Trans toilets

It will be “enforced” as it was 10 or so years ago before some men decided women couldn’t have anything for themselves. We expect all men, however they identify to follow the law, and businesses to enforce it if they are told it’s being broken.

most importantly the ruling means that rape crisis centres, prisons, hospital wards, DV refuges and other critical women only spaces can be enforced.

There are little stick figures on the doors, as is usual in a pub, (actually it's been a long time since I've seen the words 'male' and 'female' on a pub door - have I ever?) and she's not going to ban anyone from the toilet. It's really as simple as that. There's really not anything that anyone can do about it. Especially given like I said, patrons of her pub would not want her to ban anyone. The only outcome I've seen is natal women being harassed in toilets for not looking womanly enough. (Including me - I'm muscular, tall and bald so have got dirty looks!) A woman was fired in America for looking trans after being confronted by a man about using the bathroom

Can I ask again how anyone intends to actually enforce this? What does it look like practically? Security guards? Chromosome testing at the door? Noone seems to be able to answer that question.

Anyway I'm off to garden. Noone will be able to change her mind, and this ridiculous rhetoric is totally unenforcable. Feel free to stay away from the scary pub where trans people pee in peace and nobody gives a shit.

But yet, they do not need to change anything to comply with legislation.

With a cis-tern.

Tbh, if business owners cannot read and understand a clear piece of legislation they probably shouldn't be running a business. What about health and safety rules? Tax returns? Regulations around minimum wage for example? Is it ok to just ignore those as well?

That is legal as long as the toilets signage makes it clear that they are unisex. She cannot use female only signage if men are allowed in - that would be breaking the law.

@SharkBaitOooHaha interestingly Bannatynes is the only gym chain which has always enforced single sex changing rooms, even before the supreme court ruling. Duncan Bannatyne has been brilliant on women’s spaces and sports

If the toilets in her pub are designated for men and for women and she allows customers to use the ones they prefer, then she is breaking the law.

she could choose to make them all mixed sex, but that might be sex discrimination one two fronts - men will have more choice of facilities than women (because they can use the now mixed sex facilities with urinals as well as the ones with cubicles), and the lack of women only facilities is likely to have a more adverse impact on women than men.

Has your friend told her insurance company that she intends to not follow the law?

That's incorrect. If it is signposted as a female changing room, then only biological women are legally allowed to enter. This has always been the law, the Supreme Court just clarified it because so many companies were ignoring it.

Noone is under any obligation to discriminate if they don't wish to. My friend owns a pub. She will understand no circumstances be banning transwomen or transmen from the toilet of their choosing, not would any of her patrons wish her to. People can stay mad about it but there's nothing anyone can do. It's utterly unenforcable even if there were some law banning people from toilets, which there isn't.

No, it's the law. It's that simple. It always has been the law, and businesses have been flouting it for years.

That also isn't correct as access can also be denied to mens facilities.

But none of this is actual legislation at this point, it is guidance until the relevant acts have been amended and passed.

If businesses are waiting for EHRC guidance they could well be breaking the law that the SC has clarified and published for everyone to read.

Not quite. They can just have unisex toilets that everyone uses, and that's fine, but if they have toilets that are designated for women, and toilets that are designated for men, then only people of the corresponding sex can use each facility. So, transwomen, for example, are not permitted to use ladies toilets, but can use the gents or the unisex.

The video I posted explains that the law is, and always has been, very clear.

Why would they need to change a unisex toilet?

The ruling also wasn't that businesses have to adhere to biological sex, it was that they can choose to without legal challenge.

@SundayFundayz Every second they wait, businesses are breaking the law.

There’s a few different things in your post

in the workplace single sex toilets and changing/showering facilities are required under the workplace regulations unless they are fully contained rooms, so toilets have to have the loo and sink inside a single lockable room and then those can be mixed sex.

providers of goods and services are not required to offer single sex toilets, shop changing rooms etc, but if they do offer facilities labelled men/women, then they can only be used based on biological sex and not gender. It may be sex discrimination not to offer single sex facilities where it disproportionately affects one sex over the other (usually women) not to offer them.

nobody is policing this, but if an unlawful policy is used you can complain to the EHRC or in the case of the workplace, the Health and safety Executive. You might also be able to sue an employer for discrimination if they don’t follow the rules.

No the ruling wasn't that businesses and organisations must have gender segregated facilities. It was that if they choose to, they can stipulate qualification for using them to be biological sex.

It's clear that there should be no exemptions, and even trans people with gender recognition certificates have to use the toilets that align with their sex, not their gender, so I don't see what the problem is TBH. It was all laid out pretty simply.