So it seems likely the EHRC guidance will be issued tomorrow Thursday 21st May …

[RhannionKPSS]

That is if The Human Paperweight that is Philipson can make her mind up. What should we expect?

No one listens, do they, because it would cost too much money for them to listen.

LBC in a minute!

yes the "self inflicted" certainly sticks, but hopefully these new policies, and the reinstatement of womens rights, will eventually have a trickle down effect of slowing down the GI juggernaught, ultimately resulting in less invasive procedures being offered, and less injuries as a result of those operations.

I haven’t had time to sit down and look it through yet. Is it clear, concise and to the point or does it pander to TRA?

its 340 pages!

Back a year or two ago I ran some numbers on the impact of trans people using disabled loos. Whilst I disagree with it from an ideological purpose, the impact on disabled people is small compared to putting baby changes in there.

For a start, about 50% of people identifying as trans also identify as being disabled. I'm hating the use of the word identified in this btw. Obviously there is a lot of crossover with mental health issues and autism, so I'm actually not surprised. What it means though is that half of them are potentially using disabled loos anyway (though might not because it's not validating eh...).

If there are 250k trans people, and half are (potentially) disabled anyway, we're looking at an extra 125k people across the UK.

There are about 600,000 babies born in the UK a year, multiply that by 3 for 3 years of butt changes and it's 1.8 million. Adding in those trans people it would be an increase of 6% in non disabled use. Not nothing, but barely noticeable with most disabled toilets.

If a Medical advocy group only asks for gender in a questionnaire, is that indirect discrimination against women? Condition affects women disproportionately

Competitive sport – gender reassignment

13.73 Any sex-based rules or arrangements relating to participation in a gender-
affected activity (read paragraph 13.65) should be applied on the basis of
biological sex. Therefore, trans people should not be included in single-sex or
separate-sex competitions for the sex with which they identify. They should
also not be treated as that sex for the purposes of any other sex-based rules
or arrangements that relate to participation. The law on the exception for
sex discrimination in relation to gender-affected activities in section 195,
paragraph 1 is not settled (read paragraph 13.66). However, it is unlikely to
permit rules or arrangements that treat trans people as the sex with which
they identify, and participants or prospective participants may bring claims of
direct or indirect sex discrimination about such rules or arrangements.

Example
13.74 An athletics club chooses to organise a competitive running event that includes women and trans women. Running is a gender-affected activity. A woman who participates may be able to bring a claim for indirect sex discrimination due to the provider’s decision to include trans women placing her at a particular disadvantage. Men who are excluded from the event may also be able to bring a claim for direct discrimination based on their exclusion. This is because the exception for sex discrimination in section 195, paragraph 1 may not apply if the club chooses to include trans women and exclude men.

13.75 In addition, it may be lawful to exclude some trans people or treat them
differently from other members of their own sex in relation to participation
in a gender-affected activity, when necessary for reasons of safety or fair
competition. If it is not necessary for these reasons, it is likely to be unlawful
to exclude trans people from participating in the same way as members of
their own sex.

13.76 Consequently, if a person is organising single-sex or separate-sex events
for men and women, or other events with sex-based rules in relation to
participation, in a gender-affected activity, they should consider their approach
to trans competitors’ access to the service.

13.77 Direct gender reassignment discrimination can occur if a policy or decision to restrict participation of trans people is made on the grounds of gender reassignment. This would be the case, for example, if a trans man is excluded from a women’s event because of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Read Chapter 2 for more information on the meaning of gender reassignment.

13.78 Indirect gender reassignment discrimination can occur if a provision, criterion or practice puts trans people (including the individual trans person concerned) at a particular disadvantage compared to people who are not trans and it cannot be justified. This might be the case, for example, if a rule that excludes people who have received certain hormone treatment is more likely to result in the exclusion of trans people than others, unless that rule can be justified. If such a rule is necessary for reasons of safety or fair competition, it is likely to be justified.

13.79 In addition, in the context of a gender-affected activity, the Act provides
an exception to a claim of gender reassignment discrimination if a person
restricts participation of a trans person and can show it is necessary to do
so for reasons of fair competition or the safety of competitors (section 195,
paragraph 2).

13.80 This exception applies to service providers and public authorities, but not to associations covered by the Act who organise competitive sporting activities
solely for members and their guests. However, associations may still adopt
general rules which prevent people from participating in a sporting activity,
for example because they have received certain hormone treatment or have
hormone levels exceeding a set limit, if this is justified for reasons of safety or
fair competition.

Example
13.81 A boxing gym runs a boxing competition for women. A trans man who
has undergone treatment with testosterone wishes to compete. The gym
declines his request because they are concerned that the treatment has had
the effect of increasing his muscle mass and strength. This is likely to be
lawful if the gym can demonstrate that there would be a genuine health and
safety risk and / or impact on fair competition if the trans man were allowed
to join the competition.

13.82 The combined effect of the exceptions relating to sex and gender
reassignment under subsections 195, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Act
may impose significant limitations on the ability of some trans people to
participate in some gender-affected activities. If the exceptions have been
properly applied, this will not be unlawful under the Act. However, this result
could constitute unlawful indirect gender reassignment discrimination unless
the overall arrangements for participation are a proportionate means of
achieving a legitimate aim. Organisers should therefore consider whether
there are additional alternative arrangements that could be made to enable
trans people to participate in the activity in question. This might include, for
example, having mixed-sex categories in addition to separate-sex categories,
or having a category in a gender-affected team activity with specified numbers
of men and women on each team, which would enable trans people to
participate as part of the specified number of members of their own sex (read
paragraphs 13.66 and 13.73).

13.83 Given the physiological differences between men and women, and the
potential impact of treatment that trans people may receive as part of the
process of transition, it will often be necessary for organisations to develop
general policies to guide and inform their decision making. Policies should be
supported by clear reasoning and an evidence base. They will often wish to
draw upon guidance from sporting authorities. Relevant factors may include:

-the extent to which there are competitive advantages arising from
sex-based physiological factors, such as physical strength, stamina
or physique
-whether such physiological factors give rise to safety risk factors, such
as those arising from physical contact between men and women
-whether medical or other interventions that trans people may have
received as part of their transition process, such as hormone treatment,
may affect fairness and / or safety
-whether there are additional or alternative arrangements that could be
made to enable trans people to participate
-whether an activity is primarily competitive, or competitive but with a
significant social and recreational purpose and whether it is a mass
participation event

(TLDR I reckon they wanted this example I have bolded for parkrun)

good workings.

Add in that this advice is given as a proportionate response for a "small advice center" there will be different advice for a "large shopping center", so that should reduce further the incidences when those users are all grouped together.

It will need to be monitored somehow and the impact on disabled facilities will need to be studied.

It will be used for drugs (taking and dealing) and sex and other misuse. The shopping centre staff will be diverted to spend their time surveilling this toilet although of course you can’t know what’s going on inside which makes it so attractive. Even worse, as they have to add it retrospectively, it’s likely to either take away from safer provision or be in an out-of-the-way place.

They also note that this option may cause safety risks and distress for trans users if required to use the toilets designated for those of the same biological sex.

What about the safety risks of adding a unisex, private toilet in a public place? What about the distress of the cleaners who have to deal with what’s inside that cubicle?

Economically it’s stupid because they’ll spend a load of money on an unsafe design that will cost loads to maintain and then it will be shut when they realise it doesn’t work.

What do you think this means for parkrun?

Helleofabore, I saw that and thought exactly the same

Parkrun, we see you👀

It looks like a warning shot across the bows that if they carry on as is, they'd be sued.

they don't have to offer these though do they?

So maybe the people making decisions will look into things properly & assess the risks to them of providing toilets that will attractive to those wanting to undertake duvious activities.

Not read it all yet, but I don't think that NOT providing seperate loos for "gender feels" is discriminatory is it? as everyone can access facilities for their sex.

The way forward would have been to create more non-ambulant provision within the single sex toilet suites.

We already have ambulant toilets. In new buildings have a bigger one (with door gaps) that could also be prioritised for parents with small children and buggies.

The mixed sex accessible toilet is still needed for those with disabilities that require total privacy and those with different sex carers but mixed sex private toilets should be kept to an absolute minimum.

Actually, I got it wrong, didn't I? It's cheaper to just keep the usual single-sex toilets, but more expensive to build additional full-length, lockable cubicles with sinks, is that right?

Does this mean that perhaps service providers won't bother with the mixed-sex single cubicles?

I genuinely cannot see how else you resolve this other than single sex toilets with stalls (safest option) as your primary option but have additionally gender neutral toilets in lockable rooms. It’s not perfect but it’s the most reasonable and workable solution.

I reckon we will see the endless arguments of 'but parkrun are not competitive', but I suspect that if it went to court, parkrun would lose because their publishing of sex based course records and ranked times is an acknowledgment that it is competitive in nature.

Is it discriminatory if the shopping centre only provides "toilets in individual lockable rooms with hand basins, which can be used by people of either sex" ?

Or is it only expensive, inefficient and unsafe?

There’s no such design as gender neutral. It’s called universal toilet and it’s a sound resistant, private room with a sink and dryer in too. There no such thing as a real lockable room either. All toilets have to be able to be able to be opened outwards from the outside for safety. That’s because so many people collapse in them and fall against the door (drug overdoses, self harm and cardiac arrests mostly).

At least with the accessible toilet it has designed to be in the most visible part of the building and has an alarm.

edit: I am sorry if I sound cross but the situation is so predictable

I think it’s saying in addition not instead of single sex toilets. Effectively they are saying 3rd spaces is the way forward.

Does it have to be competitive to fall under the rules? What about women-only walking groups, or leisure cycling groups, or RSPB activities?

Swirly that’s covered under Associations in Example 12.68 (if I’m reading it correctly)

@Keeptoiletssafe I do understand where you are coming from but realistically it was never going to say single sex cubicles only and fuck off trans people. Third spaces are really the only option if you don’t want disabled people pushed out of their hard fought for provision.

I actually think the guidance is clear, yes it uses weasel words like should, might etc. but it’s clear service providers need their own legal advice.