Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

EHRC guidance might be delayed for over a year

302 replies

OhBuggerandArse · 30/10/2025 22:12

Ministers really can't cope with acknowledging the law, can they?

https://www.thetimes.com/article/d7cd9e2f-2635-409d-a624-a833611a09fc?shareToken=f3f89ea86fb5c264c18866395c93194d

I hope this is just a flag they're sending up to evaluate how much pushback there might be - let's make sure that the pushback is noisy, articulate and effective.

Rules forcing trans people to use birth-sex facilities delayed

The Equality and Human Rights Commission set out statutory guidance on how gyms, clubs and hospitals must judge single-sex spaces based on biology

https://www.thetimes.com/article/d7cd9e2f-2635-409d-a624-a833611a09fc?shareToken=f3f89ea86fb5c264c18866395c93194d

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/11/2025 09:48

Shortshriftandlethal · 04/11/2025 09:27

Not those that are TWAW, though.

Labour is losing voters on two fronts now.

I mean the 16 year olds. They aren’t guaranteed to be left wing.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/11/2025 09:49

Apparently Nige has quite a youth following on SM.

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 04/11/2025 09:50

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/11/2025 09:48

I mean the 16 year olds. They aren’t guaranteed to be left wing.

Far more importantly they are not guaranteed to vote.

18-24 is 40% turnout.

I'd not expect 16+ 17 to be more than 20%. likely 10% the first time round.

PollyNomial · 04/11/2025 09:52

ItsCoolForCats · 04/11/2025 08:53

It's so dishonest. Nobody is asking service providers to police toilets. The starting point is having a legally-compliant policy and expecting people to follow it, as they do in other areas of life.

I am not convinced that civil actions will only be taken against those individuals who choose not to follow the policies.

It follows that the organisations will have to police their policies to avoid litigation.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/11/2025 09:52

Their parents at both ends of the voting spectrum might have an influence on that.

IDareSay · 04/11/2025 09:52

Brainworm · 04/11/2025 09:47

Does anyone recall what happened when the Equality Act came into force initially? What cost related impact assessments were made with regard to physical accessibility?

I recall some making a fuss about the cost of installing ramps on all buses when few people would use them etc. I also recall some buildings being exempt from modifications where the needed adjustments weren’t reasonable in terms of cost or other impacts.

Whatever the fuss, it died down and I don’t hear anyone suggest accessibility is anything but sensible.

I guess this is seen to be different because propaganda positions single sex provision as being about exclusion whilst physical accessibility is about inclusion.

We need decision makers to openly acknowledge that the conflict arising relates to 2 groups having opposing ‘needs’ in relation to being included. They need to explicitly state that the need/ desire for single sex provision has nothing whatsoever to do with gender identity and is all about sex. I don’t object to them also laying out the arguments against gender neutral provision and why this is deemed exclusionary.

The final arrow in the TRAs quiver is to sustain a narrative that single sex provision is about excluding trans people as opposed to this exclusion being an unavoidable byproduct of single sex provision.

Maya Forstater recently posted a link on X to the EqA impact assessment done when the bill was going through parliament.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7ce15140f0b6629523c5ca/9780108508721.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7ce15140f0b6629523c5ca/9780108508721.pdf

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/11/2025 09:53

PollyNomial · 04/11/2025 09:52

I am not convinced that civil actions will only be taken against those individuals who choose not to follow the policies.

It follows that the organisations will have to police their policies to avoid litigation.

Why doesn’t this already happen?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/11/2025 09:53

Men shouldn’t be in women’s spaces, @PollyNomial- however you slice it.

Coatsoff42 · 04/11/2025 09:55

ItsCoolForCats · 04/11/2025 08:53

It's so dishonest. Nobody is asking service providers to police toilets. The starting point is having a legally-compliant policy and expecting people to follow it, as they do in other areas of life.

Yes, whatever level of policing that has been required for decades of separate toilets, that is what can carry on. How much policing is required to keep ordinary men out of women’s toilets on a day to day basis?

Brainworm · 04/11/2025 09:56

I don’t think anyone is fooled by claims that the concern is the financial cost to businesses.

Honest discussion could take place relating to whether the ‘cost’ of the unavoidable byproduct of achieving single sex provision (trans exclusion from their preferred provision) undermines the justification for single sex provision.

Posters on this board have clear ideas as to why honest discussion doesn’t take place - the argument to reject third spaces in favour of removing single sex provision is a very hard sell.

I am lucky in that I move in ‘civilised’ professional and social circles whereby I can’t be shouted down and so I get to make this point. It has a silencing effect and usually results in majority support, recognising that the ends justifies the means and that third spaces, whilst not ideal, are the workable solution. This does often lead to genuine tears from those who disagree, because they know vulnerable people for whom this is difficult.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/11/2025 09:56

Service providers just need to be clear that their female only services are only for women, not males of any gender identity.

ArabellaSaurus · 04/11/2025 09:57

MetricMs · 04/11/2025 09:33

Sorry if I’ve missed it but is there a list showing who the 50 MP’s are?

No. They won't own up to it.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/11/2025 09:58

Cowardly misogynistic fuckers that they are.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 04/11/2025 09:58

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/11/2025 09:56

Service providers just need to be clear that their female only services are only for women, not males of any gender identity.

Quite - if it says for women on the door/page/websire/description then it is only for women. If it's mixed sex then providers need to be explicitly clear

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/11/2025 09:58

It goes against all the principles of transparency and open government.

ArabellaSaurus · 04/11/2025 09:59

Yes. How would service providers deal with, say, a man masturbating in the women's loos? I don't see them complaining that they'd be scared to do so, therefore we can't possibly have a law against indecent exposure.

ArabellaSaurus · 04/11/2025 09:59

Wait, actually, that's exactly what they're saying, isn't it?

Keeptoiletssafe · 04/11/2025 10:01

Why does it always boil down to toilets?

For Rachel Taylor’s ‘solution’ to work, there would be no single sex toilet design left.

There’s a massive cost implication to this for businesses (if that’s what she’s bothered about) and a moral cost implication too.

What she is proposing is not a ‘neutral’ act.

Who suffers most? People medically vulnerable. People with heart conditions, at risk of strokes, with diabetes, epilepsy, asthma, those choking, having mental health crises, drug overdoses (including spikings). Toilets are where you go to when you feel ill. Nausea is a symptom of a heart attack.

So far, fairly ‘inclusively’ bad in terms of sex and gender.

There is a stroke every five minutes in this country. There is a heart attack every five minutes in this country. Millions have epilepsy. Millions have diabetes. 11% of cardiac arrests happen on the toilet. It is a reasonable adjustment to have door gaps as some conditions are classed as disabilities. We have defibrillators in so many public places but the place people go when they feel ill needs to be slightly visible in order to access the person in time.

Because of all the above, all new designs (building regs) rightly say a door need to be able to be opened easily from outside and the door needs to be able to changed so it can be opened outwards (because of bodies getting in the way of a door). But this is retrospective to an extent as you need to know as quick as possible if someone has collapsed to do cpr effectively. People have been left for days in private designed toilets.

For her solution all toilets would, in building design terms and legislation, have to be changed. This means all toilets be fully enclosed, have a sink in, a hand dryer/paper towels, be fully enclosed and have sound resistant properties.

So far, so ‘inclusive’ as a detriment to everyone. Less toilets. More queues as people spend longer in less hygienic designs (it’s scientifically proven these designs hold more pathogens due to a lack of ventilation and less cleaning ability). Female toilets have the least pathogens.

However, her ‘inclusive’ design also means assaults in toilets aren’t prevented. Because no one will know what is happening to the occupant. This affects women and especially children the most. There are rapes and assaults in private designed toilets in very public places like schools, train carriages, nightclubs, pubs etc. children are led into cubicles and women pushed back in. It is always males who are the perpetrators. In 2016 the government discussed the BBC investigation that found one child per school day reports a rape inside a school premises.

Rachel Taylor talks about transgender people being aggressively pushed out of toilet blocks, I am talking about safeguarding and protection. About preventable deaths and sexual assaults.

She talks about transgender people using toilets for decades. In 2008, less than two decades ago, there was a comprehensive government consultation on the provision of public toilets done by the government. Nowhere did it mention transgender people. It is inconceivable that this would not be mentioned. Discussions were about lots of difficult topics eg. sex in toilets and how adding toilets as a specific location in the 2003 Sexual Offences Act didn’t make it stop. One organisation made toilet cubicles as physically small as possible as a prevention measure.

For Taylor’s ‘solution’ everyone is at a disadvantage but the least disadvantaged group is healthy men.

Anyone writing to her is welcome to use this picture. The design on the left isn’t allowed if the cubicles go by ‘gender’ ie are mixed sex. It will have to be replaced if it is ambiguous who is in the space in front of the toilet cubicles.

EHRC guidance might be delayed for over a year
Brainworm · 04/11/2025 10:02

IDareSay · 04/11/2025 09:52

Maya Forstater recently posted a link on X to the EqA impact assessment done when the bill was going through parliament.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7ce15140f0b6629523c5ca/9780108508721.pdf

Brilliant. Thank you!

IDareSay · 04/11/2025 10:06

The language is interesting in that impact assessment; transsexual and transvestite if anyone is word searching it!

Keeptoiletssafe · 04/11/2025 10:08

ArabellaSaurus · 04/11/2025 09:59

Yes. How would service providers deal with, say, a man masturbating in the women's loos? I don't see them complaining that they'd be scared to do so, therefore we can't possibly have a law against indecent exposure.

Voyeurism laws would also be a nightmare too as well as the Sexual Offences Act.
All voyeurs in prison are men.

It always makes me 🤔that is was argued quite fiercely in Parliament that making sex illegal in public toilets would be discriminatory towards men. Try as they might, the MP had never found a case of 2 women being prosecuted.

FWIW I think toilets should not be used for sex because the designs that facilitate it mean that unconsensual sex can happen there too. Practically not pleasant either for the occupants after.

MetricMs · 04/11/2025 10:13

ArabellaSaurus · 04/11/2025 09:57

No. They won't own up to it.

I guess I’m not surprised 😒

PollyNomial · 04/11/2025 10:21

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/11/2025 09:53

Men shouldn’t be in women’s spaces, @PollyNomial- however you slice it.

If an organisation has a written policy and signage to that effect but never enforces them, would you consider the organisation to be at fault or just the users who ignore the policies and signage?

GaIadrieI · 04/11/2025 10:34

OhBuggerandArse · 03/11/2025 21:58

The trouble is they still don't really believe that it is the law, because surely the law would agree with Naice People Like Them.

What concerns me is the situation whereby organisations/businesses may deliberately stall by saying "oh, we haven't yet been able to foot the cost of installing extra facilities in all our premises. It's a significant outlay during these tough times".

I can't see that anybody is going to force them to do this in the near future, so what's to stop them just dragging their heels and allowing men to continue using the facility of their choice? I feel like the longer the rules are ignored the less impactful they become.

OhBuggerandArse · 04/11/2025 10:53

GaIadrieI · 04/11/2025 10:34

What concerns me is the situation whereby organisations/businesses may deliberately stall by saying "oh, we haven't yet been able to foot the cost of installing extra facilities in all our premises. It's a significant outlay during these tough times".

I can't see that anybody is going to force them to do this in the near future, so what's to stop them just dragging their heels and allowing men to continue using the facility of their choice? I feel like the longer the rules are ignored the less impactful they become.

Well, exactly. What was needed, quickly after the SC judgement, was a high-level serious acknowledgement and communication that things had been misunderstood and needed to be corrected, and that everyone is still protected but that that would look different from previous understandings, and that therefore change needed to be made and communicated clearly because that is the law. Which is basically what the judgement itself said - all the government had to do was repeat it with attention and conviction.

OP posts: