That all sounds sensibly articulated to me however the I disagree with the emphasis placed upon a 'minority' of those that may be inclined to commit crimes or prey upon women and the fact that most 'would not notice' either.

It's not just a minority who would commit crimes in abuse of the situation it is an extreme minority, a miniscule number. I'd also highlight, as previously stated, relative to those with the intention to commit any such crime this would not be a sole inspiration for them nor a deterrent. However, there is only a miniscule number in the population who murder, rape, steal etc. We still do everything within our power to ensure their opportunity to do so is minimised including certain protocol. I also disagree, particularly within the female safe space context, that members of the same sex would not notice. I've heard many women support my inclination to believe 'they know'. Males might be somewhat more oblivious and equally un-phased by the prospect or reality however for females the ramifications and emotional response will justifiably be far greater.

Again, a neutral, single usage cubicle seems like an ideal approach. My argument would however be that if certain locations choose not to provide this or indeed are unable to, they should retain that right with Trans individuals having to accept that circumstance. Where I strongly object is the dogmatic perusal of ideological nonsense being allowed to infringe upon female right to single sex 'safe spaces'. There should be no superseding notion, argument or desire within society and anywhere it is openly expressed we should, as a society and culture, say no, YOU are the enemy here if you're looking to compromise and erode this.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Pffft.

I have more tattoos than that.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

I don't disagree in that where there are single use cubicles (which exist in their millions, both changing rooms and toilets even without this issue being a consideration), or possibly specific facilities for those who would be better suited to them, that sounds like a win-win. But beyond that I see no sense in doing away with sex based facilities at all as they clearly serve a purpose and I understand the desire to fight to keep them. I do think in trying to be exacting in every instance we get no further forward or just create different problems though (my 'biological sex' point) and that common sense is largey already in place and working.

Society certainly takes steps to ensure safety of people - as it should but we do also have to prise reality of risk from media and political narratives designed often to distract or scare rather than problem solve. We can forensically scrutinise trans people - who in all likelihood as no or little more inclined to crime than you or I - when countless numbers of the actual released rapists and murderers you mentioned (who are certainly objectively dangerous) likely swan in and out of public toilets and the like with nowhere near as much attention. I don't think an ultra focus on political faultlines really reveals much at all about the people at the centre of said focus, other than either artifically raising them up or dehumanising them, neither or which helps them or society as a whole.

Perhaps trans people could wear nappies instead of using public toilets?

It's promotional material for his next fight. He's often duking it out.

Anyway, enough distraction for today. Have a good day all!

Yes all people are, as defined by the equalities act, care act, and this is sex based law.

This issue is NOT complex if sex based law is followed. Least discriminatory options are CLEAR parts of law.

In regards to trans men to be present in women's spaces. A trans man is a women. They have not changed their sex. A minority of a minority may have and this is also covered by equalities law.

Society can provide trans facilities where appropriate, where there is a quantifiable need, and this can be risk assessed. The equalities act clearly outlines proportionate means to achieve legitimate aims (upholding privacy, dignity and safety rights for females).

The EHRC are also very clear on single sex guidance. Single sex spaces are single sex spaces. The service provider can discriminate against women identifying as men as proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim - dignity, privacy and safety.

Cubicles, yes and no. There is again guidance that is being ignored by diversity mission creep, and ignorance. Mixed sex Cubicles should not be a replacement for single sex spaces. A school can replace its single sex spaces for mixed sex, neither should sports centres, a cubicle if there are only cubicles should be in a lockable area to create a single sex area to uphold rights.