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.

Ok - must admit I had my England ‘Document T’ head on for that bit.
It’s a bit different for Scotland because of devolution.

The problem is people planning building regs never would have thought we’d be having these conversations - it was assumed men and women would use the correct toilets or be told to get out.

I was presuming you are talking about the typical separate sex toilet washroom scenario: a door leading to sinks and hand drying, then a row of cubicles (with or without door gaps) made up of a partition system not solid walls?

Please can you describe the toilet room more?

Never. They are cheaper seats in the theatre

Stalls is an American term. Sometimes people who read a lot of content from America use it.

I'm British. If your objection is the use of the word stalls, we are on the same page. It's not hard to change.

I assume it's lifted wholesale from a badly photocopied version of the 'Big Bumper Book of TRA 'arguments', tbh.

Its been mentioned a lot, but unisex isnt just a sign. A provider cant just rename male and female provision both unisex.

The most efficient provision is STALLS and STALLS + URINALS.

Thats what eddie izzard says because he can only think of himself. He wants to use women's spaces, but have the convenience of urinals when it suits. Male entitlement.

He also talks about liking 'chatting' to women while on the toilet and passing paper underneath if needed.

He's vocalising a fantasy, but also inadvertently highlighting why we cant have wall and door gaps in mixed space toilets.

I am surprised how many people are against unisex toilets, my workplace and lots of the cafés/coffee shops/bars around us have moved to 100% unisex toilets and I've never once found wee on the seats or noticed them being unclean. It is the easiest way for small businesses to offer toilets for everyone.

I hate the unisex toilets in coffee chains and generally avoid.

They aren't that clean (the corners can be filthy) and have to be checked far more regularly than they obviously are.

The best used to be the toilets in department stores like Debenhams. Because of the size of the room, they felt and smelt more hygienic.

Most cafes round by me only have one toilet, so it has to be unisex. They are usually tolerable, but not a wholly positive experience. I have repurposed my covid hand gels to use when I get back to the table, before I eat my food.

"Trans women" are actual men.

Exactly. @Mouldemort 's choice for us is 'piss' with men, or..... 'piss' with men.

Well, that's not true, but even if you believe it is, you are going to be spending a whole bunch more time with men in the loo.

Individual lockable loos with urinals are the way forward even if Sex Matters says they are "Not inclusive" whatever that means.

For theatres, I suspect things will continue as they always have, with women nipping into the men's without objection because of the relative size of the queues.

Not my choice - it's the inevitable consequence of the new guidance. Even if you think trans women are men, there will be way more men in loos with you than ever before. I mean, the trans women will be in there too! Great work the EHRC.

You need to read further back up the thread. Buidling regs.

@Plasticchesse
These maybe of use:

https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2023/12/building-standards-technical-handbook-april-2024-non-domestic/documents/building-standards-technical-handbook-april-2024-domestic/building-standards-technical-handbook-april-2024-domestic/govscot%3Adocument/2024%2B04%2BNon-domestic%2BTechnical%2BHandbook%2B-%2BComplete.pdf

The Scottish Government Building Standards Non-domestic Technical
Handbook April 2024 Page 282-283: Separate male and female sanitary is usually provided. This should be based upon the proportion of males and females that will use a building, where this is known, or provide accommodation for equal numbers of each sex otherwise. Unisex sanitary accommodation may be provided where each
sanitary facility, or a WC and wash hand basin, is located within a separate space, for use by only one person at a time, with a door that can be secured from within for privacy.

If the women’s provision is being used by men, it is unisex. Therefore the sink (sanitary facility) needs to be in a separate room.

Lady Poole judgement - useful as it discusses disadvantages to girls with handbasins being mixed in terms of the Equality Act.
https://judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/judgments/2026/06/04/de-and-fg-against-west-lothian-council

it's the inevitable consequence of a group of men refusing single sex spaces.

Its odd that men with trans identities arent scared for themselves at the idea of everywhere becoming unisex, they are just threatening women with it.

Its because they get what they want, which is to take over women's spaces and piss with the women.

I will also point out that it proves that trans women are not scared of men.

@FrippEnos I will also point out that it proves that trans women are not scared of men.

Excellent point

I don’t believe this is true. My company has always had unisex individual floor to ceiling ‘rooms’ with their own sinks. We’ve moved buildings twice and this has been true in each one.

While I’m generally gender critical and very pro women-only spaces for DV shelters and hospital wards etc, I just can’t get upset about unisex toilet cubicles. Of course men occasionally pee on the seat, but women aren’t angels either. And a totally private ‘room’ is far nicer in general (was definitely preferable when I miscarried in the work toilets!)

I also have a young son and was thrilled when our local swimming pool changed everything to mixed family cubicles rather than an open gender-specific ‘locker room’. Much more private and suitable for families.

And honestly, I do think the vast majority of people - especially trans people - just want to pee and go on their way. If men want to cause harm to women, they won’t be stopped by single sex toilets. They’re hardly password protected.

I think we should be fighting hard for women’s sport and prisons and hospitals and protecting young girls from trans ideology and puberty blockers and all sorts of other things. But public loos are not a hit I would be dying on.

But you cannot consent for other people.

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.
[...]
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.

But this is not what the document is doing.
They are advocating ignoring the law:

If you wish to include trans people in the same gender group as their cis friends, [...] This is one of the points that will be the subject of legal challenge so you should make your own decision in your own context whether to continue to provide such a group, and whether it creates a legal risk for you or not. The guidance also states that the law on this point is unclear and that individual circumstances may permit exceptions to the general rule. For example, if there is one trans man in your congregation and he has been attending the men’s group, and you wish to keep it as a men-only group, you might well decide that it is worth leaving things as they are, especially so if the cis men who also attend the group are supportive of the trans man’s membership of the group.
[...]
So pending a forthcoming legal challenge, they claim the law is unclear and suggest weighing up the legal risks, and leaving things as they are.

It is also lawful generally to provide a service only to people who share a particular protected characteristic, e.g. a group for gay people, or a group for trans people. It is likely also to be lawful to provide a service only for people of more than one particular protected characteristic – e.g. LGBT people.
At least they admit it is only 'likely' to be lawful to have mixed characteristic groups, and don't claim that is 'is' lawful. (IMHO not likely to be lawful: how about a group for anyone who is either a man or disabled?)

The biggest flaw with this kind of sane, reasonable, compromising, accommodating approach is that (some? most?) transwomen don't want it.

They don't want mixed-sex or unisex provision.
They want to be in with the women.
For validation and kicks.

Can we still run the men’s breakfast and include trans men? Or the trans-inclusive women’s group? Your starting point in the provision of services should be that they should be provided to everyone. So all gender / mixed sex services should be the default.

I strongly object to the idea that there should not be any women-only or men-only clubs and social groups (WI, Guides, etc.). Why should we lose the right to socialise in men-free groups, just because transwomen get upset at not being included?

Those mixed family cubicles you like are much less safe. They account for 50% of changing room provision but 90% of sexual assaults in changing rooms are in these mixed-sex ones. And I don't think that data includes voyerism and hidden cameras, which are also rife. When Stevenage leisure centre recently installed them, the local police publicly objected on safety grounds.