Supreme Court - are single gender spaces still allowed?

Croft was pre GRA. Does it stand? The GRA changed the way the law treated trans. It shifted away from going through transition journey to acquiring a certificate. Michael Foran refers to this when he has talked about the difficulties of repealing the GRA. He says we would effectively go back to how things were pre GRA.

I’ve seen such toilets often where I was working and that’s nonsense.

@Grammarnut That was clarified. 'sex' means 'biological sex'.

Thanks for that. Would have been nice if the BBC had been clearer.

The 1975 Discrimination Act defines male and female - in the context of some jobs needing a male bodied person, for example.

What jobs can only be done by a male-bodied person? Care professions where a patient might specifically request a male or female caregiver, but that's it really.

I can't think of any jobs that men can do that women cannot.

The staff toilets on our ward are labelled ‘staff’ does the NHS now need to provide male and female?

I can't think of anything worse, men can be disgusting creatures in public toilets.

FFS unclench dearie 🥱

That was clarified. 'sex' means 'biological sex'. The 1975 Discrimination Act defines male and female - in the context of some jobs needing a male bodied person, for example. This act was cited by Hodge and he said that the provisions had not been modified by the 1999 Act (I think that was on recognising transexuals in some way), the 2004 GRA or the EA2010. So a man is a biological man. No more transmen in men's sports etc.

Privacy v. safety issue. Unless there is an attendant or someone watching the CCTV ALL THE TIME, then such cubicles are not safe. Someone could be attacked or someone could collapse without anyone realising.

It is true, though, that men leave public loos in a far worse state than women do. Any cleaner, housekeeper, bar staff etc can tell you that. Even if all men were guaranteed to be harmless and if there were no such thing as trans, I wouldn't want mixed sex toilets for that reason alone!

@MotherTuckinGenius I’m in favour of the decision made today. However your remark is childish and unworthy of the debate.

Sandie Peggie always had an excellent case because the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 state that employers must provide single sex facilities for changing. There may have been a grey area around the possession of a gender recognition certificate which the Supreme Court has now cleared up, but Dr Upton didn't have a GRC anyway.

Because that wasn't clarified, so I'm confused as to whether the Supreme Court Ruling was only about the definition of "woman," or was it about the definition of "sex" as a whole.

Plenty of readable highlights here:

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-highlights-show/

Including

"For all these reasons, this examination of the language of the EA 2010, its context and purpose, demonstrate that the words "sex", "woman" and "man" in sections 11 and 212(1) mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man. These and the other provisions to which we have referred cannot properly be interpreted as also extending to include certificated sex without rendering them incoherent and unworkable."

But the SC hasn't ruled on the interpretation of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, and those Regs predate the Croft decision where the Court of Appeal said that transwomen can eventually gain a right to access women's toilets 🤷‍♀️

Today's judgment is a good development but I don't think it's a silver bullet personally. More work is needed to regain our rights.

Does this ruling mean that rape crisis Scotland cannot continue to allow males to access services as they are a women's organisation

I am wondering about clubs and hobbies. For instance, the Women's Institute? Will they have to advertise as mixed sex? I run a local branch of a hobby club (non-competitive sports) which advertises as women only but a fair few transwomen have been admitted. This has not caused any issues for the club in the past but what are the implications for the future?

The Supreme Court Ruling is good for grabbing headlines, but the BBC news article does nothing to explain what this will actually mean in practice. Terrible reporting by the BBC as per usual.

I'm also confused as to why the BBC article offers no clarification on what this means for the definition of "man." I get that the headline of the article, and the main focus, is on women because that's the main point of social and political contention. But could we at least have had just a sentence or two somewhere to clarify whether this now means that the definition of man is now also based on biological sex? Because that wasn't clarified, so I'm confused as to whether the Supreme Court Ruling was only about the definition of "woman," or was it about the definition of "sex" as a whole.

For staff in the UK (this answer is from Chat GPT but reflects my previous understanding):

In the UK, the legal requirement for providing single-sex facilities for staff comes under health and safety and equality laws — primarily the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Equality Act 2010.

Key Legal Requirements (Workplace Regulations):

1. Separate Toilets for Men and Women

• Employers must provide separate toilet and washing facilities for male and female employees, unless the facilities are in *a room that can be locked and used by one person at a time (i.e. a unisex single-occupancy toilet).
• This is outlined in Regulation 20 and 21 of the Workplace Regulations.

• Facilities must be suitable, clean, and well-maintained.
• They must have adequate privacy, ventilation, and lighting.

• If the toilet or washroom is a self-contained, lockable cubicle, it may be used as a gender-neutral/unisex facility — but this generally must be in addition to separate male/female provision in larger workplaces.

• If changing or shower facilities are needed, separate ones for men and women must be provided, unless the space is used by one person at a time and can be locked.

My understanding is that an employer like the NHS where staff have to change into uniform on site must provide single sex changing facilities. Someone more knowledgeable will come along and hopefully state the regulation - if my employer don't update their policy (which currently state that trans identified people can use whichever facility they wish, therefore rendering them mixed sex) I will be complaining as that is not legal.

I believe that if it's a workplace, there have to be separate women's and men's facilities, and with this court decision, that means that workers can insist on women and men being recognised, with nothing nebulous about it. That makes it look as if Sandie Peggie, and the other nurses in Darlington must win their cases.

I don't think I agree. We have previous case law such as Croft which said that employers must let trans employees switch to their acquired gender's toilets once they go far enough down the journey of transitioning.

The moment at which a person in the applicant's position is entitled to use female toilets depends on all the circumstances, including her conduct and that of the employers. The employers must take into account the stage reached in treatment, including the employee's own assessment and presentation. They are entitled to take into account, though not to be governed by, the susceptibilities by other members of the workforce. She must not be treated less favourably than other employed transsexuals but that is not in issue in this case. Her complaint is that being treated less favourably than the female workforce requires prior determination of the question whether she is entitled to be treated as a female, an approach reinforced by the statutory recognition of the existence of transsexuals.

That decision was based on previous human rights cases, not the Equality Act. Today's judgment concerns interpretation of the Equality Act.

That Croft judgment only concerns toilets at work though, where employers would have access to more information about the trans employees' transition than a service provider would.

The law remains a bit of a mess to my eyes, but at least we have some answers.

I hope that Sandie Peggie and the Darlington nurses win anyway as their employers seem to have just let the trans employee immediately switch changing room which is obviously wrong.

How is that relevant?

There are problems with that set up - if there are door gaps then looking under/over if there aren't problems with people who are taken ill and can't be seen if they collapse. The risk of being pushed/ dragged in and assaulted. Issues with them being used for sex/ drug taking/ drug dealing. Camera being hidden etc.

Single gender would be problematic. If you create a service for women and those who identify as women then you treating men as a class unfairly.
Your service is in effect
Accessible to all biological females
Accessible only to those biological males who meet subjective criteria

So males and females are not being treated equally in the provision of the service.

Can they still choose to define a space or service as "single gender" (e.g. anyone who identifies as a woman)? Or would this discriminate against males who aren't trans? In which case would they have to choose between "single biological sex" or "everyone"?

You've got it right. They can either provide single-sex spaces (women only, or men only) or they can provide mixed-sex spaces. What they can't do is provide single-gender spaces, eg women and trans women or men and trans men, because if you allow some biological men in, but not others, you're discriminating against men.

No thanks. I don’t want to follow a man in after he’s done a humongous smelly dump or pissed all over the floor and seat 🤮