Supreme Court - are single gender spaces still allowed?

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 🤮

Having trudged through the entire 88 page judgement, it has been clarified there that if a space is designated single sex a GRC does not apply.

That has always been the case as it is spelt out in the SSE in the EA.

Which by the way, althought Labour is denying it now, clearly shows that they intended that "for all purposes" a man with a GRC was a legal woman. And because this is what they intended they very kindly created a mechanism so that "when it was proportionate" a women's service could be biological women only.

So many people coming up with deceitful self serving revisions of the history they were part of in undermining women's sex based rights.

Is it? Not in my experience?

I think there may be more push back on whether making a space / group specifically for 'women' is necessary.

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.

I'm disappointed (but not surprised) at some of the anti-trans views I'm seeing on social media. Some people seem to be gloating about being able to use this ruling exclude TW socially, or speaking as though it becomes mandatory for groups to exclude TW if they use the word women in their description. I support including TW / TM socially and respecting how they want to interact with the world in situations where sex/ biology aren't relevant.

I'd like to know the answer for that too.

Is my impression that it would be discriminatory to women not to provide single sex. Indirect discrimination where women are affected more than men, because mixed sexed toilets where women are vulnerable are more dangerous for women.

but it's great that people are trying to ascertain exactly what their rights are.

But in reality, this set-up ("urinals and cubicles" and "just cubicles" instead of Men and Woman) is pretty common in pubs and the like, isn't it? Espcially in the big cities.

In France most public toilets have been mixed for like forever..
First time l went in the 70s l found it " weired " but then it just became normal.
I mean there is always cubicles.

My opinion is the central principle still stands - i.e. that transwomen eventually gain the right to use women's toilets at work (relying on the Human Rights Act) but employers can say that they should use the disabled toilets during their transition.

The decision noted that the GRA would be coming in and a lot of people have taken the view that the point that one gains access to the women's toilets at work is now when a GRC is granted (see e.g some of the comments in the case of R (Green) v SSfJ which was post GRA but heavily cited Croft) but that aspect seems less perhaps a little less certain following today's judgment.

But I haven't seen anything in today's judgment to undermine the central principle, nor cases such as A v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police which held that a transwoman police officer had the right to carry out intimate searches of women.

So, as I say, I think we have seen some progress today, but it doesn't change some of the troubling case law.

The Hampstead ponds have updated their website!

The City Corporation is carefully considering the recent ruling of the Supreme Court. We remain committed to providing a safe and enjoyable environment for all. The City Corporation’s existing policies remain in effect at this time.

I don't know the ins and outs of how the Hampstead ponds are run (not from the area) but the issue now under the clarified Equalities Act is that women are being directly discriminated against because there is one pond that only men can use but no ponds that only women can use.

It's my understanding that if it says it's women only, then it bloody is. End of story.

But, they can say it's mixed sex and then it could be for men and women. But they can't say it's women only, and allow any men in irrespective of their status.

So if Marks & Spencer's have a woman's changing room, they can't let men in.

They can maybe decide not to label it anything, but when pressed claim it's mixed sex.

But I think women will be holding retailer's feet to the fire about this. 'Do you have any women only provision at all??'

And we know women only provision is completely legal. So this is just sending a message to everyone you can have women only provision, it's totally legal, and you can refuse entry to men - irrespective of what they say, and what tickets they have.

It has, in one fell swoop, got rid of validation for fetishists.

Because they're not interested in mixed sex. They only ever wanted women only.

that's my understanding, but yes, I'd like to know, legally speaking, exactly what retailers and service providers can actually say and do.

There are plenty of people commenting in the media, some of them with authority and highly confidently, who neither understood how the EA SSEs work or understand this ruling, and its significance. Some of it is genuine, and I believe some of it is deliberate disinformation.

Yes it will be one of the many places to watch, If they want to call it a woman’s pond, they will have to exclude men.

I heard the head of the EHRC on R4 this morning. She was unequivocal that there is usually no need in Law to provide single sex spaces, but if organisations say they provide them and use the terms “men” and “women” they must be single sex. Like others here, I worried that many organisms will just go “mixed”. 😞

I don't think anything will necessarily change there. In an employment situation, it seems fairly clear that separate facilities for women and men have to be provided (except if locked doors are available). For anything else, a business or association can make its own rules, and they could say "Here you're a woman if you say you are", and the law wouldn't prevent that. (So Marks & Spencer could let trans-identified men into the women's changing rooms, or not.) At the Hampstead Ponds, apparently the City of London allows user groups to make the rules, and the Ladies' Pond Association has voted to have self-ID, so I expect that would be allowed to stand.

Perhaps the solution is a bank of individual cubicles including sink, which anyone can use?

Yes, I don’t see how a trans woman can use female toilets at work at any stage. The second a trans woman uses a female toilet, it ceases to become single sex provision and then you are open to claims under the Equality Act as women are being treated less favourably than men. The alternative is that the employer turns all toilets into mixed sex toilets that meet the regs for mixed sex toilets - separate rooms with washbasins etc.

Well as I say it's not 100% clear. The quote from the case is in my first post upthread. Some people think that has been overtaken and now the point that it changes is when a GRC is obtained, but it's hard to be certain in the absence of further case law.

I don't think anything will necessarily change there. In an employment situation, it seems fairly clear that separate facilities for women and men have to be provided (except if locked doors are available). For anything else, a business or association can make its own rules, and they could say "Here you're a woman if you say you are", and the law wouldn't prevent that. (So Marks & Spencer could let trans-identified men into the women's changing rooms, or not.) At the Hampstead Ponds, apparently the City of London allows user groups to make the rules, and the Ladies' Pond Association has voted to have self-ID, so I expect that would be allowed to stand.

I wonder what will happen with the Hampstead swimming ponds?

I wonder what will happen with the Hampstead swimming ponds?