A worrying thought about the SC judgment

Exactly. & as it should be.

If someone is running a club night & has booked the premises, however, my understanding is that they can continue with 'whatever'.

I'm raising it because I know a lot of upset/confused people, & I'm an openly GC goth who is bracing herself. I'm out of kilter with a lot of people I've been friends with for decades.

& yes, I've already been vocal & I've certainly lost friends.

So it helps to be able to say 'no no one is coming for your private social events!'

@HelenaWaiting
The detriment caused to disabled people by gender identity cannot be understated

rainbow painted trains but no access ramps etc etc

Here it is on Nitter
https://nitter.poast.org/MForstater/status/1913185937170845780#m

There is also a difference in terms of consent to expose oneself to increased risk: a trans man choosing to use the men’s is knowingly and willingly actively choosing to expose themselves to that increased risk. The reverse is not the case.

There are of course still privacy and dignity arguments but for me, the safety argument is paramount in understanding the point I made earlier - namely the imbalance in impact/lack of equivalence between the sexes because it is the one that unequivocally always leads to a greater detriment to women.

Is there any way of getting this thread if you are not on X? I looked at Audrey Ludwig in LinkedIn but I am missing this as well.
No rush, I am heading out but if anyone knows, please let me know.

If you don't think it's fair on disabled people, don't suggest it. We get one loo, if we're lucky, and many of us can't wait as long as able-bodied people.

Thanks, I don’t have X but I can probably get on Linked in so I will have a read.
In the summary of the judgement (page 86), it says
‘There are other provisions [than same sex spaces for those of the same sexuality] whose proper functioning requires a biological interpretation of ‘sex’. These include separate spaces and single-sex services (including changing rooms, hostels and medical services), communal accomodation and others (paras 221-228)’

This seems unequivocal to me that trans men should not be in male same-sex space. It’s not just about threat but privacy and dignity also for men not to have biological women in the spaces listed above, which is also addressed further up the judgement.
I am indeed curious to know how such unequivocal language allows trans men into male sex spaces. That would essentially mean that gay men cannot have associations without biological women, whereas the right to do this is underscored in the judgment.

Re trans men : in practice there are unlikely to be complaints from males especially if they pass, so there is no reason why they can’t just fly under the radar and keep going into the males. The law is the law but the only way these things tend to ever get tested is if there are complaints…

Here is Maya's X thread
https://x.com/MForstater/status/1913185931290460333

But the absolute best person to read is Audrey Ludwig on both Twitter and Linkedin

I’m not getting it either.

I will look for what Maya has said as I am not getting what you say from the judgement. However I am not a lawyer.

Okay, so - quoting directly on the point that trans men should not be in same sex male spaces:

Re separate and single-sex services - paragraph 218 […] the provisions relating to single sex services can only be interpreted in relation to biological sex

Re communal accommodation Paragraph 225. Accordingly, a certified sex interpretation produces incoherence in the application of these provisions. Moreover, it is not necessary to achieve the purposes of either the GRA 2004 or the EA 2010. On any view, the plain intention of these provisions is to allow for the provision of separate or single-sex services for women which exclude all (biological) men (or vice versa). Applying a biological view of sex achieves that purpose.

[end quote]
the bold is mine. It seems clear to me that the judgement says that the provisions of the EA 2010 allow for trans men to be excluded from same-sex male space (presuming that the provision of such same sex space is proportionate).

I have read paragraph 221 and I think it means that women living in the male gender could only be excluded from female service provision, without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination, where reasonable objection might be taken to their presence, for example, because ‘the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken in the context of the women only service being provided’. However the example given higher in the paragraph is group counselling for female victims of sexual assault.
So yes it leaves open the question where male presenting, biologically female people might go in this instance.
I would say however that the responsibility/blame for this problem lies with the groups who misrepresented the EA 2010 and not with the law itself, especially given the 200-odd preceding paragraphs which explain the GRA 2004 and the EA 2010, the intentions of these and the absurdity of having a GRC-inclusive definition of same-sex spaces. So trans men (women) have been sold a lie and are potentially left with a problem which requires unpicking. Plus ca change. And I sympathise, but I think the judgement is correct.

@Talulahalula
As per the bit of the judgement

Transmen (females) who pass well enough and choose to
are no threat to men
so are free to continue using male spaces

The risk aspect applies 99% to males invading female spaces
and they are now barred.

This is what I was saying in response to another poster who was querying it.

A trans man is a woman, right?

They should use the women’s toilets!

@Talulahalula
Paragraph 221 of the judgement
(no I'm not a lawyer, Maya posted about it earlier)
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf

No, I don’t think transmen can use the men’s if they like. I am going to have a look and check my understanding is correct, but it would be wholly absurd to disallow transwomen from female same-sex spaces and allow transmen into male same-sex spaces.

Is anyone else concerned that what may happen now, in reality, is a big increase in ‘gender neutral’ facilities as organisations realise they don’t actually have capacity for a third space, at least in the short term?

You mean like disabled people have experienced since the year dot and still do ?

That's a bit aggressive when I was trying to be reassuring 🙄

I think you need to read the judgement.
It is clearly argued that if making certified sex (or any stage towards gender reassignment) part of the protected characteristic of sex, this would mean that trans men (so biologically female, however they identify or wish to be known) would lose access to protection against discrimination, direct or indirect, based on biological sex. The judgement precisely upholds your friend’s rights to same-sex facilities and protections. Your friend has the rights not to be discriminated against compared to other biological women, regardless of her gender reassignment. I am not sure that is hard to understand. Disallowing your friend access to the female toilets on the basis of transition would be discrimination.

However, to protect the dignity and privacy of men and their right to same sex spaces where this achieves a legitimate and proportionate aim, your friend does not have the right to use said male same-sex spaces. Your friend never did have this right, whatever people may have believed - this is what the judgement clarifies - but your friend should not be discriminated against compared to other women because she is undergoing gender reassignment. This covers a range of protections which go beyond which bathroom people can use.

A £5 lady ticket doesn’t change it.

No, that’s the judgement. A TW is male/ a man.

Your friend's rights are the same today as they were last week.

They have female sex based rights
and Gender reassignment rights to protect the changes they have made to their body

they always did

Right now my friend doesn’t really give a flying fuck about that. Their more immediate impact on their life and the lives of a lot of their friends feels more important to them. Sorry if that bothers you.

So your friend is a woman that had her breasts removed?

Of course she’s welcome in the ladies toilets. My friend had her breasts removed because she’s at risk of cancer. Of course they can still use the ladies toilets.