The Times has seen a copy of EHRC's final guidance

[Igneococcus]

and it looks like it's pretty rubbish:
"Under the new guidance, places such as hospital wards, gyms and leisure centres will be able to question transgender women over whether they should be using single-sex services based on how they look, their behaviour or concerns raised by others."

https://www.thetimes.com/article/82eecc43-711f-4c0a-b669-42d09d60d63e?shareToken=e5c7b92df4468caa07dbd71d66c660ab

There would be fewer negative articles about trans people if Stonewall hadn't campaigned for the police to recognise the gender identity of any violent man deciding post arrest that he would get an easier time in prison if he were a woman, with the bonus of easy access to prey.

There would be fewer negative articles about trans people if Mermaids hadn't campaigned for children to be given unevidenced, harmful treatment.

No, I don’t think trans people have changed sex. I just think it isn’t helpful to treat them
as their birth sex in all circumstances.

I don’t think forcing trans people into spaces for their birth sex will cause the least fuss. It’s dehumanising and cruel.

We’re actually talking about 50% of the population. Women are 50% of the population. Stop centreing the men involved here.

In most circumstances it's unlawful to discriminate.

In the situations where sex discrimination is lawful, it's a situation where sex is relevant.

Oh er yeah... I don't care. We can't have laws based on whatever is easiest for people who want to lie about reality. Or how people feel.

How can it possibly be dehumanizing or cruel to be told to use a toilet designed for humans in a room shared with people of the same sex? You’re not making any sense.

Men really don't like women saying "No", do they?

Who was "it" "working for" exactly? Certainly not women, who had not been consulted.

Waiting to hear the “most vulnerable” tropes any time right about now.

Indeed. Waiting for "The most vulnerable and marginalised sector of society, who just want to pee" to be invoked.

I don’t think forcing trans people into spaces for their birth sex will cause the least fuss. It’s dehumanising and cruel.

But forcing women to share "female-only" spaces with men isn't dehumanising or cruel, because women aren't really human.

I wouldn't worry just yet. The pendulum hasn't even swung back to the middle yet. Nor am I seeing many signs that it will do any time soon. Call me a pessimist if you like

Lots and lots in the SCJ about the provision of additional gender neutral spaces, which meets the needs without harming women's needed single sex spaces.

How bizarre? That you think it was ‘working’?

When in reality, it never ‘worked’. Women just felt they had no option. Everytime people post this kind of ignorant take, we have to remind them that firstly, there are people who are regulars on Mn who have reported being sexually abused by males with transgender identities in female toilets even three decades ago. Of course, as a teenager or a woman then, people just left and never reported it because why would you? If rapes even then were not investigated why would sexual abuse?

Then there has been the marked increase in numbers over the past decade. And yes, there have been problems. Women have reported to their employers or to organisations and been ignored or told they were the problem.

But apparently, it was never a problem before according to you. I guess if you ignore the anecdotes where women and girls were simply ignored and ignore the fact that women and girls were told that they must accept this, sure… no problem at all.

You might roll your eyes at it, but yes that is kind of the point. The law has no interest in criminalising mothers taking male children into female loos, or opposite sex members of staff cleaning or doing checks, or even those who go into the wrong loo completely by accident. Making a blanket law rendering it illegal for a male to be in a female space is far too blunt a tool and would catch a lot of people it's simply not designed for.

Then there is the question of how the space is defined because if you were going to have such a law you will need to clearly and unequivocally define the boundaries of the single sex space for it to function. What if one set of toilets breaks and everyone has to use the other? How does that work in law if you've already defined two separate single sex spaces in your organisation and your employees have that expectation?

I'm not saying we shouldn't have single sex spaces nor that they're not important - they are. What I am saying is that we are extremely unlikely to ever see an actual law which makes it illegal for a male / female to be in a female / male space.

Are you so lacking in empathy that you can’t possibly see a problem with that situation? Trans people hold a strong belief that they were meant to be the opposite six and experience gender dysphoria because of that mismatch. Maybe it’s possible they share the same aversion to sharing spaces with men that you do?

So you think it's "dehumanising and cruel" for men to be expected to use the single sex spaces provided for men. But it's fine for women, and not dehumanising at all, to be expected to share with men in their spaces?

Make your mind up. And please make it make sense.

Maybe it’s possible they share the same aversion to sharing spaces with men that you do?

1 man with that aversion in a male space = 1 person's suffering.
1 man in a female space = all women who want to use that space suffering.

You've just made the situation much worse.

Unless you think 1 man is more important than any number of women?

Oh, you do.

Carry on.

Basically translated (see what I did there) as: "Shut up women! You are only here to validate the mens who think they are womens! Do not give them hurty feels!"

No, it never worked. Most women don’t want men in women’s spaces, thanks.

That would be an argument for making reasonable adjustment and providing unisex toilets. However, plenty of people hold beliefs that other people are not required to affirm.

Are you lacking in empathy for women and girls who don’t want men in female spaces. They’re men. They don’t belong there, and it’s a violation of my rights to privacy and dignity as well as putting me at much greater risk of sexual assault and harassment than a genuinely women only space would do.

Did you read the SC judgement?

They made allowances for male children. I believe they said ‘under 10 years old’. It was mentioned specifically.

And any male person that has a valid reason to be in there such as a cleaner or maintenance staff will have a sign out so female people can make a choice.

If a set of toilets breaks, again, signage can be used to warn people about it so they can make a choice.

Consent is key here

The scenarios you mention do not mean a law cannot be made. And sure, there will always be exceptions available for exceptional circumstances.

Maybe it’s possible they share the same aversion to sharing spaces with men that you do?

And note that no-one here is insisting that they share spaces with men. We're simply insisting they don't share spaces with women.

Individual cubicles for people who don't want to share with anyone are a good idea, and it would be great if they were supplied in places with enough room, for the benefit of trans-identifying men or any other men who don't like sharing with men.

My apologies, if this has been posted up thread, a link to an interview with Helen Joyces and her interpretation of the guidance.

The scenarios you mention do not mean a law cannot be made.

Come on - "No X without authorisation from Y" is far too complex a thing to put in legislation. No-one would understand it.