To be shocked by a transwoman guest on Jeremy Vine today asking a female caller what sex she is - and whether she’s “been tested?”

The legitimate aim is privacy and dignity for female people. Therefore trans women can’t come in.

I think you need to read it again.

People have already explained this to you and yet you keep repeating it.

but doesnt the SC judgement say that if a space in designated/marked female it must be female [by birth sex] only

No.

A single sex space must be kept single sex

no. This is not what the judgement says. it clarifies that a single sex space can be restricted by birth sex if in the context the exclusion of others can be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

No it isn’t .

The ruling clarified that it is not necessarily illegal to exclude trans women from female-sex spaces if , in the given context, this can be justified as reasonable/ proportionate/ legitimate aim, etc. this is the same as the law has always been.

Why?

It is not against the law for a trans woman to use a toilet marked “women’s” or “females”.

No she will not be breaking the law. She can use whatever words or symbolic signage she would like on the toilet. She is not required to enforce the exclusion of trans women from the toilet labelled “women”. This was never required. It is not required now. The law has. Not. Changed.

Er, she is. That's literally what the ruling clarified.

No, the law hasn’t changed. It’s been clarified because so many people were ‘misunderstanding’ it. A single sex space must be kept single sex and sex means sex at birth.

100% this. The desperation to try to minimise, hide or guilt us out of stating the fundamental fact that women are women because of biology speaks volumes.

'Don't mention periods and babies' is really another version of treating women's biology as something unmentionable. Ultimately those things are a marker of a female - that INCLUDES infertile women otherwise how does she know she's infertile. A person that doesn't have periods is either a female who expected to and will therefore probably seek medical guidance - or a man. It's got nothing to do with suggesting that if you don't have periods you're not a woman at all. These terrible faith interpretations need to stop.

It will be interesting to see how this develops. Because you are correct in as much as there is no law requiring pubs to provide single sex spaces. So the landlord is acting within the law if they decide to allow both women and men to use the same toilet. However there are laws about accurate advertising and representation of services, so it may not be permitted to continue to label the spaces as for women and men if they are in fact unisex, thereby misleading the public about what is being provided. I expect there will be cases coming up and we shall see.

"Jeremy Vine has a trans woman friend and his discussion on this subject are always based in favour of trans people. He doesn’t want to cause offence to trans people but he doesn’t care about offence to women. "

I only listened to his show on the subject once and it was a few years ago. He had taken refuge in a faux-naive routine along the lines of "oh I have never heard of this whole debate at all at all, I didn't know it was a thing so I have no opinion and if I accidentally offend anyone I can be excused for not knowing, but I think we should all be kiiiind." Pretended not to grasp that there could be any conflict of rights at all. Which was a load of bollocks as working for the media he would have been well schooled in the party line and even if not, 5 minutes worth of research on google before he presented the show for which he is paid a lot of money would have told him that it was A Thing.

You cannot have a unisex space for women that lets transwomen in and not other men, so your friend with the pub is wrong. Transwomen are men so their inclusion in the women’s is violating the single sex space, and not including other men is discriminatory.

The law says that Transwomen are men, and if you let one man in you have to let them all in. It’s not that complicated to understand.

But now, under the SC judgement, “women’s spaces” (as specified) are by definition, single sex spaces for people who are biologically female. So it is entirely proportionate and reasonable to exclude biological males if these spaces are advertised as for women (which was the case for an awfully long time, by social convention and good manners, until the recent nonsense that is gender identity took hold).
If transwomen were admitted, those spaces would become mixed sex spaces, and any man could enter.

It’s true that it’s not obligatory to offer single sex spaces, except in, for example, workplace environments where legislation says they must be provided. But if it’s stipulated that these spaces are for women, then transwomen, who are men, shouldn’t be using them.

If its beyond unreasonable to seperate toilets by sex, why do you think the vast majority of places throughout the world do so? And why do you imagine they will decide its beyond unreasonable to continue to do so ,just because the law has made it clear who belongs in which sex category?
Service providers will no doubt in the main continue to designate toilets for women and for men. If trans people decide to use the toilet not designated for them, obviously the landlord of the local can let them if they like, but problems may well occur if everyone else then decides to use whichever toilet THEY fancy, and the landlord tries to prevent them. Landlords who want to go this route are far better to simply designate their toilets unisex.
This will not be so straightforward in other venues where people don't get the choice to avoid if they don't like it. There is a good case for sex segregated toilets in public buildings we are obliged to use, schools, hospitals etc and if trans people are permitted to use the opposite sex one in those places, the provider is likely to be discriminating.

No she will not be breaking the law. She can use whatever words or symbolic signage she would like on the toilet. She is not required to enforce the exclusion of trans women from the toilet labelled “women”. This was never required. It is not required now. The law has. Not. Changed.

There is absolutely no way she will be excluding trans people from any toilet in her pub, and there's nothing anyone can do about that.

Exactly. It would be beyond unreasonable and impossible to enforce. Very few service providers are going to want to try to do this unless they have a very specific reason for needing to do so (or potentially because they share some of the ideological opinions of pp on this thread). It’s really important they are not made to understand that they are absolutely not required to enforce this in the way people are trying to promote. Simple that it’s an option if there is reasonable grounds, as has always been the case.

If they do offer men's and women's, then they must be single sex. For biological women and biological men.

No. This is not the case. They can exclude trans women from women’s spaces if there is proportionate and reasonable justification. They are not required to do so. It is not illegal for trans women to use women’s toilets.

PP also claims that she has a deep voice. And her build is large. There is a concerted attempt to portray women with PCOS as sexually ambiguous.

The lovely bit in the faux outrage? I am one of those women who has never even had a pregnancy.