So if someone is born with a penis, but has that penis removed as part of a gender reassignment, you still want them banned from spaces where penises are banned, even though they don't have one?
[News] A woman is a woman.
- Thread starter Leekbrookgull
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
So if someone is born with a penis, but has that penis removed as part of a gender reassignment, you still want them banned from spaces where penises are banned, even though they don't have one?
This is the key problematic product of the new laws that needs to be fixed.
But I don't know how.
There has apparently been some mention of common sense, but I'm not sure that that is legally.....acceptable.
The only solution presently is the provision of gender neutral facilities in ALL public spaces.
Not so.
The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 1:4,500–1:2,000 (0.02%–0.05%).[3]
We got into this earlier in the thread, in which I added “except in very very rare cases” and not devaluing intersex people.
But you are right, I didn’t qualify my most recent post on this with “except in very very rare cases” And should have.
One counter argument is if you allow this in single sex spaces they are no longer single sex spaces.
Imo there is logic to this, although I’m not saying it’s persuasive. . It’s one of many examples on issues raised on this thread, where there are strong arguments on both sides.
I was just referring to the specific point Curious made about having safe spaces for people without penises, where all people with penises were banned. By that logic, a trans woman without a penis should be allowed in that safe space.
If you’re referring to the Supreme Court ruling, no new laws were made. It was a clarification - relating to the word woman.
This isn’t pedantry, it’s fundamental to understanding the impact of the court case.
I Agree with your solution. Big job, but it needs to happen.
mile oak
Well-known member
- May 21, 2023
- 1,300
Gender neutral facilities in all places. Impossible. How long will all the plumbing take place? Many places havent the space, money, will. It would take decades. You could start with new builds but how do alter existing changing spaces in clothes shops? Sports centres? Leisure centres? Swimming pools? Toilets? Not easy at all.That doesnt mean it shouldnt happen. I've not even given it thought, but I'm sure if it say became law it would be resisted and very impractical and extremely time consuming.
GT49er
Well-known member
It would be ridiculous. Common sense (and compassion and tolerance are needed too) but ultimately some people are different in many ways. Compassion and tolerance all day long - but the whole world can't - and shouldn't - be turned on its head to accommodate every difference. Sometimes people who are a tiny minority and a bit different have to make some concessions too.
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
No*, and I have never said that. In fact I have joked on separate threads on at least two occasions prior to the Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act (2010 that the signs on the toilets should be a cock and balls for one, and a cock and balls in a circle with a line through it for the other.
* that is my personal opinion, and a nuance the Equality Act (2010) doesn't account for. One for Parliament to debate as to whether the legislation requires amending.
Last edited:
That's a lot of cock & balls singage.
"Don't be saying cock & bull when having a cock & balls in the toilet."
Sung to the tune of "Ode De Toilet" by Brad Paisley
Last edited:
I don’t get this at all. Why would it take decades? For a start everywhere already has toilets, so that’s as simple as altering the signs on the doors, maybe you have to replace a urinal or two but many places have normal cubical rather than those anyway.
The vast number of leisure centres I’ve been to already have mixed changing for swimming pools, so you might be talking dry changing rooms but again, many already have cubicles installed and when you have cubicles it’s pretty simple to change it over. Likewise shops, nearly all the changing rooms I’ve used have been a curtain over the cubicle job, doesn’t matter who is inside there.
Obviously some places might have to make adjustments, I’m not saying that it won’t take any time or money, but you are really overstating the difficulties here. Many places will be able to make that change with adjustments to existing infrastructure.
GT49er
Well-known member
I do. Absolutely.
Gender neutral toilets are awful. On the occasions you need to go for a No. 2 its horrible thinking one of the fairer sex is sat next to you. Not very pleasant for them too either I'm sure! Just leave things as they are. If you have dangly bits use the mens & if you don't use the ladies. Its not difficult! I get a tiny percentage won't like this but making the 99% suffer for the benefit of the very loud 1% is nuts!
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
It is ridiculous, and frankly sad that we have arrived where we have.
I think we'll look back on this period in time, shake our heads, and realise it all came down to entitled males behaving like entitled males.
Last edited:
- Oct 17, 2008
- 17,044
My area, theatre, is particularly troublesome for finding a solution. West End/traditional proscenium theatres are Victorian or Edwardian listed buildings with no room whatsoever for expansion. The queue for the ladies (and gents) is terrible as it is, and most theatres only have two cubicles and three/four urinals on each level. Some fewer. Women’s toilets usually consist of three cubicles. Taking out three tiny urinals crammed together at say, the Novello, would fit maybe one cubicle to service 400 people in the stalls. It’s horrendous enough at it is.
Now, average West End theatres house between 600-2400 people, with the smaller the house the fewer the facilities and space. They are legally required to have one disabled access toilet per house. Due to a lack of space, this is often a converted a converted cupboard. At the Wyndham’s for example, this involves leaving the venue and re-entering through a side door into a small box at the very back of the stalls.
It would be completely impossible to create mixed use toilets in 95% of West End performance venues and regional traditional venues, due to their design and lack of space. It isn’t a case of changing the signs on the doors, because the only way there is only throughput is thanks to men being much quicker using a set of urinals than women in a cubicle. The room will still be the same size, and cubicles are much larger.
Larger venues, such as The National Theatre and Barbican, with an an awful lot more square footage, have opted for open plan shared sex toilets, because they can afford to have rows of cubicles in terms of both space and government funding. These are also “opt out” and anybody not comfortable using shared facilities can ask to use a disabled toilet for privacy.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,444
disagree, its 100% possible to create mixed use by simply making all existing toilets mixed use. there it is, the simple solution. there is no requirement to have gender specific toilets, we do so for politeness, many women would not like to use toilets alongside men (who generally dont care). we change the signage to a trap and urinal, done.
GT49er
Well-known member
Women don't like sharing the loos with men, even if it's only cubicles and no urinals; that's half the population. Many men aren't too happy about having a dump in a cubicle next to a woman (I agree some don't mind, but some do). Men are messier in cubicles, standing up - peeing on the rim, and sometimes missing that.
So, well over half the population are used to same sex facilities, like it that way and would be very averse to change. But never mind that - there's a tiny, tiny minority that want it all to change to the detriment of others so they can have it their way. Bollocks to that (literally and metaphorically)!
- Oct 17, 2008
- 17,044
I feel like you’ve not understood my point or read my post correctly.
There isn’t enough space for an adequate number of cubicles to accommodate 1,000 people in an audience. Women will tell you that they have to spend the vast majority of a 20 minute interval queuing to use the toilet. Now imagine theatres rip out 3 urinals, and replace them with 1 cubicle which takes the same amount of space.
Then you have a mixed queue of men and women waiting to use 1/3rd of the facilities available before. Intervals would need to be expected to 30+ minutes.
Or are you suggesting women will be happy to squat over a men’s urinal?