A worrying thought about the SC judgment

Oh believe me it can be understated if you really try hard enough. Clearly you lack stamina.

Sumption did not even know the correct name of the legislation.
Nuff said.

I agree with you. This is the whole basis of the judgement, or more specifically, you would then be discriminating against those without a GRC and a piece of paper makes no difference whereas biological sex does.

Anyway, I also need some time for normal things. The ruling seems clear to me.

Thanks all for the discussions and views.

I think I’m going to bow out of these online discussions for a while. Need to focus on other things ! Happy Easter all!

Non trans women males

love that - that is indeed the effect of the SC ruling

As others have said, it looks like there is scope for more litigation here.

It's not clear how Sumption has arrived at his view. Perhaps on the basis that discrimination against non trans-identifying men (by not letting them participate) is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim? Although I can't think what the legitimate aim is.

Yes, this fact is being widely misreported. It does make things worse for transwomen because it means that trans-inclusive things - even where everyone is happy about it - are technically illegal. Law needs a tweak. Although they'll probably make a right gender fudge dog's breakfast of it.

Although frankly, I still think he’s wrong. It’s surely that it would need to be a SS or a fully mixed sex event otherwise you’re discriminating against non trans women males by barring them.

So Sumption either hasn’t read the judgment or is being pedantic to show off how oh so clever he is - as lawyers often do - namely focussing on the fact that yes, technically, there is small de facto area of discretion to choose not to invoke the exemption but doing so in relation to facts for which it is glaringly obvious that it would be immoral and very much pushing the boundaries not to …. Either way it’s really unhelpful and disingenuous when there are lay people listening who will be using it as their main source of info - it’s pure ego.

Paragraph 235 clearly uses boxing as a
n example of where physical strength, stamina and physique of the average woman would put them at a disadvantage to an average man.
The judgement goes so far as to call this disadvantage ‘readily apparent (indeed, obvious)’.

So if an organiser goes ahead and allows trans women into a boxing event for women, then this puts biological women at what the judgement has called a readily apparent, indeed obvious, disadvantage. And yet, what Lord Sumpton takes from that is that organisers can still go ahead and permit trans women to a women’s event if they want. Putting the onus on women again as the above poster says, to have to argue it out in court. Which costs.

As usual he’s thinking of it only from the perspective of the male with a trans identity. Women could and hopefully won’t have to argue in court that they were disadvantaged by having to play sports against someone male.

I love ‘trans men look just like men and must use their spaces’ in combination with ‘you mustn’t talk about women ever in pregnancy care or breastfeeding because trans men have babies all the time’.

Interestingly I think Lord Sumption seems to be reading this in a similar way to my interpretation:

The former supreme court justice, Lord Sumption, questioned the way Wednesday’s judgment had been interpreted.

Sumption said: “I think it’s quite important to note that you are allowed to exclude trans women from these [single-sex] facilities. But you are not obliged to do it.
“So, for example, the authorities of a sport such as women’s boxing, women’s football, are allowed to limit it to biological women. They were not in breach of the discrimination rules of the Equalities Act.

“But the judgment does not mean that the sporting authorities have got to limit women’s boxing or women’s football to biological women.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant

More tribunals and money for lawyers.
Maybe fines by the EHRC who have been flexing a bit towards NHS Scotland but not actually done anything about fining them

Find a picture of Buck Angel and put your hand over her face from the nose down. She suddenly looks female.

The brow bones don't lie. I would have thought that several months of mandatory mask-wearing five years ago would have ensured that everyone realised this.

Including one of my previous, university, employers. The policy was lifted wholesale from a model policy published by AdvanceHE, who mysteriously broke the link to it on their website when they rebranded from ECU.

My last post here just now as I feel I have spammed the thread somewhat.
I agree that there is an increased risk, but the matter of consent is two-way. If even one man does not consent to a trans man being in male space, the implications are the same as for a trans woman being in female space, there is no consent. The matter of proportional risk is irrelevant. Men have to consent as well as women.
Both risk and consent are irrelevant in terms of the law, which has now been clarified to mean neither sex should be in the other sex’s single-sex space.

Why does this example of the bleeding obvious need to be explained over and over again?
Got to give trans people their own spaces to avoid discriminating against them… 🤦‍♀️

As in the second point you make here.
The answer is no, trans men cannot use men’s if they like.
In addition, as is also now clarified, there may also be certain circumstances where trans men may not use female spaces (para 221). This is part of the consequence of presenting male, for example, with a beard. I don’t think we are disagreeing on that point.

There is already space for trans people. For trans-identifying men, it's the gents. For trans-identifying women, it's the ladies.

As I say, I thought we were discussing a different point.

@Talulahalula People like Buck Angel might get barred from female spaces.
So be it.
Buck is not a physical threat to men - as she regularly says.

The reason that the case was brought by Women's and Lesbian groups
is because we are the ones at risk.

Thanks, the bit highlighted in Maya’s thread is what I also say at the bottom of my post at 19.13, namely that trans men could be disallowed into women’s same sex facilities in certain circumstances.
So there is no disagreement. I thought we were debating the point that trans men could use male facilities (so what you say at 16.58 unless I misunderstood), which they cannot. Maya does not suggest that they can.

Also no suitable standard DfE designs in secondary schools for those with invisible disabilities (with risk of collapse)!

@PlayerOneReady To answer your question OP. I think there needs to be lots of discussions going forward which at last are happening. And proper risk assessments. But done as quickly as possible. Document T from last year is a good start but isn’t great for safety without a few tweaks. The DfE guidance needs so much more work and they need it to make statutory for safeguarding.

At the moment lots of places will be reconfiguring toilets to single sex. If there’s space they can add a universal one. I think this ruling gives more people the confidence to know and to speak out. But these single sex toilets should not be enclosed and private for safety reasons. Particularly for those with invisible disabilities which includes epilepsy and heart conditions.

What I have observed on YouTube, in newsletters and in real life, is that young women who are adamant they don’t want to use women’s loos, end up using the women’s even when other loos have been converted for them and labelled gender neutral. A very small school study in America definitely had more boys liking the gender neutral toilets. There’s a realisation amongst women that they feel unsafe from the men that go in there with them, and that the gender neutral toilets are messier, smellier, and sanitary pads etc if available, are messed with. This is now being talked about more which is good. But in reality, it appears that ‘gender neutral’ options are mostly used by interested men and desperate women who are time limited when the ladies queue gets too long.

I would prefer there to be as few mixed sex toilets as possible for safety reasons.
No one appears to have risk assessed them for safety v privacy. Not even the government nor the DfE. Which is horrendous for those who have been harmed.

The statistics for serious sexual assaults inside schools are horrendous. As are those for public toilets.

We do not need more public toilets that are private and mixed sex.

When people finally start researching, looking at data and analysing toilet health and safety, including VAWG, they will come to the same conclusion I have. We need to be realistic and not be afraid of debating.