Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

No, you can't consider every single sex space on an individual case by case basis. The Equality Act is a guide for service providers so such a methodology would be too complex, inconsistent, and confusing for everyone. Once a space has been designated a single sex space that means biologically single sex. Why should toilets be excluded from such guidance? Service providers can make additional provision.

The supreme court addressed the 'excluded because of appearance' concern. Yes, they can be excluded in the very small numbers of times if and when such a problem occurs. I doubt that most women would object to a trans identifying woman in their rape support group but if they do then individual counselling should be offered.

If you were in a male rape support group would you object to the presence of a man of unconventional appearance?

 

[TailWindHome]

No, you can't consider every single sex space on an individual case by case basis. The Equality Act is a guide for service providers so such a methodology would be too complex, inconsistent, and confusing for everyone. Once a space has been designated a single sex space that means biologically single sex.

If it means biological single sex then what justifies extending it to those who object to how someone 'presents' because they have a 'problem' with it?

 

[TailWindHome]

Why should toilets be excluded from such guidance?

When I asked about toilets, you didn't want to address the 'absurdity' that had been created because it was never about toilets.

So if it's never been about toilets why must toilets be included?

I don't see any reason for different things not to be treated differently.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

So if it's never been about toilets why must toilets be included?

Never about toilets or never just/primarily about toilets?

 

[TailWindHome]

Never about toilets or never just/primarily about toilets?

"It's not really about toilets. It never has been. "

 

[AuroraSaab]

If it means biological single sex then what justifies extending it to those who object to how someone 'presents' because they have a 'problem' with it?

It would be for example in a rape support group with a woman who found discussing their assault in front of a woman of stereotypically male appearance traumatising. It's not going to apply to women only book clubs.

"It's not really about toilets. It never has been. "

'It's not really about toilets' doesn't mean they aren't important or should be excluded from being single sex spaces.

Why shouldn't toilets be included? They are spaces where women and girls would feel vulnerable or uneasy if males were present.

Feel free to campaign for additional mixed sex facilities for those who do not wish to use the spaces allocated for their biological sex.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Or

It's not really about toilets. It never has been. Framing it as all about toilets is a way of presenting women's need for single sex spaces and services as trivial and unkind

Slightly different without the selective edit.

 

[TailWindHome]

Or

Slightly different without the selective edit.

When the question was about toilets the reason for moving the discussion to rape support was that is wasn't about toiilets.

 

[TailWindHome]

It would be for example in a rape support group with a woman who found discussing their assault in front of a woman of stereotypically male appearance traumatising. It's not going to apply to women only book clubs.



'It's not really about toilets' doesn't mean they aren't important or should be excluded from being single sex spaces.

Why shouldn't toilets be included? They are spaces where women and girls would feel vulnerable or uneasy if males were present.

Feel free to campaign for additional mixed sex facilities for those who do not wish to use the spaces allocated for their biological sex.

By your own arguments transmen (or trans identifying women if you prefer), aren't male

Yet the exclusion is extended in this case to females

 

[AuroraSaab]

I don't see any reason for different things not to be treated differently.

They aren't different things though. They are all single sex spaces and services. The case by case decision has been made at the point when it was decided it was a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' to make that service/facility single sex.

You wouldn't look at another protected characteristic under the Equality Act and say for example that legimate disability exclusions only have to apply sometimes.

By your own arguments transmen (or trans identifying women if you prefer), aren't male

Yet the exclusion is extended in this case to females

Yes, on what will likely be rare occasions and particular circumstances.
Your alternative seems to be that men get to access women's toilets whenever they like 24/7 because otherwise a trans identifying woman - who has deliberately chosen to adopt a stereotypical male appearance eg by taking hormones to grow facial hair - might be asked to leave a women's space or service. It sounds like you're asking women to give up quite a lot to accommodate the tiny number of trans identifying women who pass as male.

 

[TailWindHome]

Your alternative seems to be that men get to access women's toilets whenever they like 24/7 because otherwise a trans identifying woman - who has deliberately chosen to adopt a stereotypical male appearance eg by taking hormones to grow facial hair - might be asked to leave a women's space or service.

The alternative is that trans men /trans indentifying women aren't asked to leave a women's space as they are female, no?

 

[icowden]

Your alternative seems to be that men get to access women's toilets whenever they like 24/7 because otherwise a trans identifying woman - who has deliberately chosen to adopt a stereotypical male appearance eg by taking hormones to grow facial hair - might be asked to leave a women's space or service. It sounds like you're asking women to give up quite a lot to accommodate the tiny number of trans identifying women who pass as male.

Is this better or worse than your alternative of making all toilets unisex and removing them as a women's space entirely?

 

[AuroraSaab]

The alternative is that trans men /trans indentifying women aren't asked to leave a women's space as they are female, no?

The number of situations in which they might be asked to leave - and the court decision said alternative provision must be made to accommodate them - are going to be very small. Given the nature of the subject there are always going to be difficulties of some sort. It doesn't mean the principle isn't workable in general.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Is this better or worse than your alternative of making all toilets unisex and removing them as a women's space entirely?

That's not my alternative. Additional mixed sex spaces is the best alternative. But as we have seen for years, this is rejected by trans activists. They wish to be in women's spaces not in a mixed sex one.

Also, if trans identifying men can access the space it's not a women's space anyway. It's already mixed sex.

 

[icowden]

That's not my alternative. Additional mixed sex spaces is the best alternative. But as we have seen for years, this is rejected by trans activists. They wish to be in women's spaces not in a mixed sex one.

Not achievable in many places. Much cheaper and easier to take off the picture of a woman and put the word "toilet" on the door.

Also, if trans identifying men can access the space it's not a women's space anyway. It's already mixed sex.

So you aren't missing out then. Case closed.