EHRC suggestion on toilet facilities

Mollygo I think Jackiest favours mixed toilets, not single sex ones.

I don't know why we bother with signs, laws or rules of any description because none of them will stop a determined transgressor 🙄

I don't think having a sign saying women only is really going to stop someone who prepared to assault you or stab you. In fact the best protection from being assaulted by a man is to have other men around as they will soon rush to protect you.
I wouldn’t hold my breath on that.
Just as likely to be a woman with a big handbag.
Besides which, men other than TW wouldn’t have been in the women’s toilets.

Nanato3

*In that scenario, for instance, what's to stop a man from coming in, pushing you back into the cubicle and assaulting you?*

Many years ago my aunt was stabbed by a man in the ladies toilets. I never use public toilets if I can help it.

I don't think having a sign saying women only is really going to stop someone who prepared to assault you or stab you. In fact the best protection from being assaulted by a man is to have other men around as they will soon rush to protect you.

In that scenario, for instance, what's to stop a man from coming in, pushing you back into the cubicle and assaulting you?

Many years ago my aunt was stabbed by a man in the ladies toilets. I never use public toilets if I can help it.

That drives me mad, Rosie. Even more so in my last workplace when it also became the 'gender neutral' loo 😡

David49

It quite normal when designing a build ing to provide “reasonable” provision for toilets, if there are only a few employees a mens fully enclosed cubicle with a washbasin and a disabled fully enclosed cubicle which also doubles as a ladies.
As long as a cubicle meets the specification for disabled use it can be the only toilet if there are very few users.

How absolutely telling that in your first example the men's toilet is still a single sex cubicle, it's the 'ladies' cubicle that can double as the mixed sex disabled toilet. Never the other away around, with the women's toilet being exclusive and the men's doing double duty as a mixed sex one.

Yes David, that’s exactly what people have said already. But where existing buildings weren’t designed like that it can be costly and architecturally difficult to convert existing facilities to something acceptable to those who refuse to use the ones for their sex.

Of course it bursts their bubble to have to acknowledge that they aren’t really the sex they want to be, and if there is a ‘kinder’ solution, that would be preferable- but not if that solution is demonstrably unkind to the women who want single sex spaces (the ‘not bothered’ can no longer speak for us either).

It quite normal when designing a build ing to provide “reasonable” provision for toilets, if there are only a few employees a mens fully enclosed cubicle with a washbasin and a disabled fully enclosed cubicle which also doubles as a ladies.
As long as a cubicle meets the specification for disabled use it can be the only toilet if there are very few users.

Yes, it's a completely different situation. Also, accessible toilets are usually (if not always) on the same level as the busy are of the venues - wheelchair users and people with mobility problems aren't expected to go upstairs or along dingy corridors to get to them, unlike to the Ladies in many places.

Nobody is saying that the toilets themselves are intrinsically different (the 'but you share the one(s) at home with opposite-sex members of your family' argument), but that the siting, the design and the general set-up of the facilities lend themselves far better to single-sex arrangements.

Sorry same point ViceVersa crossposted.

Athrawes disabled or aaccessible toilets are always single occupancy with hand washing facilities contained within the lockable room. Other 'sexed' toilets usually comprise several cubicles with a communal public handwashing station. Totally different 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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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!!!!

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.

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?

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?

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

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

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