Given that being trans (i.e. having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) is v. wide criteria, this in practice means the service is mixed sex. So then it should be labelled mixed sex (which with floor-to-ceiling cubicles, as you say, is fine)
-
-
Replying to @MForstater @ramendik and
The point is there should be clear expectations for all - women should be able to be told clearly if a changing room, toilet, dorm, showers whatever is single sex or mixed.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @Flashmaggie and
You seem to be arguing from a user right to expect segregation, but UK law does not have such a right. The closest I can think of is a Canadian case, which establishes a right to privacy from "other sex" when nude only.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik @MForstater and
However, when there is actual shared nudity (not the case in toilets), the "indistinguishable for all practical purposes" guidance can be applied, which in that specific case means genital configuration as visible. It was probably written *for* that specific case.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik @Flashmaggie and
No. If a woman is vulnerable in a space which she has been told is female only and hears a man's voice, she does not have to wait to *see* his genitals to distinguish and to panic. People should be told clearly if spaces are single sex or mixed sex.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @Flashmaggie and
The current government guidance says otherwise. you want to make the law, as practiced, more restrictive towards trans people.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik @MForstater and
1) Women have exemptions under the Equality Act for good reasons. If anyone can claim to be a woman, with or without a GRC, it renders those exemptions unenforcable. A majority of those who claim a female gender identity are physically male. Statistics show that they're no less
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Flashmaggie @MForstater and
Users (women or otherwise) do not have any claim to a right to segregation under EA 2010. The exceptions are opt-in for providers and *also* require proportional cause, which means that a legitimate aim can not reasonably be achieved in a less restrictive way.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik @Flashmaggie and
Right but that is the point. If you opt in to having a female changing room (or other service) then this means you exclude males from it. There isn't a "less restrictive" way of providing a female only service than only including females. Or you don't, and you make it mixed sex.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @Flashmaggie and
Unless the place is political or religious, "providing a female only service" is not a legitimate aim in itself, but a means to some other aim, such as privacy. For example, in a clothing shop privacy is provided by cubicles - the guidance is clear about that.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
If the privacy is provided by the cubicles as you state then that would suggest there is no need for single sex changing rooms! And yet plenty of clothing stores do use the EqA exemptions to exclude men from women's cubicled changing areas. They are not all unisex 
-
-
Replying to @MForstater @Flashmaggie and
Exclusion of trans women requires an additional test and the guidance is clear trans women are included as women in this particular case. Though it may be wiser, as M&S does now, to say that the rooms are neutral, just located next to various departments.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.