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 don’t either.

Given the clout that the trans lobby have, the legal obligation to provide single cubicles for their use should with time result in many more disabled/single sex toilets being made available so it could very well end up being a win/win for all concerned.

In a few larger (and richer) venues, possibly, but in smaller places, cafes and pubs? There's no win/win here.

Is that the first time this Labour government worries about cost to businesses:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/6d5e2ebc-f020-4771-a4be-4c5de0325faa?shareToken=921975fe7af5dc6ac0128725b2794f3b

If you suddenly make the disabled toilet available to people who aren't disabled it'll be a massive free for all.

Everyone and his wife will be in there.

The fact that there are apparently only a few trans people won't matter, because it won't be trans people. It will be anyone who fancies it, for whatever reason.

We all know that if you say you're trans, you're trans. And they will.

There are already apps that shows you where the nearest gender neutral toilet is. If men really don't want to use their own toilet, they can use the app.

That's two alternatives right there. How much more accommodation is necessary??

I don’t know but for the Conservative government Document T they costed it all out and for what ever reason decided it would be retrospective, so apply to refurbs and new toilets from 2024 onwards. This is the problem.

Hmm.

Twenty years ago when a Labour govt decided that it was important that disabled people had accessible toilets and ramps did they fret first about how expensive it would be to businesses?

They did not. There were LA grants, but LA teams were sent out to make people aware of the law, deal with the whinging and to reiterate that they had to do it, so get on with it.

As usual, it only matters if it's actually useful to the govt agenda, which appears to be 'get cocks in women's spaces at all costs, lying your head off all the way'.

I wouldn't believe Phillipson at this point if she told me the time.

Put it this way, when rule of law comes to getting an anti Semite from Egypt a British passport, ECHR keeps foreign sex offenders in the UK, paying Mauritius £billions for Chagos, Starmer pulls all the stops out, nothing stops him.
Starmer on rolling out an unambiguous SC ruling on sex >>> gender, now there must be 1001 risk assessments, cost benefit analyses, syllable by syllable checking of language to eliminate hate and bigotry.
More 2TK to add to the rest.

If I've understood the excellent toilet related posts I've seen on Mumsnet the alternative is probably more costly?
If Labour decide to legally allow men into the Ladies toilets and changing rooms and make them all unisex wouldn't all the existing Ladies spaces have to be refurbished? e.g. to provide floor to ceiling panels etc?

Yes, or scrap building regs, standards and legislation that currently discusses the differences in designs. The Sexual Offences Act would need to be looked at too.

Well, why bother with laws? No-one enforces them anyway. 😠

Yep. We can either re-affirm the provisions and social agreement that supported them for the last 150 years or we can go back to men pissing against walls and women unable to leave the house. I do wonder how TiMs will get their affirmation when all the women's loos have vanished though.

Heh, good point! 😁I doubt they'd thought of that, though! I'm sure they'd find things not to their liking at all.

I'm going to buy shares in women's stand-to-pee aids and reusable period pads. The first will allow us to pee against walls and the second can be worn daily on a precautionary basis and thrown in the wash.

Sorry to the IBS crowd, including me. I can't think of a solution for us. A RADAR key assumes the presence of an accessible loo to use it with.

They're already available to pregnant women and women with babies - I used them for years without any issue and never had to queue.

To any newcomers, I am trying to keep everyone, of all demographics, safe. I have researched for several years why people come to harm in non-domestic toilets.

In terms of toilets deaths it is drug related, or self harm, or a medical incident from a diagnosed or undiagnosed condition. People with invisible disabilities (such as those with heart conditions, epilepsy, diabetes) are of particular risk of collapsing inside a toilet. They can then be left for hours if even days inside a cubicle if no one knows they are there. A common place to have a cardiac arrest either at home or out-of-home is on the toilet. It’s where people go when they feel ill and when you strain you put pressure on your heart. To help people survive a medical emergency (eg. use a defibrillator) you must know that they have collapsed.

People can also be assaulted within a cubicle. A private cubicle is more attractive as the occupants can not be seen. Perpetrators are male. Victims are women and children but could be of any demographic.

If you read my posts you can see the conundrum here. You can’t just change female toilets to mixed sex toilets by changing the sign on a door. You have to change the design of the toilets. Mixed sex toilets have to be private (floor to ceiling), resistant to the passage of sound and have the sinks inside them.

Healthwise it is proven there are more pathogens in mixed sex toilets. The air and surfaces will be covered in the microbes from the plume created from the previous occupants flushes. Ventilation can be restricted. Cleaning with mops and lots of bleachy water under the doors and partitions then letting it drain away can’t be done in full floor-ceiling private designs.

So, if you want mixed sex facilities, what you are doing is advocating for private designs - ironically these are least bad for healthy men.

The ONLY designs in England that the HSE say can have door gaps are single sex designs within single sex environments. At the time of the 1992 legislation, the standards for toilets recommended gaps for cleaning, ventilation, supervision and prevention of misuse. That’s why the legislation said if you had mixed sex toilets, they had to be in separate rooms.

I helped save the life of a young woman because I saw she has collapsed on the floor of a toilet cubicle in time so she could be resuscitated. That is why I am so passionate about single sex toilets. I know they have the ability to save lives and prevent assaults by design.

Igneococcus · Yesterday 06:26

Is that the first time this Labour government worries about cost to businesses:

She's desperately coming out with any old guff, in order to stall things.

People say she is aiming at replacing Starmer. I wonder this about every politician who is trying to become PM (or president, or Kanzler) not just BP: how can anyone have so much self-confidence to look at the world and the country in their current state and say "I know who is the best person to sort this mess out, it's me"?

Based on her absolutely ridiculous behaviour about all this, I wouldn't employ her to run the tea trolley, never mind run the country. She is a huge disappointment.

"Here's your tea- yes it is tea, I swear to you it's tea - yes, absolutely, it is tea, and really not pasta arabiata, I thought very carefully about it for some years and consulted everyone I could think of, and anyway that's not a cup it's a lawnmower. (For which my colleague will now tax the fuck out of you)."

She ran a refuge, FFS!
So, let me get this right.
In the same building, in the room holding the refuge, Phillipson agrees men, however they might ID as women, cannot enter.
But elsewhere in the building where there's male and female toilets for the general public, now men IDing as women can use the Ladies loo?
Literally just metres from the refuge, up one storey?
I'd ask "make it make sense", but that can't be answered or solved.

Bridge, there's a man with a trans identity here who says if he's a woman in the toilets downstairs, then he's also a woman in the refuge, because if he's a woman in one situation but not in another it's wrong and unfair and entirely incoherent, and limiting his rights as a woman, and here's the papers for the court case -

and here's some more papers from the man without the trans identity because he wants to use the women's facilities too and its discriminatory that some men get to go in there with women in a state of undress and not others -

and here's the court papers from the women who are frankly sick and tired of you and your bullshit that they have rights in law but that no longer means anything in the UK unless they crowdfund and take you to court over and over and over, and apparently we have judges malfunctioning and going nuts under the strain, so strap in there too -

and there's a whole lot of tax paying women who cannot use mixed sex spaces, and also have a right to inclusion and access. That is actually, sorry about this, equal to the rights of the men.

So now you've made the men jolly happy and they're having a nice time fighting the salami tactics to get from some of women's resources to all the fucking resources all the time (as they've been doing for ten years love, we ran this experiment once, it was called the GRA, were you reversing into a bin at the time?) ..... these women still need loos, and refuges and services, and to be allowed to be homosexual without men trying to get their knickers off (leaflet for the cotton ceiling workshop on your desk). That was kind of what they went to court about. So what shall we do with equality and facilities for those women? Or shall I pop 'women are a lesser kind of human being who pay full taxes but don't get inclusion, access or resources when they're raped etc' into the manifesto?

Yours is the long form version I snuck a look at before editing for brevity, lol.
But your righteous anger is definitely a level beyond my words.

Tbf lots of politicians seem to be all about the T!

Many Thanks for the detailed information Keeptoiletssafe, I've saved it so that I have it to hand next time someone tells me "so a bloke goes into the ladies, what does it matter"?

Amazing! 😂

I read this in the style of a scene from The Thick of It.

It's remarkably plausible as both that (I'm picturing Chris Addison as Ollie Reeder) and what may have actually been said to BP within the department by one of her policy advisors.