Supreme Court - are single gender spaces still allowed?

But again, what specific provision in the EA2010 is relevant? And how has its meaning changed since the SC ruling clarified the definition? As noted, the single sex exception in Schedule 3 for service providers is not relevant.

Miller was a direct sex discrimination case. The men at her work had adequate toilet facilities and she did not because she was a woman. This is not affected by the ruling.

I haven't seen the pleadings in the NHS Fife case but I assume they are going with indirect discrimination because the self-ID changing room policy has a negative effect on women. Again, the clarification of the definition of women does not affect this.

You'd hope so, I suppose it's the "legitimate aim".
What would be the aim of a single sex craft group, is it just about the craft, or is it doubling up as a support group for women?

The WI & Guides are two of the biggest female groups, both have accepted trans (probably because they were scared 😱 not too).
But can they dial back and say "No we are a single sex spaces to provide a safe space for women /girls for them to be able to discuss ANYTHING that only relates to women/girls, periods starting, ending, sexual pressures, etc"

I'm delighted people can now ask for / get SS spaces and services when there is a genuine need. It's less clear if we need SS craft groups / book clubs etc.

Surely we are entitled to organise single-sex anything we like? Some women may need them, because of previous trauma caused by men. But surely we can also have women-only events/ groups just because they’re safe and fun? (We certainly have a moral right. But I’m hoping we also have the legal right.)

Can men claim they’re being discriminated against by not being allowed to join what is essentially a social event? We don’t have a statutory right to be invited to a party.

I hope I’m right in thinking this.

I’m perfectly sure that there will be lots of deliberate disinformation! Just as there has always been, from transactivists who have done their best to confuse the issue.

Legally inaccurate ‘guidance’ was issued
by lobby groups posing as experts. Schools and employers were advised to ‘go beyond the law’, ie break the law!

The SC judgement makes it clear none of that is legal.

@AmateurNoun

The justices cited Croft only in relation to comparators. It's there in black and white.

To address your question, the EA2010 is part of the claimant's case in Peggie Vs NHS Fife. Also in the Darlington nurses case.
A couple of other cases, one of which I think is called Miller, have found that a female claimant in a workplace was discriminated against on the grounds of Sex because adequate toilet facilities were not provided for her. In one case the facilities were not separate and in the other there was a separate fully enclosed cubicle but the lock on the door was faulty. First-tier tribunal decisions.
So the EA2010 must apply to work toilets.

Edited to mention Amateurnoun

Which specific provision of the EA2010 do people think is relevant to work toilets?

As I say above, the SSE that everyone points to in Sched 3 is only relevant to service providers.

I think they are referring to penectomy + vaginoplasty etc. TheCourseOfTheRiverChanged

There's a copyable judgment here if useful:
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1045.html

Never mind Croft. It's only cited in relation to comparators. MCW are men for EA2010 purposes.

I find it odd, confusing and frustrating that there can be so much attention to detail, such precision, with language in this SC judgement. Then they make reference to a judgement which is all coy and vague about "the process of gender reassignment" which may or may not have "been completed."

Are the Croft judges referring obliquely to penectomy? They seem confident that everyone knows what completed gender reassignment entails.
I also think it's worth noting the employer forbad Croft from using the male toilets from the commencement of Croft's process of gender reassignment. And the judges in the appeal case agreed that this was appropriate. On the face of it this seems to contradict SC judgement but legalese is a foreign country to me!!
(I'm reading the full Croft judgement here https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f1fa2c94e0775e7ef4e3 Frustratingly it won't let me copy text but paragraphs 71. to 77. are what I would copy across if I could).

Naomi Cunningham and Harriet Harman are not saying the same thing.

HH is saying that MCW can be excluded from a single sex space designated for women if necessary.

NC corrects her - MCW must be excluded necessarily from any women's SSS. Because they are men and the space cannot be designated SS nor can the provider rely on the SS exception if challenged by other men.

🎯

NHS to be pursued if gender policies on single-sex wards don’t change, warns equalities watchdog
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/nhs-pursued-gender-policies-single-103539683.html

Posting for info, bit it also shows that the media needs to go on a retraining course to learn NOT to use the word gender.

Quote:

The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex.

To establish a separate or single-sex service, you must show that you meet at least one of a number of statutory conditions (set out in this section of the guide) and that limiting the service on the basis of sex is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, a legitimate aim could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. You must then be able to show that your action is a proportionate way of achieving that aim.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and

(Other parts of this article now redundant, but EHRC aim to rewrite based on this weeks ruling.)

They are both saying the same thing.

Not that I support Harriet Harmen but the SSE meant all men, even those with a GRC saying they were a "legal woman" were not allowed in.

I sometimes wonder how it is that so many people, let alone those who are supposed to have a legal background still dont understand this.

The issue wasn't how the SSE were written, but that too many people listened to Stonewall etc., and never bothered to read them.

The big difference now is that not only those services which were protected by the SSE ONLY for biological women, but now shops, workplaces etc., can say they are single sex.

I suspect toilets and changing rooms may have to say that in future. Not Women's or Ladies, but Women's Single Sex Toilets and so on.

Not only to be clear, but because so many people in all walks of life have been Stonewalled.

Hi. I studied economic and social history and political philosophy. I am aware that what is not safe for women is probably not safe for men either. 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.

I reckon there’s a good chance this judgement will squish that idea. It examines carefully in several paragraphs what is actually meant by transitioning in order to qualify for a GRC (which could reasonably be taken to be the legal endpoint if the process) and points out that no physiological changes are required. That court of appeal judgement was based on the assumption that transition is a physical process, but in law and in practice it is not.

For single sex space anywhere to be allowed it must meet the requirement for single sex exemption under the equality act. And then it must be single sex - no men. Workplace single sex spaces meet those requirements but predate them.

I do agree that this ruling will not necessarily stop all this in its tracks and further legal challenges will be necessary until it sinks in. I also would say that the GRA issue is complicated by the fact that there are weighty privacy clauses attached to having one.

If it is a licensed premises he can be arrested for refusal to leave a licensed premises when asked to do so. (Assuming the pub owner asked him to leave the pub not just the toilet, though if the pub owner refused to do that they could be sued for sex discrimination). They could also be arrested for aggravated trespass.

It would be a bit odd if Croft could go to the loo in a women’s toilet at the office but then be expected to use the men’s in Wetherspoons. There is nothing in the judgment clarifying that men with GRCs can use any female toilets at all, and although the H&S regs were not covered in this judgment it runs counter to the reasoning that sex for the purposes of equality legislation is not certificated sex. I’m not convinced by your argument, with all due respect. I think it’s a grey area, and organisations could be subject to discrimination/harassment claims by women.

Of course, but the single-sex services provision in Sched 3, para 27 relates to service providers rather than work. Section 31 brings in Sched 3 for the purposes of Part 3 (Services and public functions).

There is no equivalent provision to my knowledge in Sched 9 which is the work exceptions or in Part 5 which is the main work provisions.

As I say, I'd be delighted if I am wrong but there's nothing in the judgment which would change the position on transwomen accessing work toilets post-transition on my reading. It is specifically work that I am talking about here rather than toilets in shops etc.

I still think Croft is a lousy decision which didn't give enough weight to the concerns and feelings of the female employees, but I am just talking about what is rather than what should be.

I don't think it's OK, or legal, come to that. I'm just saying, it happens, and it's not that uncommon. Less of this sort of thing!

And a male customer who persists in trying to access the female changing room can now be arrested, can't he?

Can he? I'm not sure what law would cover this. It's the business who is providing a single sex space and must consider the Equality Act - other customers aren't liable under the Equality Act. Are you thinking the male customer would be arrested for something like harassment or voyeurism?

Just because it's common doesn't mean it's legal. I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out.

I don't know any women who would want to use toilets containing urinals. So the effect of this is that women's toilet provision is reduced because the men can now use all the toilets but the women can only use half of them.

I live in France and this is not true.