Islington Council slams 'botched' single sex spaces guidance

[IwantToRetire]

The council argues that the new guidance, which suggests that staff should check a person’s sex at birth before granting access to single-sex services or spaces, is unworkable and risks breaching individuals’ privacy and exposing them to harassment.

"Expecting reception staff in a busy leisure centre or a domestic violence service to determine whether someone is trans, without subjecting them to harassment or breaching their right to privacy, is not practical.

"It risks legal confusion and a culture of suspicion.

"That’s why we have called for the EHRC to pause this botched process – properly listening to trans communities – rather than simply causing further confusion."

Full article at https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/25283099.islington-council-slams-botched-single-sex-spaces-guidance/

I think you’re pitching a script for a Doctor Who episode.

Just find a gender neutral/unisex loo, silly.

Nope. And nobody said trans people either, it was transsexual or transvestite.

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 uses the term "transsexual person".

And you think that completely unenforceable law (under which it's impossible to prove that you are cis btw),

There's only a few hundred cis people in the UK so we don't care. They might, but if they can find someone to listen for half an hour while they explain what cis is btw, then I'm sure they will be approved for whatever.

Also, no "intersex" people are mentioned, it seems.

Section 28 link, for those who like original sources
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/9/section/28/enacted?view=plain

Yep, you right, we will give in to the few loud transphobes and stop existing as ourselves?"

You live in lala land, not reality, if you think that.

Starmer? Streeting?

Disciplinary policy at work? Think women aren't sick enough of you to not get you stopped at work?

Think again.

EHRC's own legal counsel, and EHRC itself following it, already climbed down from FWS applying to workplace regulations, sorry.

I believe Aida's argument goes;

Because it was wrong to say no to gay people being open about being in love, it's wrong to say no to men being open about wanting to be in the ladies toilets. Or something,

Because the one thing coming across loud and clear on this thread is that Aida is really really keen on ladies toilets. Personally I think toilets are just one thing on the list of things where single sex support makes a difference and where female people lose out if we lose them.

But Aida, not being female, doesn't see, understand or care about any of this. Aida just doesn't like having a Ladies sign they are not allowed past.

It makes Aida sad to have to face the fact that this whole "I am a woman even though I was born a man" thing has limits.

And it makes Aida angry that society has inexplicably sided with women saying no to Aida even though anyone can see that Aida really really wants this, and surely that's more than enough reason to say yes?

Is that JoMo legal updates you are honouring us with?

Oh dear.

No they haven't. They reworded some guidance to make it clearer but the meaning didn't change

It’s a pity that men can’t just be relied upon to respect women’s spaces. It’s such a predatory movement.

People are only misgendered because the whole ideology has gaslighted and groomed people into finding it more difficult to recognise who is male or female - something which 10 years ago was not a problem.

Luckily plenty of us are old enough and wise enough to not buy into this bullshit and we know damn well what sex people are.

I’m honestly sickened that men are yet again putting their selfish wants ahead of women’s rights - the ones we fought for our safety. Almost like throughout the ages men are a problem, even if they pretend to be women.

I don't recall any mention of trans at all. It wasn't a thing in schools. It wasn't a thing in politics on the left - feminist, lesbian, labour party, far left organisations. I was involved in all sorts of political action back in the 80s and of trans rights - not a mention.

It's yet another rewriting of history to suit a current narrative.

And just how overblown is the threat from trans women is best shown by the fact that met has not registered singular instance of a trans woman attacking a cis woman in toilet or single sex space. Literally not once has this happened.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/courts/819644/mum-of-supermarket-toilet-sex-assault-victim-warns-freed-attacker-could-strike-again/ (though I have no idea if the victim was cis. Not a woman mind you, a 10-year old girl).

https://www.gbnews.com/news/hospital-staff-told-police-their-patient-was-not-raped-as-alleged-attacker-was-transgender-despite-cctv-showing-assault-in-ward/250941

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45825838

https://reason.com/2024/12/26/women-allegedly-raped-in-prison-by-trans-identifying-inmate-will-have-to-refer-to-attacker-as-she-her/

Would you like more?

Oh, and as for the "fakers", like this one
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/man-posing-as-transgender-woman-raped-female-prisoner-at-rikers-lawsuit-says/5067904/
or Isla Bryson of the pink leggings, well how are we to know which males are "really" trans and which are not? Staff at Isla Bryson's college believed he was trans, and coerced teenage girls into partially undressing for massages.

Oh no, you don't trust what Jolyon says, do you?

@AidaP

It's matter of ACTUAL balance, aka how much does group A suffers vs group B gains.
Here you have maybe some discomfort for group A - cis woman, vs, and this is per judgement in Goodwin and few others "creating impossible to live in situation" for group B.

well, as long as you can weigh up suffering in your scales of justice, and decide you are suffering more than everybody else. Never mind that the law weighed this up and decided it already. Single sex spaces are a human right.

As long as you are finding more it impossible to live more than the women who are already limiting their lives because they need to stay away from men.

You just get on with doing whatever you want, and justify it to yourself. Don’t reflect on other people around you who are also suffering difficulties and deserve consideration.

Angry men at work stomping around in bad fashion choices blustering about using women's toilets.

"It's my human right".

Feck that.

@AidaP

off the top of my head, there are the two little girls attacked in separate supermarket toilets by “Katie” Dolotowski. I’m sure there have been others as well.

and the EHRC didn’t climb down from their guidance regarding FWS applying to the workplace regs, they updating their wording because apparently a KC couldn’t understand the original statement and cross reference with the regulations. Which, rather than being a victory, is rather embarrassing for him.

The Court does not underestimate the difficulties posed or the important repercussions which any major change in the system will inevitably have, not only in the field of birth registration, but also in the areas of access to records, family law, affiliation, inheritance, criminal justice, employment, social security and insurance.

I'm not seeing much about 'bathrooms' in Goodwin

.... completely unenforceable law (under which it's impossible to prove that you are cis btw).....

This has happened because people have been allowed to falsify their sex on official documents. We must put a stop to this ridiculous practice.

To be fair, the guidelines DO say, as Jolyon spent lots of other people's money having confirmed, that workplaces can & probably should provide fully contained unisex toilets.

I'm sure we all support such provision being made, albeit maybe in addition to the safer & cleaner existing single sex female facilities.

So Aida can use those, & that'll work fine for him, & there'll be absolutely no need for Aida to worry about what's going on in the Ladies. It simply won't need to be on the Aida radar, as it were, as he will have perfectly lovely & appropriate facilities for all his personal ablutions.

Would that be OK, Aida?

Ignoring Aida.

FFS Islington, this is not hard. As PPs have said, in the real world, no one is expecting receptionists to look into the pants of everyone wanting access to female spaces.

Realistically, transwomen who use female facilities respectfully and unobtrusively for reasons of personal safety are highly likely to be able to continue to do so without challenge.

Males who brazenly force themselves into female spaces, penises and all, and relish their own power in the face of women's discomfort and fear, have been told in no uncertain terms that they can get the fuck off back into the men's room.

Just because the law is not enforceable in all circumstances does not mean it is a bad law, or lessen its value in setting standards for acceptable behaviour. As a woman I don't love that fact that whatever the law says, some men will continue to use female spaces. But I am very relieved that women now have the law on their side when it comes to calling out male aggression.

As a driver, I also don't like the fact that I have to share the road with drivers who compromise my safety by choosing to driving over the speed limit, or the drink drive limit. I'm glad laws exist to deter these behaviours, even if they are difficult to widely enforce.

No need to lift your skirt.

Just stay out of women's single sex spaces.

If a crime is suspected, such as harassment, then the existence or otherwise of a GRC can be checked by the police:

But it is not an offence under this section to disclose protected information relating to a person if—

.....
(f)the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime,

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

Men threatening to "lift their skirt".

A winning strategy.

It would be simpler and nicer if you just respected women’s spaces. Oh and no one mistakes butch women for men, not in the past and not now.