New boss of EHRC on Laura Kuenssberg tomorrow (Sunday December 14)

[mzdemeanour]

Just noticed that Mary-Ann Stephenson is being interviewed tomorrow morning. Heard a brief bit on the news and she seems to be talking about following the law on single sex spaces/services. Should be interesting especially following the developments this week.

My take is that she's trying to avoid unnecessary polarisation by appealing to reason.

I've just watched her and unfortunately I think she very much sat on the fence and wasn't clear enough. Social conventions have worked in the past because women would be allowed to challenge men coming into their toilets, but if we challenge a trans woman we will be labelled anti-trans and terf. It's not the same as previous social norms.

So her take on the Sandie Peggie case seems to be that alternative provision should have been available for DU (that is how I'm interpreting her comments anyway). So if back on day one when BU started working there, if he had been given somewhere private to change rather than being given access to the female changing rooms, this whole situation could have been avoided. The same with the Darlington Nurses.

The NHS doesn't have the problem that a small cafe has. They managed to find an alternative space for an entire group of women in Darlington, rather than just find somewhere for the one transwoman. Finding a third space for the TW is the common sense solution that most of the general public will be on board with.

Laura Kuennesberg is looking for a gotcha because she has bought into the narrative from TRAs that they will be left with no facilities, unable to leave the house with their mental health in tatters. The reality is that in most cases alternative provision can be provided. They just don't want to use third spaces.

I'm prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt, for now. She knows what the law is, and I don't get the impression she is trying to undermine it, but is looking for practical ways forward. I think she is trying to avoid being painted as an arch villain, the way Baroness Faulkner was, because that is not going to help the situation. Remember who she is having to deal with on the Women and Equalities Committee. She is having to tread carefully.

I was getting the sense that in recent months the pendulum had swung a bit so that if you do now challenge a bloke being in the ladies changing rooms or toilets then now it is less likely to be a case of being shouted down, called a terf and being told why can’t you just be kind. The law has clarified that single six relates to biological sex. And whilst it does depend on all parties being reasonable, there is now redress against those who aren’t . And like with many situations where it is against the law but it isn’t monitored by the law makers(eg abusive behaviour on trains) then the onus is on the populace to report it and get support .

Why not? Where sex is relevant it is essential that people respect that.

Most trans-identifying people do not pass as the opposite sex (admittedly, men are more likely to be deceived, but that’s because they are at less risk from the opposite sex so are less likely to pay attention). I do not see why society should be expected to pander to the few who have chosen to undergo extreme body modifications.

Its Laila Cunningham who is a Reform councillor. I think she is also a lawyer by profession. I agree that Mary Anne Stephenson was sitting on the fence to some degree although that is the nature of the role. Hopefully she will be effective working with the relevant committees and politicians.

Laura Kuennesberg is looking for a gotcha because she has bought into the narrative from TRAs that they will be left with no facilities, unable to leave the house with their mental health in tatters. The reality is that in most cases alternative provision can be provided. They just don't want to use third spaces.

Yes, she hasn't grasped that it's not the facilities that the TW are interested in, it's the women using them. Either for validation ("Look at me, I'm a real woman, in there with all the other women"), or in some cases for the purpose of indecent exposure or voyeurism.

They don't want third spaces, they want access to the women in the women's spaces.

Because you don't find a resolution to conflict from either extreme. Once what has always been normal and expected is re-established (ie if designated single sex then that is what it must be) then the new arrangements will be able to settle into place.

But she's not saying that males should be permitted into women only single sex spaces. She's saying that it woukld be totally unrealistic to have guards on every facility in the country; and that such matters tend to work through public recognition and acceptance of the 'rules'.

Once a new normal has been established, and organisations and venues get used to the rules then they can find a practical and sensible solution to meeting the requirements of those rules.

Allowing some men into women’s spaces because they want to be in there is extreme.

Allowing men (or women, for that matter) to falsify documentation to suit their fancy, fetish or belief is extreme.

Deciding that women are service humans to make sad or shouty men feel happier is bog-standard misogynistic patriarchy.

The ‘new arrangements’, ie common sense, compassion and safeguarding, need to include recognition that it is not extreme to recognise the above.

She's not saying that, though. Where do you get that idea?

In fairness she may well have grasped this - I'm certain it's information well known by the outgoing people - but I would support the first step being to damp down all the drama and hysteria pouring from the activist camp.

Step one is, simply, getting this bunch able to get their heads around the idea of other people having rights too, and not everything being for and about them all the time. And all the scenenery chewing being a bit silly really.

She's definitely gender critical (look at her support for Allison Bailey) but she's having to soft pedal her message. There was a bit of sidestepping and fancy footwork, because she knows if she bluntly says that "transwomen aren't women" out loud there will be screaming headlines the next day and calls for her head.

I liked her coolly stating that we expect most people to follow the law. It reminded me of responses to John McDonnell's testerical tweet asking if TW would be dragged out of the Labour Women's Con.

@Shortshriftandlethal let's hope so. Let's hope that the onus isn't just left to women to implement the rules. Let's hope public recognition includes men, venue owners and all people regardless of how they identify to follow the rules of adhering to single sex spaces. It also shouldn't have to be a "regular" issue to be highlighted as a problem.

In circumstances like this, there is zero detriment to anyone from relabelling.

Yes there is, the detriment is to women.

Secret filming in toilets is a real issue. Gender neutral toilets makes it much easier for men to plant cameras.

More mundanely, men make a mess of toilets - they piss on the seat and the floor. Why should women have to put up with stinky unhygienic toilets?

For those who didn't watch her interview performance for the Women and Equalities committee, rest assured she's very firm when it comes to protecting sex based rights, but she also has to work with the protections of other groups too.

The TRA committee members ( most of them) actually tried to get her removed; complaining about supposed bias, and the government had to insist that she got the role.

Yes, when people are confronted with the fact that women have established protections too...many seem stunned. It is as if they have never really considered this angle before.

I too don't like gender neutral toilets but accept they are a necessity in some circumstances where space is limited. I used the toilet in Starbucks recently, two toilets, one I had no idea what the symbol was supposed to represent so went in the disabled. It was disgraceful. Poo everywhere. Feel sorry for the disabled people having to use this toilet. If we are having gender neutral toilets then the venues need to ensure cleanliness.

Most/many small venues and cafes already have single ocupancy unisex loos.

Yes and where it's kept clean I don't think this is an issue. I wouldn't want to see it in larger venues though.

Laura Kuennesberg is looking for a gotcha because she has bought into the narrative from TRAs that they will be left with no facilities, unable to leave the house with their mental health in tatters. The reality is that in most cases alternative provision can be provided. They just don't want to use third spaces.

Thinking it through, this might well be it. The biggest thing at the moment has been all these trans people are going be left with nowhere to go.

Stephenson will be fully aware of this. And, one sincerely hopes, the intractable nature of transactivism where men can't possibly use the gents, so they absolutely have to use facilities that involve women.

This could easily be her way of heading off all objections at the pass.

TiMs don't like mixed sex, but they can't object to it without exposing their motives. And, crucially, the general public will probably think it's fair enough.

Personally, I have a profound disagreement with the entire ideology, and therefore, I don't think any concession should be made, whatsoever.

But, I can't get away from the fact that gender assignment is a bloody protected characteristic. She must take it into account. And yes, giving men women's facilities are not part of that. But recommending mixed sex, when there's no alternative might be considered to be.

If it stops all the faux outrage, and still retains women only facilities, then maybe it's a good start.

I think she is being fairly sensible. You cannot give an answer for every single scenario, people have to use common sense.

This will enrage TRAs anyway because they are not getting what they want but as we all know, you can't always have what you want.

If we are having gender neutral toilets then the venues need to ensure cleanliness.

Indeed. And that might prove to be an issue, too. Having to employ somebody to clean toilets that women and children are using, a lot more often. Women and girls have to sit on the seat. If you're designating a children for women and girls, you have to keep it clean.

This will enrage TRAs anyway because they are not getting what they want but as we all know, you can't always have what you want.

It will. And every time they violently complain, they lose ground. If they complain to something that almost everyone else think is completely fair, it only hardens people's opinions.