European Court of Human Rights

That would be the surest way of guaranteeing a Reform landslide in 2029.

That may well be the case. I know more about the ECHR. 🤷‍♂️

Yes I mean my question from U.K. perspective. Doesn’t what happens next depend on the equalities one here?

Ie wrong acronym in my post

The ECHR doesn't really have anything to say about this. And it certainly has no role to play in the SC case. The ECHR is not some kind of super-supreme court for all cases, despite how it's sometimes portrayed in the media.

Oh, and slightly off-topic, but: Someone upthread was wanting to refer to the ECHR (European Convention and/or Court of Human Rights) but actually typed EHRC, which is the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a UK-only body that also figured in this case. It's a terminological minefield out there!

Thank you for posting this article.

But how does this fit in with your earlier post that the SC’s definition of a woman is wrong in law?

”The Supreme Court’s decision this week to not include trans women in the definition of women in the Equality Act isn’t just wrong, it’s extremely harmful.”

Are you saying the SC got it wrong because it means that TW are now excluded from single sex spaces for women and it is going to be difficult for them? That’s like saying what the SC judgement is hurtful to TW, so it must be wrong. Doesn’t sound like a good legal argument.

A model of clarity. Akua Reindorf explains the SC ruling.

www.thetimes.com/article/f89ecc90-d81e-4f92-967b-8b6309cbb65f?shareToken=063a08c00b1a7f7f0669edbc5bc281a1

Not sure about the legal detail @samarrangehas expanded on but doesn’t it come down to the ECHR guidance?

And which places are required by law to provide single sex facilities? Is there a list of who has to

Agreed. Institutions will have to provide a unisex facility, and as a result, I can almost guarantee that the volume of transwomen will go back down to the previously calculated vanishingly few 1 in 100,000. Because the vast majority of the apparently now 1 in 100 men who want access to womens toilets want it not to pee, but to show they have dominion and power over women. If it was just about using toilets and changing rooms they would have no problem respecting women's boundaries and just peeing and getting changed in a unisex cubicle. Especially if they ' feel like women' they would be able to ' feel' what it's like to be in danger from men.

I would argue that that is indirect discrimination against women.

Most women aren't going to feel comfortable using toilets which contain urinals, which means they've just opened up women's toilets to men without providing any extra capacity for women.

Jolyon's got a fighting fund.
The Supreme Court’s decision this week to not include trans women in the definition of women in the Equality Act isn’t just wrong, it’s extremely harmful.
The Supreme Court can kid itself all it likes about this decision not being bad for trans people, but trans people know it is the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling.
We are committed to stand with the trans community and fight these rollbacks, whatever it takes. We’re creating a fighting fund to look at both domestic and international cases, all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.
This fight will be long – and it’ll be expensive. But as the world becomes a more hostile place for trans people, it’s a fight that becomes increasingly more important. If you are able to, your support means more now than ever.
Details
Funds raised will support our cases fighting for trans rights in the UK.
Ten per cent of the funds raised will be a contribution to the general running costs of Good Law Project. It is our policy only to raise sums that we anticipate could be spent on the work we are crowdfunding for. However, if there is a surplus it will go towards our work fighting for a fairer, greener future for all.

At the the Old Vic, the Soho Theatre, the Royal Court, the Lyric Hammersmith, the Kiln Theatre (all in London), yes.

Do any of these gender neutral toilets in theatres still contain urinals?

That would be the surest way of guaranteeing a Reform landslide in 2029.

Certainly a TW with a GRC can no longer claim discrimination if they are excluded from women-only facilities.

But there is no requirement in law for most organisations to provide single-sex toilets and changing rooms (schools and workplaces are an exception). Several theatres (for instance) now provide only gender-neutral toilets, for example. So if a theatre chooses to offer single-gender toilets (labelled as men's and women's, but working on the basis of self-ID), is that necessarily unlawful? I'm not convinced it is.

Certainly a TW with a GRC can no longer claim discrimination if they are excluded from women-only facilities.

But there is no requirement in law for most organisations to provide single-sex toilets and changing rooms (schools and workplaces are an exception). Several theatres (for instance) now provide only gender-neutral toilets, for example. So if a theatre chooses to offer single-gender toilets (labelled as men's and women's, but working on the basis of self-ID), is that necessarily unlawful? I'm not convinced it is.

@Imnobody4, are you quoting the kimono kid here or are these your own words? It’s not quite clear.

Jolyon's got a fighting fund.
The Supreme Court’s decision this week to not include trans women in the definition of women in the Equality Act isn’t just wrong, it’s extremely harmful.
The Supreme Court can kid itself all it likes about this decision not being bad for trans people, but trans people know it is the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling.
We are committed to stand with the trans community and fight these rollbacks, whatever it takes. We’re creating a fighting fund to look at both domestic and international cases, all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.
This fight will be long – and it’ll be expensive. But as the world becomes a more hostile place for trans people, it’s a fight that becomes increasingly more important. If you are able to, your support means more now than ever.
Details
Funds raised will support our cases fighting for trans rights in the UK.
Ten per cent of the funds raised will be a contribution to the general running costs of Good Law Project. It is our policy only to raise sums that we anticipate could be spent on the work we are crowdfunding for. However, if there is a surplus it will go towards our work fighting for a fairer, greener future for all.

Jolyon's got a fighting fund.
The Supreme Court’s decision this week to not include trans women in the definition of women in the Equality Act isn’t just wrong, it’s extremely harmful.
The Supreme Court can kid itself all it likes about this decision not being bad for trans people, but trans people know it is the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling.
We are committed to stand with the trans community and fight these rollbacks, whatever it takes. We’re creating a fighting fund to look at both domestic and international cases, all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.
This fight will be long – and it’ll be expensive. But as the world becomes a more hostile place for trans people, it’s a fight that becomes increasingly more important. If you are able to, your support means more now than ever.
Details
Funds raised will support our cases fighting for trans rights in the UK.
Ten per cent of the funds raised will be a contribution to the general running costs of Good Law Project. It is our policy only to raise sums that we anticipate could be spent on the work we are crowdfunding for. However, if there is a surplus it will go towards our work fighting for a fairer, greener future for all.

Yes that’s what I thought too Pencils but can you combine two protected groups for positive action, such as women and trans people? I’m not clear on whether the exceptions stand completely alone.

Paragraph 236 is part of the review of the implications of the judgment on the Equality Act 2010, reflecting the judges' careful consideration of that entire act. The paragraph is couched in conditional language ("a women’s boxing competition organiser could refuse to admit all men", "the gender reassignment exception would be available", etc). They appear to have decided that although the upshot of their judgment is that the organiser of a women's boxing competition could henceforth refuse to admit biological men, this is not a bad or unreasonable thing. Which is great! But again, it doesn't say anything about whether the boxing organisers must henceforth refuse to admit all men. That would probably require an Act of Parliament (which, were it ever to be proposed, would surely include this judgment in its preamble).

Put another way, that paragraph isn't the judgment in itself (arguably, the judgment is just the five words in paragraph 268). It does not say or imply that "We, the judges of the Supreme Court, hereby decree that organisers of women’s boxing competitions must exclude biological men", because that was not the question in front of them. The only question in front of them was the definition of "women" in the Equality Act 2010, and that's all that they were able to pronounce on. The law is often very boring, and often doesn't do as much as we might like. 🙏