maternity leave.

Feminists in America should have zero spare bandwidth for trans women right now.

However, it is my prediction that we will move past this, when there is greater levels of understanding and acceptance of being trans.

Polls show that the more the public understand the demands of those under the 'trans umbrella' the less they like it.

If you think women are going to "move past" their silly obsession with being allowed to exist in law and have sex based rights and a few small places in the world which are just for us, you're very wrong.

The more understanding there is of trans people, the less acceptance there will be. Because people will understand that their demands are not reasonable, and their identities shouldn't trump everyone else's needs.

They see trans people making "demands" because they don't understand what it is to be trans.

There is no threat whatsoever to women's existence in law. The threat is to the existence of trans people in law.

@Tandora They have clarified that workplaces don’t need to provide single sex toilets, if they provide private toilets with a lockable door . Which has indeed always been the law.

Since this is the topic of the thread, it's worth pointing out emphatically that this is not true. In fact the GLP misunderstood the interim update, intentionally or through neglect.

In the interim update document are found the following two statements:

• "In workplaces, it is compulsory to provide sufficient single-sex toilets, as well as sufficient single-sex changing and washing facilities where these facilities are needed."

and

• "where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by either women or men"

The second statement is one of a list of statements that elaborates on the first. The meaning is clear: single-sex toilets are compulsory, one-person-at-a-time lockable rooms satisfy that requirement.

The EHRC's response gives that observation precise legal form:

Above the bullet points, the summary observation is made that “in workplaces, it is compulsory to provide sufficient single-sex toilets, as well as sufficient single-sex changing and washing facilities where these facilities are needed” (bold in original). While your concern relates to toilets, this observation concerned changing and washing facilities as well. This falls to be read with the last of the bullet points which states that “where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by either women or men”

The sufficiency of the interim update in this respect is confirmed by the fact that there was no need to update the document as a result of the the GLP's letter. The fact that the GLP is trying to declare this as a victory is a shameful misrepresentation of their action and the results it achieved, apparently playing on the partisan driven credulity of its supporters. Though, in the spirit of comity, that's disposition I wouldn't attribute to any of the posters on this thread.

No one seems to understand what it is to be trans, including trans people and their allies. That is one of the many problems