Women's 'Private Spaces'

[Howseitgoin]

Clearly private spaces for women are considered a necessity by many due to a propensity for male sexual violence. Given this threat is much greater by orders of magnitude in the work place as opposed to public bathrooms, isn't it inconsistent not to demand private spaces there as well?
Thoughts?

Hang on.... are you now trying to explain the UK Supreme Court judgement?

Really?

Fuck.... that is hilarious.

It really is getting hilarious now.

He's a mansplainer extraordinaire.

Please gain some understanding of not just safeguarding but also legitimate and illegitimate discrimination. As well as how this works in not just a country's legislation but human rights.

There is a significant difference between legitimate and illegitimate discrimination for safeguarding purposes. Legitimate means include sex segregation based on historical risk assessment.

Legitimate discrimination is allowed for safeguarding, this is not just 'subjective discomfort levels'. The basic human rights that people in the UK, and Australia, can expect from public toilet providers is that they are sex segregated for safety and privacy and dignity away from people of the opposite sex. No male person should expect that they have any additional right to have a toilet provision that excludes other male people. And no female people should expect to have any additional right to have a toilet provisions that excludes other female people.

It is important to remember that male people who have pubertal male physical advantages have been proven to not lose those advantages after any stage of transition. The UK prison statistics show also that this group of male people do not have the same rate of committing sex and violent crime as the general female UK population.

Trans people are not suffering discrimination if they are being treated exactly like anyone else of their sex.

You could certainly argue that there should be reasonable accommodation for people who don’t want to use single sex facilities, but any argument would have to be balanced against the rights and needs of people who do need single sex facilities.

You are on a much shakier footing when you argue that some people have the right to use opposite sex facilities, because at that point they just become mixed sex.

You are a bit lost

The law for single sex spaces have been in place for years in the UK

1992 had a consolidation on workplace regulations:

1992 No.3004
HEALTH AND SAFETY
The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992

Now the law can be voided by the Court or but it can only be changed by a majority vote

Of course you can have it both ways. Segregating toilets is a reasonable, affordable, and achievable solution to a problem, and one supported by the vast majority of women. Segregating entire workplaces is none of these things.

Tell me you have read neither the judgment nor the Equality Act without telling me...etc.

Um, the judges actually stated trans people are still protected from direct discrimination. Might help if you read the judgement.link

SUm, the judges actually stated trans people are still protected from direct discrimination. Might help if you read the judgement
Sure, and that's just how it should be, but for transwomen the comparator for discrimination is other men not women, and for transmen it's other women not men.

"Of course you can have it both ways. Segregating toilets is a reasonable, affordable, and achievable solution to a problem, and one supported by the vast majority of women. Segregating entire workplaces is none of these things."

Sooo your'e content with the abuse if it's 'inconvenient' not to be?

Locked cubicles with basins is also reasonable. Ask millions of restaurants that's been doing it for decades.

Don't forget the two links OP supplied to Wikipedia as well.

There’s also Health and Safety 1974
Also the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which I think is relevant to some of the posts on here:

A person commits an offence if—
(a)he is in a lavatory to which the public or a section of the public has or is permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise,
(b)he intentionally engages in an activity, and,
(c)the activity is sexual.
(2)For the purposes of this section, an activity is sexual if a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person’s purpose, consider it to be sexual.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.]

Reminder this clause was argued against by MPs because it would be discriminatory towards men. The justification being no lesbians have ever been prosecuted for having sex in a toilet.

I believe the latter accolade still stands. Well done women! 😁

They are indeed protected from discrimination on grounds of their gender reassignment status.

They are also protected from discrimination on grounds of their sex.

However, the legislation contains some express exemptions to that principle, one of which is in relation to single sex spaces. The single sex exemption permits people to be excluded from single sex spaces for the opposite sex. This is direct discrimination on grounds of their sex, and it is permitted.

Denying trans women access to women's single sex spaces is not unlawful discrimination on grounds of their gender reassignment status. It is lawful discrimination on grounds of their sex. All other men are also excluded for exactly the same reason.

Might help if YOU read the judgment. And also if you could spell "judgment".

"The law for single sex spaces have been in place for years in the UK"

Yup that's why the court had to make another decision?🤪

Oh dear...

This is really embarrassing. It really, really is.

I suggest you read it.

Yes, the judgement said that trans people are still protected from direct discrimination. I think you actually mean 'direct illegitimate discrimination'.

There are whole sections in that judgement relating to where legitimate discrimination can be used.

They didn't make another decision.

They confirmed that when Parliament debated and passed the Equality Act which contained some important provisions about sex, they must have meant actual sex rather than imagined sex (because no other interpretation would make any fucking sense).

Yes dear.

The ruling decided that men are men and should not be forced to share toilet with women but the employer must provide toilets for men, failure to do so is direct discrimination and a breach of their Health and Safety responsibilities.

🍿

Yes OP we know what the law says.
I would refer you to the many posts above and on other threads explaining both the law and the reasoning behind it. I think it would help also to read the post above about legitimate and illegitimate discrimination.

And we are now really close to that 'we all have gender neutral toilets in our homes' argument.

Yes. Some restaurants and small businesses have single lockable toilets that are effectively small self contained rooms.

Of course we understand they exist. It doesn't matter one fuck when we are discussing single sex toilets where there is a bank of toilets all meant for one sex that is enclosed in one room.

Your logic just continues to be outstandingly poor! Well done!

It is indeed embarrassing that women had to take it to court.

All because groups such as Stonewall deliberately misinterpreted the law and advised organisations of false policy.

But, we now have clarity of the original law. No changes at all, just clarification on what the law said.

Did you miss the bits about legitimate discrimination though? You don't seem to have a Scooby what the fuck we are talking about, yet confidently plonk down soundbites with emojis thinking you are making clever points.

So you have ignored the picture as well as my question.

I mean. Fucking Awesome OP!

You are really nailing this thread!

What abuse?

Hey @Howseitgoin

Could you please now point out which human rights you are relying on to support male people being included in female single sex spaces? And please, be careful to cut and paste ALL of the conditions of that human right, don't miss the significant and inconvenient bits.

I will bet there has been legislation and regulation for as long as the UK regulated public sanatation.

And to be fair to gay men the police officer proposing to spy in public toilets were overwhelmingly going to be blokes. Women would likely opt for policing the pervy blokes harassing women going about their daily lives.
🤷‍♀️