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/

They are true, but being a transwoman is a completely different thing to being a woman and women need single sex spaces without any males present irrelevant of their gender identity

Then what is "being a woman"?

Because if it is "being a person of either sex who says they are a woman", that sounds pretty trivial to me.

Tandora keeps implying that gender and sex are the same thing.

Either they are, and therefore you deny that people exist with genders that differ from their sex, or you agree that they are different and that toilets exclude only by sex and not gender.

Please feel free to point out which bit of this you can't comprehend and we will help.

I’m struggling to understand the point you are making.

You have said that you would like toilets to be segregated by gender, so definitely not all unisex.

You have said that you want to exclude cis men from toilets, but you haven’t explained what a cis man is or how you would exclude them.

I get the impression that you haven’t thought this through.

More importantly, who are the men that Tandira is trying to exclude?

Has the GLP explained how you could provide womens and mens facilities as required by 1992 Workplace Regulations without discriminating against people if you are not using the Single Sex Exceptions in the Equality Act

Seems very clear to me. It’s also been the law for over 30 years, so it’s not clear why anyone should be confused now.

I value services for women and would like these to remain. These services have historically included trans women (as they should). The recent EHRC guidance is trying to impose arbitrary, unreasonable and untenable rules that will change this. This I believe will result in services making everything they provide unisex - available to all men and women - to avoid any difficulties implementing these unreasonable and untenable rules. This will reduce services that are designated specifically for women.

I’m not playing a linguistic game. This is the kind of question a court or employer would have to ask.

A man walks into a woman’s toilet. On what grounds can he be asked to leave?

Women's services should not include transwomen because transwomen are men (males) not women. They are a subset of men with a difference of gender presentation.

Only the ones who don't want to be included.

On the grounds that he is a man, as has always been the case.

And if a man says "I identify as a woman", then he can't be excluded?

If they include trans women they also include all men.

What you are saying is just as unworkable as saying, "I value services for women plus men that I personally know and trust", but considerably more batshit, because you know perfectly well that some trans women are not safe and cannot be trusted. But you could include them anyway, despite the risk they represent to women.

You are calling him a man. He disagrees.

What do you do next?

How do you tell the difference between a man, a man who says he is a woman, and a trans woman who says they are a woman?

I value services for women and would like these to remain. These services have historically included trans women (as they should).

No, Mandora, they shouldn't. Because men are not women. If they include transwomen, they are mixed sex.

It's not "devastating". Such hyperbole, and there are many with trans identities who have always continued to use the facilities assigned for their sex, or else a third space.

Tandora is trolling us. It is the same circular arguments that we see again and again. No definition of trans. No explanation of how women are supposed to tell the difference between all these types of men. No acknowledgement of how replacing sex with gender breaks the social contract. Goady and dismissive from the very first post.

Me? Nothing.
What are you going to do? A quick chromosome swab? Whip down the pants and flash us the genitals? Whip out the birth certificate?

We have had women and men's facilities for decades. They have included trans people and the world has kept turning. We have all managed this fine, apart from a few awful people who have had a tendency to harass gender non-conforming people in toilets.

'Being trans' means different things to different people with such identities. There is a wide spectrum of identification; wide spectrum of reasons for such an identification, and also a lot of people who have desisted from this identification.

Being female is not a matter of 'identity'...it is a simple matter of biological fact.

Right, so what you are saying is that women's spaces should be freely available to any man who wants to be in them.

This is not a feminist take.

I might be perfectly happy with mixed sex toilets.

I’m asking you because you said you don’t want to share toilets with cis men.

Bingo! Seems ages (a few hours) since we had the genital fetish on display here 😂

Well done everyone for trying to make sense of such incoherent ramble. Very entertaining on such a hot day. What a good thing that the SC judgment merely clarified what the law has always been.

I'm sure that the well funded trans groups will be setting up refuges for all the trans identified men disappointed at no longer being able to access women in changing rooms, showers and toilets.

What's that phrase - cope and seethe? 😂

I don't know if Tandora knows this, but men who like to enter female spaces are generally not very shy about waving their willies around.