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?

Its been interesting to watch the argument move from TWAW so need protection from men just like 'any other woman', so need to use womens single sex spaces; to the new position of single sex spaces are not necessary after all and are in fact the start of a slippery slope to forced segregation.

She’s always been an interesting thinker. Shame the OP felt the need to claim her as some sort of TRA. Glad you cleared that up.

Um, this law goes back in the UK to the early 1970s; I am reasonably sure of this because suddenly the place where I worked had to provide one loo for the men and one for the women, since more than six of us worked there.

The boss, who was an excellent bloke, immediately decided that the one with the window and wash-basin, which we'd all used until then, was the women's loo and the one with no window was for the men. This was changed when he realised the men pissed on the floor and the women didn't, so the men needed the ventilation from the window to make their loo bearable.

I don't think that it was actually a "politically expedient" decision then; I think it was part of a larger body of sensible moves to improve rather shoddy conditions in the workplace.

Yes, they should provide single sex toilets as well. Luckily my employer does. We have a unisex toilet as will but I have never used it,.

yes, I have noticed this pop up from time to time lately.

It relies on false characterisation of feminist principles though. And those tend to echo incel thinking.

I am not sure those who have attempted to use the arguments understand feminism at all, but they also then try to mischaracterise feminist writing. Or they tell us that Butler is the ultimate.

@Howseitgoin Newsflash, demanding access to single sex spaces of the of the opposite sex, IS NOT a human right. I am glad that UK feels compelled to respect women’s human rights to safety and dignity by providing single sex spaces.

Indeed its regarded as essential to provide single sex facilities in certain parts of the world and women have a right to this.

By the UN and other NGOs.

Often the same organisations who think we don't need this as a right in western countries...

Its almost a racist comment in its own right.

I don’t know what you are implying here (you don’t make sense) but it suggests you are dictating to women they are not allowed to be safe.

You do not make coherent arguments.

You won’t answer my safety question because it contradicts your argument.

As many have said here, if newbies happen upon this thread it’s good for them to see exactly what you reveal about your thoughts and motivations. For that, it is useful.

Not going to women’s toilet does not stop men’s access to ‚”the work place”.
As long as the employer provides a single sex space for women and a separate single sex space for men, there is no problem with “equality”. Many employers provide additional unisex toilets as well, so those who do not want to use the facilities corresponding with their sex, have a choice.

She's the ultimate fraud.

@Howseitgoin “ the tyranny of the majority” The word you were looking for is DEMOCRACY . I feel Australia may not be the best place for you. Have you considered N. Korea, China, Cuba, Russia? They don’t believe in “ the tyranny of the majority“ and they have ‘constitution’.

It is really incongruent to post a link about the tyranny of majority, without understanding that we fucking understand that the Australian constitution has protections around this. There really does seem to be a disconnect. It is like someone has literally heard some buzz words and plonks them onto a thread. Delivering little engagement that would show any depth of understanding.

It seems all designed to somehow show an OP as being knowledgeable and able to defend their arguments. And that their arguments are supposedly ‘clever’. When it really does indicate the exact opposite.

Still laughing at Allslop being posted as a credible source.

This has been the weirdest thread:

Women are being inconsistent if they don't demand private spaces in all situations

The benefit for women of allowing males into women's ss spaces is 'equality'

We don't need any safeguarding to prevent assualts because there are laws available to enable prosecutions to be brought after the assault

Trans-identified males are more likely (than ???) to be sexually abused in male spaces ... so let them into women's ss spaces where there is no evidence of them doing any harm

The 'social contract' means ss provision should be removed from women

'Tyranny of the majority' is why US/AUS/UK ??? constitutional rights matter

'Locked cubicles' repeated ad nauseum

Women don't have sex-based rights.... but 'trans rights' are a thing

Phew. Just use the gents, mate

The UK was compelled to pass the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare)
Regulations 1992 as a politically expedient decision?

Tell me more, I'm intrigued.

Nice summary murky.

And all along the OP fails to understand safeguarding principles, legitimate discrimination, feminist principles, and that Australian employment law has observed sex based employment for decades based on the specific needs of the female body.

TRA cant argue women are the same as men anymore with all the sporting bodies being forced to admit that the female sport class is needed because female bodies differ from male bodies.

So the alternative is to advocate for a system of where organisations removed the two sex class and women loose out but that is ok because the special sub-group of men loose too (but to a lesser degree).

Of cource if sex based rights were removed from the work place women would be actively discriminated until well into their 40's (where the risk of growing babies is lower) and men of all ages would somehow end up in higher management level roles.

After all sex pests who are not sacked end up in positions of authority and skew the culture and values of organisations to protect themselves against the possible fallout of their own bad actions.

@Howseitgoin I think it is Victoria state you said you come from OP? Is that correct?
The first newspaper that Google gives me is The Age. It is independent. So I put in ‘toilet’ into the search on The Age website.
The results are very predictable.
There are reports of a male doctor putting in spy cameras to film female staff in several different hospitals, sexual assaults on women by men, and people dying of drug overdoses. None of the above would decrease by increasing the number of private, mixed sex cubicles.
It took me much longer to type this post than to find all this information.

I would just like to thank OP for keeping me entertained during the tedious five-hour journey back from my holiday. I feel better prepared for work tomorrow, having spent much of today bursting into spontaneous laughter.

The pink-haired parent who inspired that other thread also deserves a mention.

By the way... this article has not been updated since the SC judgement.

It is very out of date as well as having some pretty crap arguments. And... this guy quotes Montgomery as also being a credible source.

Plus he also says this:

"If your rights are equal, then they cannot be based upon your sex, by definition."

Which sounds just where @Howseitgoin 's arguments have come from.

Err.... yes. Female people have 'sex based' rights and laws that are only related to their specific needs. It really isn't this hard.

You see, rather than female people being treated strictly 'equally', female people in the UK and in Australia also have equitable accommodations that deliver the outcome of 'equality'. While the voting example Allsop gives is correctly labelled under equality as it does treat all people as 'equal', there are equitable provisions under the law that deliver equality through equity.

You, OP, and Allsop don't seem to understand equality/equity. Just like you fail to understand illegitimate and legitimate discrimination (which does tend to feed into the equitable outcomes).

I mean, this is pretty hilarious too:

"The Equality Act 2010 permits “single sex” spaces and services (under some conditions, as an exception to the default position of equality and non-discrimination) but it does not require them, nor grant any right to them."

Again, no shit Sherlock. What the EA DOES require is that when services etc are described as being for just female people, also using the words female, girls, mothers, etc, that male people are excluded. Why? To fulfil the human rights to have safety, privacy and dignity as many of us have tried to tell the OP.

In the end, all this fuckwittery from the OP and from Allslop is just that. Fuckwittery. It thankfully doesn't change the EA. Australia is well on its way now with this latest court case that will end up in the High Court and will have ramifications that show that the Gillard changes were always unworkable.

And it is fuckwittery. Allsop makes some fallacious arguments about abortion and maternity rights not being 'sex based' because apparently they are not sex based because rights for transgender people don't impact them.... all because a female person can have a GRC which makes them accessible to 'male' people as well.

So... which is it Allsop? People with transgender identities don't impact abortion or maternity rights... or they do because they then open those rights up to male people too? .... except the 'male' people are actually female people ..... The contradictions just keep coming with this article.

Just to add, remember we had the feminists are aligning with the far right patriarchy too..

Overhears "Butler". Me, me I've read the book, waving hand in the air.

Oh it's a GC mention. NM. I'm still waiting for a decent TRA argument, alas.

Howseitgoin
The point initially made was about majority of the tyranny

Eh? Really? When?

Did you mean to write "tyranny of the majority" and miss?

In 1833 you could indeed have been executed in the UK for sodomy/buggery

1835 Last two men executed for sodomy in Britain
1861 Death sentence for Buggery repealed by Offences Against the Person Act

Stuff I researched once and cba to research in depth again, so I can't remember the source for this and provide a link, but I am sure there is one.

"The Equality Act 2010 permits “single sex” spaces and services (under some conditions, as an exception to the default position of equality and non-discrimination) but it does not require them, nor grant any right to them."

Some advice from Sex Matters:

If you do not currently operate on the basis of separate-sex arrangements in situations where they are preferred for privacy and dignity, consider the risk of an indirect discrimination claim.

https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Supreme-Court-judgment-%E2%80%93-summary-and-practical-advice.pdf

Oooo The abortion challange

Ireland championed as a progressive trans right country has zero provision for men to get an abortion. Funny how living has legal male has obligations.

Lucky enough the UK recognises that an actual sex change can not happen.

Sooooo as of 2015 Irish men can be pregnant with their own babies🙃 In fact a pregnant man would have to travel out of State since 2015 and after 2018 risk a 14 year jail term as section 23 (3) only applies to women.....

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/31/enacted/en/html

“foetus”, in relation to a pregnancy, means an embryo or a foetus during the period of time commencing after implantation in the uterus of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the foetus from the body of the woman;

“termination of pregnancy”, in relation to a pregnant woman, means a medical procedure which is intended to end the life of a foetus;

“woman” means a female person of any age.

Offences

23. (1) It shall be an offence for a person, by any means whatsoever, to intentionally end the life of a foetus otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2) It shall be an offence for a person to prescribe, administer, supply or procure any drug, substance, instrument, apparatus or other thing knowing that it is intended to be used or employed with intent to end the life of a foetus, or being reckless as to whether it is intended to be so used or employed, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply to a pregnant woman in respect of her own pregnancy.

(4) It shall be an offence for a person to aid, abet, counsel or procure a pregnant woman to intentionally end, or attempt to end, the life of the foetus of that pregnant woman otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, or both.

(6) A prosecution for an offence under this section may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

(7) Nothing in subsection (4) shall operate to prevent or restrict access to services lawfully carried out in a place outside the State.