Maya Forstater

People who seek to exclude trans people need to be absolutely clear about the consequences of those actions and that is to cause the most severe and profound mental distress to people with a recognisable condition.

They need to be aware that what they are proposing is identical in impact to taking a person with severe agrophobia into a vast open space. Or forcing someone with a fear of heights to walk along the edge of the Grand Canyon.

Only the most insensitive would fail to recognise the cruelty of the above actions but somehow those who propose treatment which will cause similar levels of distress ignore this conclusion. Those with a gender critical stance need to accept the consequences of their actions.

Trans pple shld not be excluded from education, jobs, housing, healthcare, services etc .. There are limited areas of life which are sex segregated. Unisex\mixed options shld be offered. There is no right to be where members of the opposite sex are undressing or expect privacy

Unisex facilities are only a solution when they are for all. I have no issue with using unisex facilities which provide dignified and respectful treatment for all. The idea though of trans people being offered some 'third space' is exclusionary and would cause distress.

Unisex facilities are open to all. Male facilities are open to males. Female facilities are open to females.

Unisex facilities can only be considered a suitable solution if they provide levels of privacy and personal security such as would satisfy the needs of a non trans person. If this can be provided there is though little need for single sex provision.

In high traffic areas single sex facilities (including urinals) are an efficient use of space & time. They are not for everyone though. Really if there are safe, private accessible spaces for all why do you want to remove single sex spaces for other people ?