Pronouns

[nffc]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

you are right. But, this is where semantics or perspective comes into play. The average number of legs in the world for the human race is 1.97 therefore by it's very meaning we are not a bipedal race.

It is by intention we should be a bipedal race. However circumstance beyond our control mean that's not possible in all cases.

Jake the Peg has pushed that up a bit though.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Toilets, changing rooms, shelters, hospital wards, specific female swimming sessions………hell I’ll even throw in female sports.

So, it would appear that the Equalities Act of 2010 actually gives rights in areas such as work toilets ? I’m assuming (possibly incorrectly) that these rights may expand outside the workplace ?

https://cgprofessional.co.uk/transgender-employees/

Is this still good law?

Whilst there doesn’t appear to be any conclusive case law to dispute Croft, there is large speculation as to whether this does indeed remain good law. This is because in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 there is no requirement for medical intervention to take place for an individual to be deemed transsexual.

Moreover, in accordance with the GEO guidance, it dictates that individuals should be free to select the appropriate facilities for the gender in which they identify and that where the individual starts to live in their required role on a full-time basis, they should have the rights to use the facilities of that gender. Understandably employers may encounter difficulties in respect of other employees in how they perceive the individual’s use of these facilities, however, the Guide clearly stipulates that any objection or inappropriate comments made by work colleagues, as a result of the individual using these facilities, should be treated as unreasonable and potentially discriminatory. Employers should, therefore, ensure that their staff are educated in terms of equality and diversity in the workplace and that this information is disseminated to the wider workforce.

No, that is not good law. The guidance appears to give any man the right to enter a female toilet at work as long as they say they identify as female, and that any woman objecting to this is to be warned that it’s their behaviour that’s unreasonable and possibly even unlawful.

I suspect when this law was drafted there was too little appreciation of just how militant certain sections of the transgender lobby was getting. But it is now the case that women who have campaigned for equality, and safety for women, when they dare speak out on this issue, are at times slurred with the perjorative ‘TERF’ (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) by certain sections of the transgender lobby. You don’t have to look very hard to see that the (probably unintended) consequence of this law has actually been to give *men* licence to trespass on the hard-earned rights of women. That isn’t progress.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Chris

No, that is not good law. The guidance appears to give any man the right to enter a female toilet at work as long as they say they identify as female, and that any woman objecting to this is to be warned that it’s their behaviour that’s unreasonable and possibly even unlawful.

I suspect when this law was drafted there was too little appreciation of just how militant certain sections of the transgender lobby was getting. But it is now the case that women who have campaigned for equality, and safety for women, when they dare speak out on this issue, are at times slurred with the perjorative ‘TERF’ (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) by certain sections of the transgender lobby. You don’t have to look very hard to see that the (probably unintended) consequence of this law has actually been to give *men* licence to trespass on the hard-earned rights of women. That isn’t progress.

I'd agree with that rather than the "oh well I casually identify as what I like to go where I want" lobby which will be an inevitable consequence of militance, entitlement, and law allowing it.


In a workplace less so (as presumably someone casually identifying as what they like when they like to avoid waiting for the bogs would hit management radar eventually) but in public, the behaviour would become more concerning.


Specifically on the point of toilets, i'm probably missing something but I don't know why more places don't just have a load of rooms with self-contained toilet/sink (and actual rooms, too, not cubicles) accessible off a central / open atrium/corridor area, which are entirely gender-neutral and anyone can use them? I don't really like the idea of urinals anyway and it'd mean it didn't matter who used the toilet, and you wouldn't get say for example blokes having to queue to use 1 toilet when the ladies have 2 or 3 as they don't have urinals, or vice versa.

Originally Posted by nffc

Specifically on the point of toilets, i'm probably missing something but I don't know why more places don't just have a load of rooms with self-contained toilet/sink (and actual rooms, too, not cubicles) accessible off a central / open atrium/corridor area, which are entirely gender-neutral and anyone can use them? I don't really like the idea of urinals anyway and it'd mean it didn't matter who used the toilet, and you wouldn't get say for example blokes having to queue to use 1 toilet when the ladies have 2 or 3 as they don't have urinals, or vice versa.

Such arrangements are more common in the newest buildings, but the reason they are uncommon overall is that they require a lot more space, reducing the space available for the building’s primary purpose. They also cost more to build. It can be difficult to retrofit them in the oldest buildings where the bare minimum toilet facilities were provided, or none at all.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Such arrangements are more common in the newest buildings, but the reason they are uncommon overall is that they require a lot more space, reducing the space available for the building’s primary purpose. They also cost more to build. It can be difficult to retrofit them in the oldest buildings where the bare minimum toilet facilities were provided, or none at all.

Also on a side note, have you ever seen the state of toilets in a mens…….seats are usually covered in pish!

[Aye Up]

Originally Posted by nffc

Specifically on the point of toilets, i'm probably missing something but I don't know why more places don't just have a load of rooms with self-contained toilet/sink (and actual rooms, too, not cubicles) accessible off a central / open atrium/corridor area, which are entirely gender-neutral and anyone can use them? I don't really like the idea of urinals anyway and it'd mean it didn't matter who used the toilet, and you wouldn't get say for example blokes having to queue to use 1 toilet when the ladies have 2 or 3 as they don't have urinals, or vice versa.

IMHO its down to how and why men and women use the toilets........

Men going to the toilet its business like, go in do your business, wash your hands out you go.

Women going to the toilet can be more social and more involved. For instance when on a night out even amongst a mixed sex group of friends the women will go to the toilet together (men don't), they chat, touch up their make up and other girly things. But its also more involved for women, depending on that time of the month and also what other personal care needs they have. A lot of women when using private areas like toilets or changing rooms feel very exposed and vulnerable, if a man were to be present even more so.

I don't think gender neutral spaces are the answer, why should single sex spaces bet gotten rid of to appease a minority? I'm all for creating additional spaces that are gender neutral, but not in place of what already should be there i.e. men and women's toilets along with a disabled space.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Also on a side note, have you ever seen the state of toilets in a mens…….seats are usually covered in pish!

.... as there would then be in the Ladies.

[Mad Max]

I'd tell the lot of these weirdo's to basically **** off.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

I'd tell the lot of these weirdo's to basically **** off.

I'm sure they'd give you a personal pronoun too....

Up to the individual and doesn't affect you.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

.... as there would then be in the Ladies.

No! As I understand ladies sit down to urinate, and not try to hit a bowl from a couple feet above with an inaccurate weapon.

Unless you know different ladies to me.

Originally Posted by Pierre

No! As I understand ladies sit down to urinate, and not try to hit a bowl from a couple feet above with an inaccurate weapon.

Unless you know different ladies to me.

I know plenty of ladies who profess to hover above, rather than sit on a seat in a public toilet. I have no idea what that does for accuracy though.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

I know plenty of ladies who profess to hover above, rather than sit on a seat in a public toilet. I have no idea what that does for accuracy though.

Indeed, Mrs Pierre is a hoverer when necessary, but you get my drift.

It’s a sad fact that men, especially when in drinking establishments ( but not isolated to those) have very poor toilet etiquette.

Some toilets I’d be happier in a pair of Hunters than a pair Nikes.

In the wider argument it’s a small point, as I said from the outset, but shared (gender neutral) toilets are not an answer.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Pierre

No! As I understand ladies sit down to urinate, and not try to hit a bowl from a couple feet above with an inaccurate weapon.

Unless you know different ladies to me.

Er - I was referring to the male "theys"!

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Er - I was referring to the male "theys"!

? Does not compute