A worrying thought about the SC judgment

I live v close to a flagship store and intend to find out in the next few days

I don't think we will see a rush to change everything gender neutral, in fact I think we will see the opposite. Given that the vast majority of public spaces have male, female, disabled and baby change, the cheapest, quickest, easiest and legal option is single sex toilets and if you can't cope with the toilet appropriate to your sex because you've got gender feelings, you can use the fully enclosed, private, mixed sex disabled toilet.

I appreciate that this isn't fair on disabled people who don't have decent provision as it is. But given that we're told that barely anyone is trans to begin with, surely it won't cause that much of a problem if they are using the disabled facilities. After all, they only want to pee, right?

It’s worth reading the judgement:

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/judgments/uksc-2024-0042

It makes it clear (as did the Equality Act) that there are lots of situations in which people can reasonably expect single-sex facilities or insist on single-sex carers, for example.

I'm also curious to know what the likes of M&S will do about their changing rooms, especially in the women's underwear/bra-fitting area. I fell out with them years ago over this when all this nonsense started. Am I right in thinking it just says Changing Rooms, not Men's and Women's Changing Rooms?

You are wishful thinking.

If organisations do this they will lose a lot of their customer base.
Most women don't want to share facilities with men, and decent men don't want to impose themselves on women.

in certain areas anway the law says that separate mens and womens should be provided (sex based now clarified), and if not then full height doors etc which in reality takes up more space.

By the way, by saying it has to be 'policed' are you saying that trans people would willingly and knowingly break the law? For hundreds of years sex separated spaces has worked, it really isn't that difficult.

Added: Oh and I saw a lawyer on another thread explaining why it is up to the person to prove they should be allowed, not the organisation, who have the right to refuse entry.

I also wonder about the consequences. What happens if men persistently refuse to acknowledge single sex spaces apply to them and continue to use them?

What I find most troubling is that she’s clearly an intelligent woman with enough life experience to know how the world works and have experienced sexism, but absolutely no insight or capacity to think critically about what she’s saying / believing. It’s so depressing. I was yelling at the radio!

Yes, I heard that, couldn't believe my ears. Changing language to circumvent the law. Shame on her and the BBC. She really pushed it.

I heard that too. It was a very telling reframing. All concern for the Trans woman that might have to share with men but no concerns at all about the women that have to do so and then a suggestion that the NHS could do away with single sex wards altogether. Strange that’s female journalist didn’t even try to look at the argument from a female perspective at all

I was thinking that might happen too as most places will not want to police who is and isn't trans, nor risk being sued if they get it wrong. Easier to just make facilities gender neutral.

I am worried about this too. On World at One BBC R4 yesterday Sarah Montague asked a chap commenting on the impact of the ruling on the NHS whether the answer was to do away with wards organised on sex altogether and just use gender as the determinant for everything.

I actually couldn’t believe what I was hearing. The fact that she was horrified that a TIM might be accommodated with other males, but seemed unconcerned about him being accommodated with females, was staggering.

If there's a men's but not a women's then that's sex discrimination.

The ruling has made it clear that women means biological women so they can't have something labelled women that also includes male people.

I guess gyms could make all their facilites gender neutral and see how popular that is.

Yes I think decisions will be based on customer base, and also any external pressure they get (in either direction). Keeping their toilets as is, with men’s and women’s, and just saying “sorry, Supreme Court decision about who uses what, not down to us” if queried would probably be the cheapest & easiest thing for most places to do.

I understand your concern and perhaps this is a real worry in dyed in the wool rainbow organisations?

But given that there is no legal requirement to provide third spaces I'd imagine that the vast majority of organisations will take the default cheapest option of not providing them?