EHRC suggestion on toilet facilities

Yes if you tell people they can change sex, misrepresent the law for 15 years, it leads to all sorts of problems.

Whitewavemark2

It is all a bit weird - I know of one trans man who works in a supermarket near me - and he/she is totally convincing as a man - very disconcerting if he/she walks into the lady’s and whose to tell if that person is a trans man or born male?

It is all getting a bit silly I think.

So many on here all know the tiny number who are trans and the even tinier number who are living quietly.
But this really puzzled me.
Has this person who is totally convincing as a man told you she is a trans man,
or can you just tell?
And if you can tell, who else might be able to do so?

Is she so convincing that she uses the male toilets? That’s now against the law.

As you say It is all getting a bit silly. But you can’t choose which laws you obey . . . or do you think you should be able to?

OldFrill

Dickens

Galaxy

The EHRC guidance covers all single sex facilities ( prisons, refuges, etc) and also ensures that for example lesbians can have organisations without the presence of men, it really is about more than toilets.

... it really is about more than toilets.

Hear, hear, Galaxy.

The particular guidance the EHRC has released is just about toilets.

The particular guidance the EHRC has released is just about toilets.

Yes, of course.

But the SC judgement is about more than just toilets, is it not?

There are other spaces / areas in the public sphere - apart from toilets - where a woman's privacy is involved.

I do understand that it is more about lavatories, but it is all a bit of a nightmare imo.

What about lesbians who find the female body attractive?

I would find that very creepy.

One difference is that nobody is demanding that you find the female body attractive, or threatening you if you don’t.

What do you think a lesbian is likely to do that is 'creepy'?

Lesbians, despite what many TW would like you to believe, are women. Women are very seldom sexual predators, and nor do they get caught up in desire so compelling that they are unable to help themselves and they attack other women. I don't think I have ever even heard of such a thing.

A straight man, dressed as a woman claiming to be a lesbian, on the other hand. . .

Whitewavemark2

I do understand that it is more about lavatories, but it is all a bit of a nightmare imo.

What about lesbians who find the female body attractive?

I would find that very creepy.

I would find that very creepy.

I'm sure lesbians, like anyone else, are not automatically attracted to you (the collective 'you') simply because you are a biological woman.

I'm attracted to men in principle. In reality though, very few of them!

Purely anecdotal, but as a younger woman, I worked with two lesbians on separate occasions. Neither appeared to find me physically attractive...

Dickens

OldFrill

Dickens

Galaxy

The EHRC guidance covers all single sex facilities ( prisons, refuges, etc) and also ensures that for example lesbians can have organisations without the presence of men, it really is about more than toilets.

... it really is about more than toilets.

Hear, hear, Galaxy.

The particular guidance the EHRC has released is just about toilets.

The particular guidance the EHRC has released is just about toilets.

Yes, of course.

But the SC judgement is about more than just toilets, is it not?

There are other spaces / areas in the public sphere - apart from toilets - where a woman's privacy is involved.

Keep your hat on, the OP refers to the current guidance issued re toilets. The EHRC initially said they wouldn't make guidance until the summer. Speculate all you like on the wider guidance but currently they believe, fof whatever reason, that this the most important now.

😄😄

The guidance they have released isn't just about toilets, it discusses changing facilities, organising as a group ( particularly important for lesbians and gay men), it does say it will address the implications for sporting bodies at a later date.

Doodledog

What do you think a lesbian is likely to do that is 'creepy'?

Lesbians, despite what many TW would like you to believe, are women. Women are very seldom sexual predators, and nor do they get caught up in desire so compelling that they are unable to help themselves and they attack other women. I don't think I have ever even heard of such a thing.

A straight man, dressed as a woman claiming to be a lesbian, on the other hand. . .

Lesbians, despite what many TW would like you to believe, are women. Women are very seldom sexual predators...

A very valid point.

The physiological make-up of men and women is quite different.

Hence the need for the SC ruling...

I would only go in ladies loos. No unisex ones for me. I loved Ladies Only carriages on trains too.

Whitewavemark2

I do understand that it is more about lavatories, but it is all a bit of a nightmare imo.

What about lesbians who find the female body attractive?

I would find that very creepy.

What a vile homophobic statement! None of the lesbians I know would ever impose themselves on anybody. Reminds of a gay guy I worked with years ago who said the whole "backs to the wall" jibes in the men's showers were wasted as wouldn't, not even if they'd paid him!

*as he wouldn't

Lesbians and gays have waited a long time for the right to be allowed to prefer others of the same sex. Their choice didn’t harm anyone else, but they were harmed for making that choice.
They had to hide the truth.

It’s understandable that some trans have, as L&G had to do, hidden what they really are.

Now the actions of some TW and TRA have made it necessary to rule on the fact that only biological females are women and only biological males are men.

Lying about your sex is not at all the same thing as preferring the same sex.

Why is lying suddenly acceptable?

I was just thinking that maybe these guidelines came out quickly and first because they are less complicated than some of the issues, and they wanted organisations and businesses to try and get onto provision as soon as possible.

Doodledog

nanna8

Doesn’t that already happen,though? I can’t think of any public facilities that don’t have unisex toilets as well as male and female. Not round here, anyway.

No, it doesn’t happen in older buildings which would require complex plumbing arrangements. In some cases (eg older universities) it’s taken ages to get women’s toilets, never mind extra ones for various genders.

New buildings do tend to have more modern arrangements but it would be a mammoth task to include ’gender’-based facilities across the piece. I don’t see the need, really. If you can pee standing up, use the urinals, if not, use a cubicle- but in either case use the one particular to your sex.

It can happen in older buildings. I worked in a building in Sweden where all toilets were accessible and separate rooms - ie you walk into a room that (should be) big enough for a wheelchair, you lock the door and the washbasin is in the room with you - the older part of the building was from 1651/1741.

Same arrangements in the other building that was built between 1300 and 1622 - I think the toilet had been a butlers pantry

Cold

Doodledog

nanna8

Doesn’t that already happen,though? I can’t think of any public facilities that don’t have unisex toilets as well as male and female. Not round here, anyway.

No, it doesn’t happen in older buildings which would require complex plumbing arrangements. In some cases (eg older universities) it’s taken ages to get women’s toilets, never mind extra ones for various genders.

New buildings do tend to have more modern arrangements but it would be a mammoth task to include ’gender’-based facilities across the piece. I don’t see the need, really. If you can pee standing up, use the urinals, if not, use a cubicle- but in either case use the one particular to your sex.

It can happen in older buildings. I worked in a building in Sweden where all toilets were accessible and separate rooms - ie you walk into a room that (should be) big enough for a wheelchair, you lock the door and the washbasin is in the room with you - the older part of the building was from 1651/1741.

Same arrangements in the other building that was built between 1300 and 1622 - I think the toilet had been a butlers pantry

I think the toilet had been a butlers pantry

And now we are going full-circle. Our town public toilet has been converted to 'bijou' accommodation (it was about the size of a butler's pantry).

... and that's another problem - what provisions there are are being sold off by councils to save money. Which doesn't help.

My take on this is if anyone can declare themselves a women then the unsavoury members of society may take the opportunity to use private/secluded areas to assault women.

Unfortunately it feels like the minority (those who have genuinely transitioned) will suffer because of the need to protect biological women's rights.

Whether men declare themselves trans (for the day for instance) or have genuinely transitioned it doesn't take away the fact they will nearly always be taller and have greater muscle mass, making them stronger.

I have no problem with those who have genuinely transitioned but do have concerns that by allowing trans women into secluded/private areas we could be opening ourselves up to abuse.

They obviously think the "toilet" system in some continental countries are a good bench mark - hole in the ground and a water pipe to flush and wipe. All ages, and both sexes in the queue.

Wyllow3

I was just thinking that maybe these guidelines came out quickly and first because they are less complicated than some of the issues, and they wanted organisations and businesses to try and get onto provision as soon as possible.

The guidelines have been released so that trans people have toilets available to them. It's certainly not complicated. If trans women are men and trans men are women the trans men can use female spaces? How would anyone tell they were a trans man and a natal male? Makes it easier for men to violate female spaces, doesn't alleviate any perceived threat at all.

*uncomplicated

Women who identify as men don't offend in the same rate as men. Trans men are often housed in female spaces, so for example they are usually placed in female prisons because the risk in male prisons would be too great.

What about lesbians who find the female body attractive?
I would find that very creepy.

Lesbians/gay aren't as creepy as that horribly homophobic comment. Jeez, I've seen it all now.

SuperTinny

My take on this is if anyone can declare themselves a women then the unsavoury members of society may take the opportunity to use private/secluded areas to assault women.

Unfortunately it feels like the minority (those who have genuinely transitioned) will suffer because of the need to protect biological women's rights.

Whether men declare themselves trans (for the day for instance) or have genuinely transitioned it doesn't take away the fact they will nearly always be taller and have greater muscle mass, making them stronger.

I have no problem with those who have genuinely transitioned but do have concerns that by allowing trans women into secluded/private areas we could be opening ourselves up to abuse.

SuperTinny, your take, explained in each paragraph is just what others have been saying on GN for a long time.