EHRC suggestion on toilet facilities

^ Virtue Signalling: the public expression of opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or social conscience or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.^ OED

Virtue signalling is the popular modern habit of indicating that one has virtue merely by expressing disgust or favour for certain political ideas or cultural happenings. Cambridge Dictionary

Virtue signalling is a superficial attempt by somebody to flaunt their self righteousness. Often condemning others to gain attention, validation or showboat. Urban Dictionary

I will continue to express what I think as it is relevant to the topic. If others believe that virtuous by their own definition then perhaps what I am saying is a positive thing.

Doodledog

No, it's really not😀

That can be a form of VS, but one's virtue can be signalled in many ways.

Must dash - off to feed the orphans in the next village.

No, it's really not😀

Virtue signalling is posting opinions that you do not share because that is what you find to be expressed most often so you believe it will gain you popularity. Virtue signalling is not expressing your opinion on a topic of discussion, where opinions are generally being given by everyone.

VS is when people tell everyone how virtuous they are.

'I am happy to support anyone' is such a statement. 'I am happy to support by donating. . .', or 'I am happy to support by giving my time' are both VS too, but at least they do a bit more than declare the virtue of the signaller (assuming that the promises are followed through).

What do you think VS means, Luminance?

Luminance

It seems a lot of people on these threads have no idea what virtue signalling is.

The public expression of opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or social conscience or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue. Often implying that they are the only people demonstrating the moral correctness or social conscience.

The most guilty of VS are those who don’t recognise it in their posts.

It seems a lot of people on these threads have no idea what virtue signalling is. Of course I support secure facilities for anyone who needs them. I cannot remember which thread it was here but I have already stated before that this will take time to achieve. Some buildings already have the structure in place. New buildings can of course accommodate that and the rest will hopefully look into possible changes when budget allows in a common sense approach.

Luminance

I would be more than happy to support trans people and whoever else wants separate secure facilities too.

And exactly how do you propose to do that?

It's easy to say we 'would be more than happy to support' people, but not so easy to accept that there is no way of doing so. Are you going to raise money for small businesses to pay for the plumbing and building work involved in installing more toilets? Or pay more tax so they can be added to public buildings?

Good for you if you can afford to do that, but not everyone is in that position, so are you 'happy to support' those who can't afford to pay more? Without a practical suggestion, declaring your nebulous 'support' is just Virtue Signalling.

What I’d really like to know, from all those who know a trans man, are related to a trans man etc, is why there has been no uproar about these trans men using the male toilets?

Did we not have a recent post, on another but similar topic thread in which a poster said that her husband had confirmed their was absolutely no problem with trans identified men using the gents and he didn't know of any man who would. Hmmmmm.... who was it now.......?

I would be more than happy to support trans people and whoever else wants separate secure facilities too.

Carlotta

Just because they pass doesn't mean they're not predatory. And who's to say who passes? A 6'2" bloke with smeary makeup, a nylon wig and muscular legs teetering atop a pair of stilettos probably leaves the house thinking he's the very epitome of "woman" and would easily pass. The only reasonable option is for the transgender community to work together to insist that they have facilities of their own, that neither impinge nor take away from either biological sex and most definitely not the disabled, but caters specifically for them.

Yes, but there is the element of cost.
The biggest problem is that the TW who caused the need for the ruling in 16.4.25 , making problems for those who have so far gone unnoticed, would continue to lie their way into female spaces, just to prove they can.
Social media has plenty of examples already of men saying they would do just that.
What I’d really like to know, from all those who know a trans man, are related to a trans man etc, is why there has been no uproar about these trans men using the male toilets?

Good practical post, Doodledog, especially whilst different provision gets sorted out depending on the building.

And ideally, more single space unisex provision as time goes on.

I don't think anyone should "have" to campaign, it's clear that "provision is to be made".

I think we'll have to see how things proceed in practice, and that there may be local "campaigns" as regards a particular space to sort out.

yogitree

Galaxy

People with disabilities fought very hard to have facilities that meet their needs, I think that would be for people with disabilities to make that decision.

I'm sure that would open another can of worms as disabled women ALSO would like to be safe from those who may not actually be Trans Men. So DeDe, not sorted in my opinion

Disabled men can already use the disabled loos, so disabled women don't have a single-sex space.

I'm not sure what I think about disabled loos being open to transpeople. Whilst I see Galaxy's point, I also recognise that transpeople have to go somewhere, and as there are lots of hidden disabilities it wouldn't be screaming to the whole bar that they were trans if they used them.

Also, they are often empty a lot of the time, and the point of them is that they provide accessible facilities to the disabled, not that the disabled have exclusive access to them (or so my workplace said when the only Ladies loo was also the disabled one). In many ways that seems a sensible solution.

Galaxy

People with disabilities fought very hard to have facilities that meet their needs, I think that would be for people with disabilities to make that decision.

I'm sure that would open another can of worms as disabled women ALSO would like to be safe from those who may not actually be Trans Men. So DeDe, not sorted in my opinion

By mixed I mean ones with proper toilets and wash basins behind complete doors. Most of the ones now have partial doors and communal wash basins.

Jackiest

Would trans men and women be happy sharing facilities. We are not happy sharing facilities with men. So that means pubs and restaurants having 4 sets of toilets. I must admit if I was a pub or restaurant I would look to changing to one set of toilets with proper doors that are used by all rather than having 3 or 4 sets.

You say Would trans men and women be happy sharing facilities. We are not happy sharing facilities with men. then go on to say all toilets should be mixed. Why will that suddenly make us happy to share facilities? I don't understand your thinking.

Jackiest

I am guessing Macadia is an auto correct for Macallan Apologies if I have that wrong.

Leo will I imaging feel very embarrassed as he will be aware of the discomfort he will cause in the female changing rooms but if the law says you have to use your biological sex rooms then he will have no option. If we say he should break the law so can others.

There is more than one side to this problem.

Surely Macallan will seek out one of the many 'all gender' toilets that are around? If she chooses to break the law and use the men's facilities that is a problem for men to report, but in no way justifies a transwoman equally breaking the law.
Your preferred 'all mixed' facilities just won't work in many places, requiring far too much expensive building and plumbing work. Of course hospitals, refuges and prisons won't need mixed sex facilities because they will now be single sex areas. Going forward new builds can certainly offer separate female, male and mixed sex facilities. If they need to cut one, let it be the male toilets, not as has been happening recently whereby the female toilets have been reassigned 'gender neutral' leaving the male ones still single sex.

Would trans men and women be happy sharing facilities. We are not happy sharing facilities with men. So that means pubs and restaurants having 4 sets of toilets. I must admit if I was a pub or restaurant I would look to changing to one set of toilets with proper doors that are used by all rather than having 3 or 4 sets.

I agree with that MollyGo up to a point. I honestly don't think that facilities for the transgender community is for anyone else to sort out but them. They've demonstrated frequently how resourceful and proactive they can be when they've made their previous demands; getting their own facilities, where they feel accommodated and safe shouldn't be a huge deal for them to negotiate. Women and the disabled did it before them.

Wyllow3

My understanding of the guidance is that it's up to whomever provides the facilities to provide facilities for all.

""Where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use."

Agreed. Maybe a concerted push by all trans, with the backing of women and men, for facilities that don’t take away women’s rights to safe spaces but provide for trans is what’s needed.

My understanding of the guidance is that it's up to whomever provides the facilities to provide facilities for all.

""Where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use."

Just because they pass doesn't mean they're not predatory. And who's to say who passes? A 6'2" bloke with smeary makeup, a nylon wig and muscular legs teetering atop a pair of stilettos probably leaves the house thinking he's the very epitome of "woman" and would easily pass. The only reasonable option is for the transgender community to work together to insist that they have facilities of their own, that neither impinge nor take away from either biological sex and most definitely not the disabled, but caters specifically for them.

Wyllow3

Who decides which trans men and women are permitted to use their chosen facilities. Are they going to be given some sort of trans pass that they show people if they get questioned. I am not sure this guidance has really helped that much. The only real way I can see out of this mess is to have mixed facilities with everyone having privacy of their own door they can close.

Anyone who passes as the opposite sex can use opposite sex toilets and no-one will know.

In other situations eg hospital wards, DV refuge staff, prisons, the person's genuine sex will be known so their looks won't matter.