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?

The younger and most vulnerable cohort of trans people believe it because older transactivists told them it was true. Just as they told them if they couldn't transition they'd kill themselves.

They've got a lot to answer for.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1tk1vng/is_anything_more_just_harassment_and/

God they really hate us. These are all quotes from trans people talking about women.

"Their ultimate aim is to eradicate us. They want genocide. They are Nazis. This is war"

"Anything short of a gas chamber is not their real end goal."

"These people are really evil. The sooner they die (from something nasty), the better."

It's quite scary - they wrongly attribute these genocidal, violent feelings to women and then feel justified in turning those feelings on us.

It’s buried under Health on the BBC website and was published 14 hours ago.
I’ve admonished the journalist who’s written the daily fail article because it’s appallingly biased, in my opinion.

What gets me is how this mixed group’s wants have managed to cause so much disruption in so little time to toilet provision.

Women didn’t used to have public toilets. Even now, men have more ‘units’ than women. Disabled people started eventually started getting toilets after WW2, when so many men came back needing wheelchairs. Then came changing places toilets much later.

In 2008, there was a huge government report, discussing all sorts of provision and taboos. No where did it mention men and women using each others toilets.

It absolutely unprecedented. There’s never been a time when it’s about preferences in toilets. It’s always focused on needs.

I saw this earlier as well. It’s genuinely concerning language. I think people should be quite concerned.

It demonstrates extremely shaky mental health.

Yep.

Wearily used to it by now.

It's all DARVO.

Women never wanted anything other than to protect their sex based rights.

For that, we got bullied, smeared, attacked, misrepresented, sacked, threatened, jeered at, shunned, etc.

It won't ever change, I'm afraid.

what the actual fuck? They are clearly very very unwell and need urgent help.

It would be far more expensive for many establishments to create compliant unisex facilities than it would be to provide one additional 'gender neutral' facility.

The Times newspaper daily news round up email I was sent today says as a headline: ‘Long-awaited equality guidance has warned that transgender people should not routinely be challenged over which lavatories they use.’

?
Was that their main take home?

Sorry for the duplication, but I posted this on another thread:

"If a trans-identified man continually tries to use female spaces, yes, apparently we can challenge, but it must be in a "kind" way that doesn't constitute harassment. How we are supposed to judge that, well, that will be in the eye of the beholder, apparently.

So, we will continue to have to take legal action just to enforce our rights."

It’s the same thing.

Daisy Cooper from the Lib Dems 🙄🙄🙄

The Lib Dem MP Marie Goldman is also getting very upset about the guidance over on Bluesky

'not bovvered what's inside other people's pants quite frankly' - Daisy Cooper reveals the depth of her understanding of the need for single sex spaces and services. The callousness and dismissal of women's experiences is breathtaking.

They always default to talking about what's in people's pants

I often ride in on the coat-tails of the wonderfully well-informed Keeptoiletssafe in my 'Keeptoiletssimple' persona😁

Here I go again, picking up on that final point, that toilet provision has always been driven by need, not preference or validation or whatever the trans lobby has made it.

Accessible toilets were campaigned for because some people needed the adaptations in order to use the toilet, they physically could not use a standard toilet - it's not that they simply preferred accessible toilets.

Do transwomen need to use the women's toilet? Are they physically unable to use the toilet designated for their sex, and need their own fourth spaces?

The EHRC guidance is reported [I'm quoting from BBC reporting] as saying
leaving a trans person without access to any services or facilities would be unlikely to be proportionate.

That seems to mean 'every venue with standard toilet provision of women's, men's and accessible has to go to the expense of making special provision for transpeople - despite the fact that they already have access to facilities that they are perfectly capable of using, but choose not to'.

I think what is disproportionate is requiring venues to incur so much disruption and expense to cater for a tiny percentage of the population, who can use the men's/women's, but choose not to.

They have not been left 'without access to any services or facilities', they have decided for their own reasons to refuse to use the available services or facilities.

As KTS says, 'It absolutely unprecedented' that expensive, disruptive demands from a tiny minority on the basis of preference not need have been allowed to influence building design, and become such a 'toxic culture war' issue.

Take heart Marie, the trans are never going to use them. They only want the women's bathrooms for validation. Going into the Disabled ones doesn't give them that. They don't want 3rd spaces, they want the Ladies toilets.

Thank you. And the fact is, if they had done safety risk assessments rather than pages of impact assessments based upon calculations of economic cost, they would have come to a different conclusion. As I predicted, this was based on cost to businesses not cost of safety.

Then to paraphrase Big Colin, they can stay at home….and again as we are constantly told, we all have ‘gender neutralI’ loos at home so what is the big deal if using one outside of home? Or do those ‘gotchas’ only work one way?

Unfortunately, of course they only work one way! (where have you been??😀)

Going back to the code itself:
2.51 This Code only relates to the application of the Equality Act 2010. It does not deal with the implications of the For Women Scotland judgment for the application of section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to any other legislation.
Does this have implications for the H&S regulations and/or the workplace regs? Particularly given that in recent FayeRC EA case, the judge said
194.1 the Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland clarified the definitions of ‘men’ and ‘women’ in the Act and in the Workplace Regulations (as interpreted by Mr Justice Swift in R on the application of the Good Law Project) as referring to their biological sex. Both of those decisions are binding on this Tribunal. The result of this caselaw is that an employer who permits trans women to use the women’s toilets in effect no longer provides single sex facilities for women as defined Regulation 20(c) of the Workplace Regulations.

Alex Sobel MP has posted on fb. A long post about how dangerous this is and how anti trans, with links to several mental health groups and trans support groups. I welcome the links for those that need them but the rest of the post is anger inducing. This man has obviously never spent even a second thinking about a woman’s needs and safety.

Discussing on Jeremy Vine now. Helen Joyce!

Does Jeremy Vine really believe the nonsense he spouts or is it just for the ‘clicks’? I don’t think my blood pressure can stand this!

I expect we'll see more of this nonsense

https://x.com/bozenka_2023/status/2057732382166253798?s=46

The watershed in Bristol will
not be following the guidance which* *"does not impose legal obligations. Nor is it an authoritative statement of the law".