Brigitte Phillipson blocking EHRC guidance

[lcakethereforeIam]

I'm not sure if there's anything new here though

Phillipson blocks trans guidance after landmark Supreme Court ruling https://share.google/P91PBE5Cy4ROwsdA1

It's a very stark article in the Telegraph.

I agree with @BonfireLady and @KitWyn that a correctly administered trial might be useful across a selection of different types of places eg offices, leisure centres, shopping precincts.

I am in touch with quite a few ‘toilet people’ and what I think will happen is that the accessible toilet will be used for transpeople who don’t want to toilets for their sex. I agree with @MarieDeGournay that this isn’t fair on disabled people who need that provision of course, as access to their provision is made longer. And it’s not all wheelchair users- some ambulant people (leaking stoma bag, bad ibs) may need quick access to an accessible toilet room for the facilities a single sex cubicle doesn’t have. What people don’t realise is the urgency that is needed for certain disabilities. Queuing isn’t the same when your disability requires urgency and people who have had genital surgery may also require a toilet quickly. And the TURNOVER takes longer as you are waiting for people to wash hands etc.

It is only ’ok’ as do-able for places where the disabled toilets aren’t used very much at all, but shouldn’t be a blanket policy.

I reckon this is what Phillipson is afraid of and why she is delaying. As soon as she says the EHRC recommended this and we agree, trans people and disabled people are both going to be upset. She can’t win.

What I would like to see is more accessible toilets that are safer included in single sex design so disabled females also get single sex provision. Ambulant toilets too in the single sex provision. If she announces this for disabled people this would be a fantastic win.

This I hope this will be the next big change in provision. We know single sex provision is safer.

If you look at public toilets out of the venue/work environment, the big challenge is actually ANY provision for anyone. Much council-run stock costs so much to run and repair, it’s been shut down. Inclusivity in its non-existence I suppose.

It cost £15k per public toilet per year (British Toilet Association figures). A high % of council run toilets close each year due to vandalism and misuse (sex,drugs) never to be opened again. Some toilets get redone at great cost only to close again within hours.

How would it the trial work?

Maybe the idea of this trial is one that should simply me one that stays on the back of a fag packet, and not go any further.

I agree that many council run toilets in car parks and so on are heavily misused and I'm not surprised that councils give up on them. There are some round by me that are fine, so I guess it is location dependent.

I didn't volunteer to run a trial. I simply stated that it might be a good idea. There is obviously a problem with the current disabled provision anyway, from what you and others have said. Maybe a trial could collect useful data on that aspect too.

My honest feeling is that if we get on our high horses and insist that all the people who claim to be the opposite sex/gender/genderless use the toilets for their actual sex even where an alternative could be offered, then we will lose some of the support that we have and be considered vindictive. They cannot, under any circumstances, be permitted to use opposite-sex toilets but I am not averse to looking at alternative provision. I always try to bear in mind that, in among the fetishists, are some very vulnerable, confused and unwell people, some of them quite young and some of them children of people on this forum.

I might be being overly simplistic but presumably it wouldn't cost this much (extra per toilet) if it was making use of existing provision.

However, as there has already effectively been a trial in schools it sounds like this would be a moot point, unless there was any specific benefit to be gained from having a further trial in other types of settings. If lessons weren't learned from the school experience, and it sounds like they weren't, expanding any trial further sounds ill-considered. So...

Maybe the idea of this trial is one that should simply me one that stays on the back of a fag packet, and not go any further.

TBH everything points to Phillipson needing to put on her big girl pants (not to be confused with those that may belong to any Scottish doctors that don't have a full grasp of biology 🤢) and get this guidance moving through the parliamentary system.

There is no public duty to provide a toilet that why councils can close them.

from the BTA: In an era of public spending cuts, the number of public toilets has reduced by a staggering 40% since 2000, impacting both people’s wellbeing and the health of our economy.

Apologies for the non enthusiasm for a trial but toilets are really difficult to keep, let alone introduce. A selection from the last few months:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg92nl5w25o.amp
https://www.newquay.gov.uk/press/statement-on-public-toilet-changes/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwxww01589o
https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/public-toilets-plagued-vandals-cost-33041161.amp
https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/local-news/anger-over-closure-public-toilets-32216998?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target
https://southlondon.co.uk/news/supermarket-toilet-closure-condemned-by-man-with-crohns/

This one, from a few years ago is quite a standout though as it really could do with an Alan Bennett-like monologue to it:
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/xxxx-sex-acts-carrots-toilets-332759.amp

Unfortunately it is not just council carpark loos this happens in. Even the ‘loos of the year’ suffer from misuse.

Therefore any TRAs who protest would make themselves look utterly ridiculous.

This has been no deterrent to them so far, as the attached photo of the "Pissed Off Tr*nnies" outside the Equality and Human Rights Commission would indicate.

FFS. Women, girls, and disabled people end up restricted by the bladder leash because men can't be bothered to book a hotel room for their same-sex sexy times. Of course, men and boys aren't affected because they can nip behind a tree easily.

Perhaps we should open only the women's toilets, put a RADAR lock on the accessible toilets, and have Belgian-style open air urinals behind a screen for men.

Ladies, I cannot sufficiently recommend Pstyle. Gives us "nip behind a tree" parity.

All good reasonings.

Although radar keys are bought off eBay for £2 and misused eg.
https://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk/news/concern-voiced-over-misuse-of-radar-keys-at-disabled-toilets-in-borders-182798

This is from the BBC from way back in 2013:
‘Why do accessible toilets need to be locked? You might want to avoid reading this section if you're squeamish or easily shocked.
Disabled people's toilets are big, private and less likely to be occupied than regular-sized ones. As a result they are open to misuse by the general public. Most notoriously, they are sometimes occupied by drug users or people having sex.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-22602836.amp
I would add the factor that they are mixed sex too.

You quickly learn not to be squeamish or shocked when researching toilets.

Why would a private unisex toilet not be used for drugs or sex? Why isn’t it a good idea to increase the number of locations for private, unisex toilets?

Open air urinals I think could work. Though some men suffer from paruresis. And they do need cubicles too.

Women still need much more provision than we currently have. And it needs to be single sex.

Which trans people are you referring to?
They are not a coherent group.
Middle-aged men with a fetish have absolutely nothing in common with young troubled teenage girls/women.

Personally, I don't see why they can't use the disabled toilets given they are such a tiny minority. These toilets are also available to pregnant women or women with babies and we never hear about women with babies demanding toilets just for them.

If women who cosplay as men grow a beard they can probably use the men's facilities without being challenged. They pose no risk to men in any event unlike the men cos playing as women and if they are adults they are free to put themselves in harm's way if they really want to.

The males can use the male toilets or the disabled toilets, problem solved in 99% of cases.

In small companies it's not feasible to build standalone toilets for one employee.

That lad needs some antibiotics for his kidney infection.

He appears to think that "trans" is the new word for flasher.

Do you think there’s any chance anyone from the Government is reading this?

I hope so. I don’t like explaining stuff so explicitly but making all provision private and unisex to alleviate their worries that:
1)a pregnant women may go for a wee in a theatre without breaking the women’s queue (surely it would then be a mixed sex queue as you’re waiting for women to wash hands within the toilet room too)
2)a girl can go to the toilets with a man,

does seem ludicrous when you have an inkling of what actually goes on.

There are many more pregnant women and women with babies than opposite-sex identifying people and I've never heard of any issue with them using disabled toilets in my lifetime (sixties). I used them myself when my son was a baby and never had to wait - I live in a large suburb of a big city.

Adding a tiny number of opposite sex identifying people will barely make any difference at all to disabled toilet usage. Most of the time they are vacant a little like disabled parking near shopping malls. 90% of the spaces are vacant any time I'm out and about.

A storm in a teacup.

That’s nice that you have never seen a problem with toilets or parking. Unfortunately you are in the minority when it comes to the experiences of disabled people.

There’s a charity you may want to consider looking at called Euan’s Guide. It promotes making sure disabled toilets are up to standard.

Just to add on the toilet trial discussion: I was in a v well known London university building last summer for an event and noted with interest that the disabled loo had been rebadged as unisex / disabled. It had a snazzy logo that was male / female and then a wheelchair one as well. So as a PP noted, some organisations have already decided this is the most straightforward solution even if it is to the detriment of ppl with a disability.

Oh yes, I remember those and Julie Bindel and Karen Ingala Smith all telling us to vote Labour and scolding those of us who demurred… some of us have long memories and screenshots…

Anecdotal i know, but in my experience the parking spaces that are free are the electric charging ones, rather than the disabled.

And the disabled toilets I'm aware of are used often.

Part of the problem with estimating usage is that we have no idea of the numbers who wouldnt use the correct single sex toilets and have no alternative.

Im guessing in student areas its more than market towns, and the demand in pubs is higher than in waitrose.

I hope feminists, the Labour type especially, aren't going to scold women a second time if they again don't vote for Starmer in 2029.
Maybe they should answer the Q if a Labour govt had to be propped up by Polanski Davey Swinney, and Self ID was one of the prices of getting a left rainbow coalition into power, would they still be happy with this outcome?

And the way things are going, it's looking like that would be an increasingly common 'solution'.

In that case I (who only ever voted Labour until all this kicked off) would be voting for the option most likely to stop that misogynist dick Polanski and his acolytes getting anywhere near power. And I won't be apologising for it.

For workplaces, trialling a policy where the unisex disabled toilet is used by a likely very small number of trans women or trans men seems very do-able?

For starters, HR know who works in a building, and what floors, and the number of those people who are wheelchair users or have a guide dog. They can check the toilet provision ratios. Obviously if someone hasn't declared a disability that'll be an unknown. So HR will need to be watchful for any unwanted consequences of the new policy.

It would mean that the Men's and Women's toilets are protected as single-sex spaces, and they can keep their cubicle door gaps. Which are so important for safety and well-being.

In the unlikely event a trans employee behaves badly, such as a dirty protest, there are already disciplinary processes. They could be suspended and lose their job. And no-one, even a captured Trade Union, is going to greatly sympathise with someone who trashes the disabled toilet. The optics are appalling.

So introducing a policy that trans employees (and visitors) use the unisex disabled toilet if they are uncomfortable using the communal toilet for their biological sex, seems sensible.

As I said in an earlier post if I used a wheelchair or had a guide dog I wouldn't like this at all. But, toilet refits are very expensive and difficult to justify for the likely small number of employees affected.

Public toilets are likely to be much trickier. Bad behaviour is much more common as a previous post noted. And much easier to escape being caught.

I suspect that most trans identified people already use the disabled facility, in spite of bragging about how they use the women's and "have always done so". That always seems a very performative claim to me and one which I don't believe .

Meanwhile, the courts are not obeying the Supreme Court: