EHRC suggestion on toilet facilities

As much as the courts have addressed this issue for all of us on paper, sadly I feel that life has become no safer for women and children in toilets until they are better secured.

Jackiest

There are also men that are not super strong and can fight of anyone. I know many that are careful where they go at night and men are 3 times more likely to be attacked by a stranger than a woman.

I wondered when that would be pointed out, and my 'on the whole' ignored.

Yes, of course there are strong women and weak men. Of course a 20 year old woman is likely to be able to fight off an 80 year old man. Does that really need saying?

But law has to be made on generalisations, and generally, on the whole, in most cases, more often than not, all things being equal, usually most men are stronger, faster and more predatory than most women.

LaCrepescule

The EHRC has suggested that trans people should be provided with separate toilet facilities. How businesses/organisations are expected to provide this will be interesting and what will they be called? Personally I’m all for having facilities for men/women/trans/whatever else you see yourself as, as single spaces.
I’ve been known to use the gents toilets when the queue for the ladies was too long. And after all, most of us had to share a bathroom/toilet with the male members of our families.
As long as the urinals are kept separate from the cubicles, what’s the issue?

I've been at the train station after a football match when the queue for gents is ridiculous, and some of the men have asked if they can use the ladies' loo. No problem

Chardy

I've been at the train station after a football match when the queue for gents is ridiculous, and some of the men have asked if they can use the ladies' loo. No problem.

Some of the men have asked.
So not men pretending to be women who go into women’s toilets unasked, with or without ill-intentions?
As you said, No problem.
Let’s remember who caused the issue of men in female safe spaces.

Well said Doodledog Let's not forget what sex is doing virtually all these attacks, both on women and men....men! How many women are in prison for physical attacks on other women let alone men? I'll wager it's a very small number, likely increased of late by recording transwomen's crimes as committed by women.

Chardy I've been at the train station after a football match when the queue for gents is ridiculous, and some of the men have asked if they can use the ladies' loo. No problem Were you the only woman using the ladies' loo at the time? I'm not happy for any woman to consent on behalf of others. It's like when one person lets someone jump the queue without consulting everybody who will be affected.

Who caused the issue of men in female safe spaces?

Actually Rosie51 you’re right. I’ve just come in from the gym and didn’t give sufficient thought to the aspect you mention.
Were you the only woman using the ladies' loo at the time? I'm not happy for any woman to consent on behalf of others. It's like when one person lets someone jump the queue without consulting everybody who will be affected.

We were shown a picture earlier in the thread of a trans man. So now could not any man self identify "I am biologically a woman" and not have to dress any differently to walk into a women's space?

Luminance

Who caused the issue of men in female safe spaces?

Well men clearly, in all their guises.

Luminance

We were shown a picture earlier in the thread of a trans man. So now could not any man self identify "I am biologically a woman" and not have to dress any differently to walk into a women's space?

Well they won't get to go on a women's hospital ward, prison, or refuge for starters. This argument is the one so beloved by TRAs, but women's hips don't lie and neither do men's shapes, which will be a good indication. Women will have to asert themselves and challenge these men when it's safe to do so.

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/the-truth-about-toilets

So now could not any man self identify "I am biologically a woman" and not have to dress any differently to walk into a women's space?

How have you managed to post on the Supreme Court ruling threads so prolifically and yet completely miss the most salient bit about self identification? Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a wind up merchant and have somehow genuinely missed the many explanations, copies of the ruling and discussions that you've been a part of here it is again:

sex’ means biological sex.

This means that, under the Act:

A ‘woman’ is a biological woman or girl (a person born female)

A ‘man’ is a biological man or boy (a person born male)

If somebody identifies as trans, they do not change sex for the purposes of the Act, even if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

A trans woman is a biological man

A trans man is a biological woman

Carlotta
Thank you for the clear explanation for anyone who missed the salient points or simply didn’t grasp the meaning.

Carlotta yes yes, I understood all that but my question? I thought it a concern rather worth addressing

Perhaps it wasn't understood? If trans men can look entirely masculine but need to use the women's facilities that is one thing. But could not a man who is not at all trans and also masculine in appearance not lie and say they are a trans man to get into a woman's facilities?

Luminance

Perhaps it wasn't understood? If trans men can look entirely masculine but need to use the women's facilities that is one thing. But could not a man who is not at all trans and also masculine in appearance not lie and say they are a trans man to get into a woman's facilities?

Well of course people who break laws are prepared to lie, but that doesn't mean that laws shouldn't be made does it? Thieves are going to steal, some successfully but we still have laws against stealing don't we? Wondering what your point is. Do we just fold and let men in frocks and men in suits go wherever they like because that's what men do?

Rosie51 you’re right.
We do have laws, and we do have those who break the law, but we still have to have them.
We do have the truth and we do have liars. Are we supposed to ignore the truth, because some lie, and lie in order to harm others?
There have been the disingenuous sort of questions like the one you just answered, right back at the beginning of threads about trans topics on GN.

To be honest I don't care about toilet facilities - who uses them etc - as long as they're clean. In my view if 'you've gotta go' 'you've gotta go'. Many many years ago I was working in a place in London and there were only male toilets available so it meant either 'holding on' all day or taking the plunge as it were. Luckily there was noone in the facilities BUT when I opened the door of my cubicle there was a row of men lined up at the urinals!!!! They were the ones who were embarrassed poor things!!!!

I have been asking for what seems like years how to know how an obvious man entering a ladies' toilet and claiming to be trans can be either verified as such or "outed" as a non-trans man who is getting a kick from being there. Without a strip search it can't be done.

When self-registration began, I thought that would fix it if there was uncertainty, - "Show your certification, please!" but it was deemed a hate crime to ask for proof that the person had decided that he was no longer legally a man.

I dont think there is an answer across the board on enforcement as there are so many different circumstances and a person is only likely to be apprehended if they don't "appear" to be in the right toilet.
Best to work towards toilets where its not an issue - also safety wise after examples given, the single access/lock door toilet is best.

A different way to skin the cat, as they say.

Who is going to pay to change all the facilities to single access though? It's easy to legislate for new builds, but existing buildings are a different kettle of fish.

Public buildings and places such as council offices (where staff were very 'captured' anyway) might be able to get public funds, but independent businesses could be forced to close if they are compelled to spend a lot on new facilities. The Wetherspoons man was on Peston last week, and he said he has just installed separate staff loos in his pubs, and they cost £100k each. As he is a billionaire he can afford it, but a Free House is likely to be struggling anyway, and this could kill them off. The same principle applies to retail premises - a large chain such as Tesco might be able to afford it, but Barbara's Boutique on the High Street probably won't.

The advice is that nobody should have nowhere they can use, not nowhere they choose to use. If there are two options - male and female - there should be no issue. For years there has been no option for women but to share with transwomen whether we liked it or not. Why is it suddenly untenable for a different group to have to do something they don't like?

The advice is that nobody should have nowhere they can use, not nowhere they choose to use. If there are two options - male and female - there should be no issue. For years there has been no option for women but to share with transwomen whether we liked it or not. Why is it suddenly untenable for a different group to have to do something they don't like?

Because TW and TRA say so. And in TRA. I include not only the threatening, violent ones, but anyone who supports TW rights over female rights.

Since this thread is about toilets, like many on GN I support the idea of lockable gender neutral toilets. Maybe they could be sectioned off in what are currently the men’s toilets.

The problem, even if there was not a cost implication would be TW still demanding or saying they have the right to use women’s toilets.
And yes, sadly it would affect any TW who have been living unnoticed, but that isn’t women’s fault!
Lots of laws have been brought in that apply to us, even if we would never break them, because of the actions of others.

I now use an accessible [disabled] toilet when out and about. It is for people with disabilities whether they are male or female. Yet we get concerned about the need for separate male toilets and female toilets. So, why aren't there separate male and female disabled toilets?
Noone seems to argue about accessible toilets being generally male and female.
The more I think about it the stranger I find the situation.

Because the disabled/accessible toilets are usually one separate cubicle, lockable from the inside, with facilities for washing your hands etc all in the one place. You are not sharing that facility with anyone else, male or female.