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?

Here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026

I hope so! I would have liked to see it covered though. Guidance should be explicit, it shouldn't have to rely on "in effect".

I think it's already pushing disabled people out, by adding on " gender dysphoria but it's not a health condition but yeah but no but yeah" as a disability.

The physical disability of having mutilated your body, unfortunately, will rightly be classed as disability and of course the NHS will be picking up the tab. Someone on another thread (I think) also mentioned PIP.

It says 'anybody who does not wish to use the toilet for their sex.', so not just trans people, and also parents changing their babies' nappies.

But anyway it's a matter of principle: disabled people fought long and hard for the accessible toilets they need - it's not that they 'do not wish' to use the non-accessible toilets, they need them.

And if able-bodied trans people using the accessible toilet is not a problem because there will be so few of them using the 'small advice centre' at the same time, why not let transwomen just use the women's toilet? Why should disabled people have to budge up for them?

There’s also a bit (sorry so fed up I can’t find it) that it’s saying if you think your users need more of these mixed sex toilets then go for it.
Even Robin Moira White thinks they’re ghettos.

Where do the men go who have been banned from using unisex and women’s toilets? SHPO can last for 10 years.

The language in this document is appalling. For trans people it’s safety and distress; for women it’s privacy, dignity then finally safety. Safety should always come first for everyone. I also have no examples, verified or otherwise, of trans people being sexually harmed in toilets. The safety stories Stonewall talked about were verbal abuse (men getting shouted out in the ladies) and physical abuse (2women pushing a man out the ladies). I can absolutely promise you that is nothing compared to what happens to women in private toilet designs, even in busy places. In terms of absolute safety, there’s no comparison.

Switching off now.

Service providers should get their own legal advice, but how much you want to bet that most of them won't? Short-termism related to overheads. They'll stumble along, ignoring the issue until they have a problem, and will rely on the fact that most women and disabled people won't have the funds or the wherewithal to take them to court.

I agree with you

Apologies if this has already been posted.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1tjnt9d/ehrc_guidance_being_laid_before_parliament/

We may need different types of 'accessible' toilet then. Unless you're a wheelchair user or with significant physical difficulties a full sized wheelchair accessible room may not be necessary. (And yes get the bloody baby change stuff out of them, the number of times Ive had one fall on me or not been able to get my wheels past it)

There is an interesting part here:

Example 7.51 A train company has a provision, criterion or practice that train conductors should request non-wheelchair users to vacate a wheelchair space if it is required by a wheelchair user. However, the provision, criterion or practice provides that if the non-wheelchair users refuse, the train conductor is not required to do anything further and the wheelchair user will not be allowed to board the train. The train company may be in breach of its duty to make reasonable adjustments, as it is not enough for the train company to instruct its conductors to make the request and then do nothing further if the request is rejected. Although moving may inconvenience non-wheelchair users, the train conductors should be required to take further steps to encourage the service user making an unreasonable refusal to vacate the space to meet the duty to make reasonable adjustments in this case. Wheelchair users should have priority access to wheelchair spaces.

Disabled specific, but legally I'd like to hear Naomi or Ben discuss how a man refusing to leave a women's single sex space (rendering it inaccessible and removing facilities from the users it is set up for) is any different under the law here.

Absolutely. And the results go on Power of 10 and are used for selection!

This is basically just going to mean years more of court cases.

I'm sure it was a lot clearer than this before Bridge fucked it about?

Hopefully the cases that do happen will cause a trickle down effect generally.

Well, it's out now and still nothing on the BBC. Nor, as far as I can see, the Guardian.

Can anybody say what those employers who have delayed doing anything after the judgement, pending this guidance, and who seemed to ignore the exiting health and safety regs, are likely now to do? Are they allowed to apply the guidance for service providers? I am confused about the difference (apologies therefore for this badly worded post). For example, if an employer has no purely single sex toilets but has all self contained cubicles, accessed from a common space, is that ok?

Please all ignore my question if it’s too far a derail!

Wheelchair users should have priority access to wheelchair spaces.

Should it say "must"? Is it the law? If so, yes, how will that be enforced?
How do we physically remove someone ( in either scenario) if the police won't act?

(I'm getting ahead of myself I know)

Feature not a bug.
But I can't see that anyone will be happy with this guidance.

No worries, welcome to my world! I think the current "consensus " is we will have to fall back on the law, sue a lot more, and hope that a ripple effect takes hold.
??? 😬

It was covered in Radio 4’s PM programme.

only managed a few minutes before I arrived at my destination….

Disappointed that Tom introduced the segment as the long awaited ‘trans guidance’.

Even bigger disappointment that he had fucking Joanne Lockwood on misrepresenting the concept of proportional means.

Absolutely fantastic interview with Rosie Duffield on Sky News about half six. I don't know who the presenter is, but she is definitely one of us 😄

Not a mention of toilets or sad men. She mainly asked about vulnerable women,.e.g. in rape crisis centres and also about talked about how women have been silenced. The presenter even mentioned David Lammy saying TW can grow a cervix 🤣

I notice the GLP has completely misunderstood and mistated the guidance. Quelle suprise.

Good point about baby-changing facilities in accessible toilets - a very bad idea, unless the toilet has been specifically designed to be large enough to contain both, otherwise they impinge on wheelchair space.

Also, changing a baby's nappy can take a significant amount of time, making the toilet unavailable for disabled users. A bad idea all round, but of course no-one listened to disabled people when they pointed out the problems.

As usual, the needs and rights of disabled people were elbowed out of the way. As your useful figures show, a significant cohort, babies with full nappies, were added to the queue for the accessible toilet, and it's hard to see adding another 6% as anything less that further inconveniencing - pun intended - disabled people who actually need accessible toilets.

Baby-changing facilities are much-needed, but sticking them into somebody else's much-needed facility is not the right way to do it.

Someone with a physical disability like incontinence would certainly be disabled.

I read this as treating 'dysphoria' as a disability. I mean maybe it doesn't matter - 'low mood' can be treated as a disability when it comes to employment law.

Will this affect Hampstead Ponds in their decision to continue to allow TW to use female facilities?