Supreme Court - are single gender spaces still allowed?

Don't be daft. Men have greater upper body strength. They can lift things more easily than women. I am not saying women cannot be removal people,firepersons etc, but pointing out that men are stronger and also have faster fight or flight responses - this is why the argument about transwomen (men) in women's sports has raged, because men are taking prizes meant for women.

I arm wrestled with my 17yo son this week. I go to the gym regularly and lift weights. The heaviest thing he lifts is an Xbox controller.

He beat me easily and with barely any effort. I couldn't move his arm at all.

You have completely underestimated the difference between men and women.

You might benefit from reading a book called Invisible Women.

Complying with the law is always a legitimate aim.
As is protecting the privacy, dignity and safety of women.

@nutmeg7 It is very well established that men’s and women’s upper body strengths are very significantly different. It’s one reason for differentiated sports categories, and also why men are able to overpower women physically if they choose to commit assault or rape.

You are thinking of averages. Again, there are lots of men who are weaker than women, and lots of women who are stronger than men. I think it's likely that the average man like me is physically weaker than any woman who regularly goes to the gym, for example.

Just because a comparison between a very weak man and a very strong women could result in the women winning out doesn’t negate this fact when making rules about each sex class.

Why not? If a woman passes the physical strength requirements needed for a specific job, and if she is as strong as a man who is considered capable of doing the job, then why should she be excluded from that job based solely on her sex?

@Grammarnut However, the point I was getting at is that women have very different biology from men (our endocrine system is very different, for example) because our bodies are geared to conceiving, carrying, bearing and nursing children and this needs to be taken into account in our employment. Not to take it into account is to discriminate against women as they are.

As I explained previously, any job that isn't safe for women should not be done by men either. So my stance remains that there aren't any jobs that men can do that women can't do.

Reading all the bits slowly

On the EA ruling did it include any section where it references UK law and said the word "woman" should be read and understood to mean "female and male people"?

On the Croft as case law.
1 the womens provision in question was a single lockable unit used for changing and the women would have had to que for access anyway if there were 25 women on the work-rota

Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was repealed and replaced by the EA so any legal ruling which was made under it and not currently reflected in the EA is defunct.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/27

By bolding :

The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992

^https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/20^

Sanitary conveniences
20.—(1) Suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences shall be provided at readily accessible places.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), sanitary conveniences shall not be suitable unless—
(a)the rooms containing them are adequately ventilated and lit;
(b)they and the rooms containing them are kept in a clean and orderly condition; and
(c)separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside.
(3) It shall be sufficient compliance with the requirement in paragraph (1) to provide sufficient sanitary conveniences in a workplace which is not a new workplace, a modification, an extension or a conversion and which, immediately before this regulation came into force in respect of it, was subject to the provisions of the Factories Act 1961, if sanitary conveniences are provided in accordance with the provisions of Part II of Schedule 1.

^https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/schedule/1^

PART II
NUMBER OF SANITARY CONVENIENCES
4. In workplaces where females work, there shall be at least one suitable water closet for use by females only for every 25 females.

5. In workplaces where males work, there shall be at least one suitable water closet for use by males only for every 25 males.

6. In calculating the number of males or females who work in any workplace for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, any number not itself divisible by 25 without fraction or remainder shall be treated as the next number higher than it which is so divisible.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/21

Washing facilities
21.—(1) Suitable and sufficient washing facilities, including showers if required by the nature of the work or for health reasons, shall be provided at readily accessible places.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), washing facilities shall not be suitable unless—
(a)they are provided in the immediate vicinity of every sanitary convenience, whether or not provided elsewhere as well;
(b)they are provided in the vicinity of any changing rooms required by these Regulations, whether or not provided elsewhere as well;
(c)they include a supply of clean hot and cold, or warm, water (which shall be running water so far as is practicable);
(d)they include soap or other suitable means of cleaning;
(e)they include towels or other suitable means of drying;
(f)the rooms containing them are sufficiently ventilated and lit;
(g)they and the rooms containing them are kept in a clean and orderly condition; and
(h)separate facilities are provided for men and women, except where and so far as they are provided in a room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside and the facilities in each such room are intended to be used by only one person at a time.
(3) Paragraph (2)(h) shall not apply to facilities which are provided for washing hands, forearms and face only.

^https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/24^

Facilities for changing clothing
24.—(1) Suitable and sufficient facilities shall be provided for any person at work in the workplace to change clothing in all cases where—
(a)the person has to wear special clothing for the purpose of work; and
(b)the person can not, for reasons of health or propriety, be expected to change in another room.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the facilities mentioned in that paragraph shall not be suitable unless they include separate facilities for, or separate use of facilities by, men and women where necessary for reasons of propriety [F1 and the facilities are easily accessible, of sufficient capacity and provided with seating].

So the question is what is the legal meaning of the word woman in the Regs and would that match the EA

Post the GRA can the State regulate the cosmetic nature of a male applying for a GRC?
imo Nope

So the Judge has to assume that they are looking at a class which has women and Jo the male world class full bearded Rugby Porp and Jane a male who is the living image of Tinkerbell.

Per the ruling on the EA

Sex has 2 class
• woman [ = human female]
• man [ = human male ]

Gender reassignment has 4 class
• woman with (edit🤪) GRC PC of GR [ = human female]
• woman without (edit🤪) GRC PC of GR [ = human female]
• man with (edit🤪) GRC PC of GR [ = human male ]
• man without (edit🤪) GRC PC of GR [ = human male ]

(Edit 🤪 oops .... no GRC needed
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

7 Gender reassignment
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.
🤪)

If the employer is a male only employer (eg the chippendales/ an Order of RC Monks) and has a male only employee area with banks of male toilets and a single open changing room under the Regs do they have to modify the workplace to create a womans toilet and a womans changing room which allows Jo and Jane seprate rooms from the mens?

The employer is an order of Nuns with 200 women on staff but have 2 toilet and 10 Urinals in the workplace are they in breach of the regs?

Definitely....it was always the ultimate goal of Stonewall to remove references to 'Sex' altogether from equalities legislation, to be replaced by 'Gender'.

There were even calls by some for the totality of 'sex' to be broken down into constituent female bodily experiences...so that, for example, menstruation would be a protected characteristic, along with pregnancy and menopause....but that 'Sex' be removed as a protected category altogether ( Caroline Nokes wanted this)

@theilltemperedqueenofspacetime "legislation in this area contains logical inconsistencies which have probably only been partly fixed by this ruling on interpretation"
I think that's right, though I'd say legislation plus case law create the inconsistencies.
I'm wondering if the step to remove biological sex from the definition of wo/man in Australian legislation wasn't motivated by a desire to iron out the kinks. A culture seeped to the bones in misogyny would also explain it, though.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/what-does-the-for-women-scotland-judgment-mean-in-practice/

What does the For Women Scotland judgment mean in practice?

I think 'Sex' does mean biological sex in those health and safety rulings.
The concept of 'gender identity' is something separate and different...and the terminolgy used is gender, not sex. If regulations say 'single sex', then that is what they mean. Building regulations for schools and other public buildings make stipulations for single sex facilities.

The ruling made clear that when the equalities legislation was drafted the words man and woman were taken to mean based on biological sex.

I'm pretty certain that any expectation of surgery in connection with transition is now considered a human rights violation. That's changed since Croft (no idea if that change has come via case law or legislation).
So Croft can't apply directly, now. There's no way, today, an employer could get away with allowing a trans woman who has had a penectomy to use women's amenities and disallow a bepenised trans woman, on the basis of post/surgical status alone.
Edit: this was supposed to quote @AmateurNoun . Seeing as the quote didn't work I shall also tag @AnSolas as this responds also to your helpful post.

Yes, and that aim is to spare transwomen's blushes by providing single-gender provision for people of both sexes that subscribe to the belief. But it's going to be tedious to test every set-up in the courts, so government should sort it out.

This is crying out for a cartoon. Five toilet doors:

TERFs

Handmaidens and transwomen

Mixed / apolitical

Men

Buck Angel

IW would still go in the TERFs one though.

I am struggling to understand it all. Although the Workplace (Health, Safety and Wellbeing) Regs require single-sex provision in certain situations, "sex" in that context does not necessarily mean biological sex - is that not true? The For Women Scotland case only dealt with the interpretation of sex in the Equality Act. So provision on a gender basis would still comply with Regs?

To the extent that doing so would discriminate in an EA sense between men (and women) on the basis of the gender reassignment characteristic that might well be justifiable as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

@AmateurNoun

Fine. Your nitpicking has confirmed what we already knew, that legislation in this area contains logical inconsistencies which have probably only been partly fixed by this ruling on interpretation.

So what should government do to fix it?

And what options do other parties have to try to fix it, that don't mean going the long way round (piecemeal litigation, lobbying)?

Apply for a declaratory ruling that this interpretation of sex etc applies mutatis mutandis to every law and regulation, so workplace toilets, for instance, must be single-sex (although this would conflict with Croft unless single-gender toilets are also provided)?

Apply for a declaratory ruling that mixed-sex provision that is described to users as single-gender does not breach sex-discrimination law, provided that it is side-by-side with any single-sex provision that is required by law (or in order to avoid illegal discrimination against women or religious minorities) and not instead of it?

Sorry if this has been answered already

This is quoted in the croft case section 7 of the link added by @AmateurNoun (thanks)

This looks as the word female in the then marraige act and says that humans cant change sex under the law in place at the time.

Section 8 details how the individual needed cosmetic surgery
Section 9 details the steps the individual took including cosmetic surgery.

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/21.html

This was before the GRA

I think I’m happy to remain undecided on this one. 🤣

I think Croft has been superseded by the EA and the SC ruling.

But these are two separate laws. I’m assuming you would make use of one or the other not “we’ll apply that one and if that doesn’t work we’ll apply the other”. Each law should work in its own right. Personally I think Croft is an anomaly (if it is still relevant after the SC ruling) that won’t stand up to a challenge (if that ever happened).

I'll gladly change my mind.

I somehow doubt that

Not that I've noticed. Mainly still make and female.

Following workplace regulations seems to be as strong a legimitate reason for single sex exemptions as is possible to have.

No because those Regs predated Croft so I can't see a basis for that position unfortunately.

Agree.

The exceptions in the EA are not mandatory are they? They are permissive so an employer can choose not to use them. But the Workplace Regs are mandatory so employers are required to offer facilities to the each sex on that basis. IANAL so I don’t know the answer to this Q but could an employer not just say we are just following the Workplace Regs as required?

And you are welcome to take a look at Part 5 and Schedule 9 (or anywhere else) if you want. I am more than happy to be corrected. But everyone just seems to be talking about Schedule 3 without appreciating that it doesn't apply in a work context.