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?

It does apply in the UK though, soz 😘

There's an advantage to women participating in the workplace, namely that we can earn our own money which makes us less vulnerable to men.

There's also safeguarding in the workplace, in the form of an HR department who have a legal obligation to act if we come to any harm at the hands of another colleague.

Not sure what the fuck any of this has got to do with single sex spaces. Remember that a single sex space has to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Single sex toilets and changing rooms = proportionate and legitimate.

Single sex workplaces = just why?

Boasting that the Australian political and justice systems might be full of absolute fuckwits who have sold women down the river isn't the flex you seem to think it is.

If trans women aren't women for the purposes of sport, they aren't women full stop.

You either are a woman or you aren't one.

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

Indeed it has. You don't read well do you? It correctly points out that there's no 'right' as a result because providers are not required to provide single sex spaces. They can if they want to but it's an entirely discretionary decision .

Yes, they can provide fully mixed sex spaces. It’s “entirely discretionary” I suppose if you want to run the risk of an indirect discrimination court case from women.

"consider the risk of an indirect discrimination claim."

Translation: No right 😂

However, if they do provide single sex spaces they must exclude all members of the opposite sex no matter how they believe they identify or how sad it makes them to be excluded, and in some situations not providing single sex spaces may constitute sex based discrimination. It's all there in the judgment if you care to read it.

In the real world, single sex spaces do exist and will continue to exist, and trans people will be expected to use the correct ones or not use them at all.

people have explained this to you. IF not providing single sex spaces unfairly impacts women, then you are discriminating. It’s not a new concept.

"people have explained this to you. IF not providing single sex spaces unfairly impacts women, then you are discriminating. It’s not a new concept."

People 'explaining things' (to suit a convenient narrative) isn't how the justice system works. Indirect discrimination needs to be proven in a court of law to have occured. And until such a time there's no discrimination. (Can't believe I need to explain this but here we are)…

G'day OP. Under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (the “Health & Safety Regulations”) separate toilets need to be provided for men and women unless single lockable rooms can be provided (regulation 20). Similar rules apply for jobs where someone has to change for work.

As well a failure to do so is very likely to prove indirect discrimination and / or sexual harassment for women, i.e. they suffer a particular detrimental due to their sex. There's several employment tribunal cases, i.e. Darlington Nurses about being expect to change infront of a man "Rose".

Of course things exist before proven in a court of law...

Someone who is say murdered, is murdered.

Someone who is discriminated against is discriminated against.

You've not been reading Judith Butler have you? This is starting to sound like a twisted post modern take on reality.

G'day OP.

G'day mate. Workplace safety and regulations that discriminate against transgender people are not acceptable or legal in the UK, as trans people are protected from discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, specifically under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. While the UK Supreme Court has clarified that the definition of "woman" in the Act refers to biological sex, this does not remove the legal protection from discrimination against trans people.

Discrimination can obviously have occurred whether or not it even sees a courtroom. If someone is bashed over the head and buried under a bridge, but everyone thinks they’ve left town never to return and so no one realises, has a crime been committed?

"Of course things exist before proven in a court of law..."

Interpretations of law exist after the fact. Not before.

That legal protection from discrimination does not mean that they can use the spaces of the opposite sex, because that infringes other people’s rights. Happy to clarify 🤷‍♀️

Honestly, like many genderists, you seem a bit confused, OP. The thing is “trans women” are in fact men, and the GRA provides a legal fiction that they are women in certain cases. It was assumed that this legal fiction meant that those men who applied for and obtained a gender recognition certificate had the same protection as women under the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act, our keystone piece of equality and diversity legislation, but this has not actually proved to be the case. Sad times.

"That legal protection from discrimination does not mean that they can use the spaces of the opposite sex, because that infringes other people’s rights. Happy to clarify"

Oh yes it can. According to the equality act, only under special exemptions can it be revoked...if a provider 'feels like it'. IE its not a mandatory requirement under law therefore not a 'right'.

"Honestly, like many genderists, you seem a bit confused, OP. The thing is “trans women” are in fact men"

Thank you for your opinion.

You’re talking complete nonsense and you don’t have a clue about the law here 😂

Nope, it’s a fact, scientifically and legally. Sorry.

Yes exactly. Transgender people are protected against discrimination in the UK. Hurrah!

Failing to allow transwomen (aka biological men) into women's changing facilities/loos is not discrimination. The comparison, for the sake of gender reassignment is a cis man who is also not allowed in.

Who is the comparator was clarified in Harriet Haynes v Thomson (English Blackball Pool). She was not discriminated against by not being allowed to play pool, as a transwoman because the comparison was a cis man. There was an open league she was welcome in.

You are correct that many of these cases are going through courts at the moment. It's been hard slog. The Supreme Court ruling helps GC causes substantially to do so, as it clarified that GRC doesn't change sex for the sake of Equality Act claims.

Where appropriate transgender individuals could bring a case for indirect discrimination if there are no appropriate facilities. That would not mean granting them entrance to womens' though.

I’m looking toward to Miss Scarlett or Helle (your fellow countrywoman) handing you your proverbial on a silver platter as I know they will as I’m heading to bed now. Night!

But just to clarify, those “special exemptions” are the same for all men. To have a female only space means the “special exemption” has already been invoked. So if it’s justified to have a space for women’s safety, sporting fairness, or privacy and dignity it’s justified to exclude men regardless of their personal identity or feelings.