Is this what a sane but pro-Trans response to the EHRC Guidance looks like?

[RareGoalsVerge]

I thought this was worth sharing as a potentially welcome, rational response to the EHRC guidelines. It's not perfectly in line with what we as feminists want, but it is way better than the toddler-tantrum responses I have seen elsewhere:
https://transfiguredmission.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/faqs-for-churches-following-ehrc.pdf

It is clearly written from the point of view of wanting to be as inclusive as possible, within the scope of the law as it stands.
You cannot expect or require trans people to use the ‘wrong’ toilet, therefore you will need sufficient mixed sex / all gender toilets. You must be careful not to simply repurpose the disabled toilet as this could amount to unlawful disability discrimination.

If you have single rooms / cubicles with a lockable floor-to-ceiling door the simplest way to cater fairly to everyone is to make them all unisex – or most of them if you have lots. If you currently only have two – one labelled M and one F - you must do this.

This seems rational to me. The document goes on to highlight that for the most part, everything that reasonably can be unisex/open to all should be - and describes that things which should be legitimately single sex might include

• whether women are likely to be in a state of undress
• whether there will be limited ability for women to leave or to choose an alternative service
• whether the service is provided a result of, or connected with, male violence against women
• whether the physical differences between men and women are relevant to the experience of the service and put women at a particular disadvantage

Most single-sex church groups would not be ‘necessary’ under this analysis. You cannot require trans people to attend the group that corresponds to their ‘birth sex’

There's plenty not to like - I wish they didn't refer to things that are legitimately single sex as being for cis women - obviously cis is inappropriate for large numbers of women who have just been getting on with their lives for a many decades just existing as best they can under a patriarchy without the luxury or priviledge of the leisure to work out if they have a gender identity, and also many things in the above bullet-pointed list would be very much appropriate for people who are female but identify with a masculine or non-binary identity, so a better document would highlight benefits to female people of all gender identities rather than using cis. In the toilets section the authors clearly know, by implication, that gender neutral toilets are only legitimate if they are fully enclosed with floor-to-ceiling walls and doors, but fail to explicitly mention this or to draw attention to the well-known health and wellbeing detriments that arise when people are taken ill in such facilities. And the fact that they signpost to the Good Law Project at the end is disappointing.

But despite all this I thing its a welcome example of how reasonable organisations of good intention might do their best to find a reasonable way forward within the law, rather than just trying to ignore the law and carry on prioritising male people's wishes over female people's needs.

You cannot expect or require trans people to use the ‘wrong’ toilet, therefore you will need sufficient mixed sex / all gender toilets

I expect all people to use the single sex facilities that correspond with their sex. Because that’s the law.

No, it's not good for women to make everything unisex. We will have men peeing all over the seats, using cubicles when they could use urinals so making us queue longer etc.

Yes - this was what jumped out at me too. “You cannot expect or require…” Why not?

But likes of Starbucks, the one near me has the single rooms and there are 2 female, one male. Why does this have to change and therefore potentially women, 51% of the population, who I believe it is established have in general a greater need for public toilet provision than men, have to be disadvantaged with less toilets to pander to 0.5% of so called trans people?

the whole thing is total fucking nonsense and trans people should have been using bio sex toilets anyway. FWS only covered people with GRCs, the vast majority of trans people don’t have them and were never even arguably entitled to use toilets corresponding with their alleged “gender identity”

Of course you can expect people to comply with the law. That is the basis of civilised society.

I agree. My workplace has made all toilets in new builds and refurbishments gender neutral. Hence most of them have pee on the floor and toilet seats and smell bad.
There have also been many reports (not in my workplace thankfully) of men using cubicles with the door open in mixed facilities.
Besides it’s been made very clear for some years that TW don’t want mixed sex or gender neutral facilities. They want to use ours. They complain of being excluded, othered or outed if they can’t.

Plus the camera risk.

Yes, the problem is that men without GRCs were accustomed to using the existence of GRCs as self ID by the back door.

Anything that requires women that don't want men in their spaces to capitulate to having men in their spaces is wrong.

The obvious answer is for men to normalise other men using the male facilities regardless of how they present.

This is for the men to sort out and it shouldn't be that hard considering we live in a patriarchal society.

No males in female only single sex spaces is not hard to understand is it. It's not a problem for women to solve. It shouldn't even involve us.

Men pee on the seat, simple fact, that wont bother other men, as they can also pee standing up, so basically women will be required to clean up after men before using the toilet. Do you think thats fair to women?

Is there any evidence that men have an issue with trans women in their spaces?

From what I have seen online, newspapers etc there isn't and its just about the feelz.

I don't agree that making everything unisex is the solution. The best solutuon is just to add in a single occupancy gender neutral facility alongside the single blocks. That is the most efficient and cost effective way to meet everyone's needs and in a way which is proportionate to numbers requiring them.

We have single sex facilities, especially for women, for good reasons.....if these reasons didn't exist then there would only be unisex facilities....but there are good reasons for them and that is why we have them.

Any unisex facilities which exist or are created need to be compliant.....no shared handwashing.....all units self contained. I'd say most people prefer single sex over unisex, though, and most places don't need to go to such expense when just one new single occupancy facility will be sufficient to meet the needs of those who don't want to use the facilities for their sex, for whatever reason.

Most small establishments only have single occupancy, self contained rooms anyway.....and these are already compliant.

I’d support adding some ‘either sex’ loos to the mix wherever possible - ideally in larger units than the norm. Not primarily for the benefit of the small number of trans identified people but for the much larger numbers of parents with opposite sex children.

Aside from the obvious - that it's not the spaces but the validation resources (aka women) inside them that TRA's want, it does smack of 'well, if we can't have them then no-one can!!' if everything is made mixed sex. To the detriment of women.

Paging @KeepToiletsSafe for her excellent safety-based takedown of single-occupant loos.

tl;dr: The gap between door and floor saves lives.

Yet another thread on this. If all toilets are made unisex, women lose out for the reasons repeated hundreds of times on this board. If extra unisex toilets are created, fine, but who pays for this? How about the trans organisations do some fundraising for it, instead of fundraising to attack womens' rights?

I thought that where space allowed, an employer still needs to provide single sex facilities (because it’s health and safety law) and can’t just make everything self contained cubicles?

I have not heard of any problems from the men I associate with but then I guess they might not necessarily mention it to me. I'm guessing they have seen transwomen in the gents, just as we've seen them in the ladies.

I appreciate the effort to put forward a good faith solution that takes account of many of the reasons women need SSS.

I don’t have a problem with unisex loos at all. I’m constantly wiping up other women’s piss from toilet seats (why the hoverers can’t wipe up after themselves I’ll never know). And I hate, hate, hate door and floor gaps - makes cubicles near-unusable for me. Much prefer floor to ceiling walls and doors.

They have to provide separate male and female first and then, if there is space, they can add a mixed sex facility. But the mixed sex can't replace the separate male and female.

And in the meantime, this image (which I believe is from KTS) is a good example

Exactly. Can you imagine the plethora of options which could have been available now if, instead of determinedly trying to erase women's legal right to single sex spaces and services, the TRA organisations had focused on actually expanding toilet facility provisions?

I mean, women had to fight for all these services. They could have done the same. They chose not to. And now we're being told we have to come up with a 'kind' solution.

No.

Not your mums. Not your support humans.

I have never seen the amount of piss-on-seat in a women's toilet that I have experienced on following a man into a mixed-sex toilet.

The law states which facilities people cannot use i.e. opposite sex ones. It doesn't force anyone to use single sex facilities. If a trans-identified person chooses to use a gender neutral alternative I can't see what the issue is, as long as single sex facilities are not removed and replaced entirely with mixed sex ones.