What practical difference do you think the SC ruling will make?

bugger, still not allowed to do photos

Regarding changing signs on doors, I have a simple one for them. Put your stupid "all genders"/half-a-beskirted- person" signs on the mens toilets (formerly known as " toilets with urinals"), and a straightforward "Women" sign on the, uh, women's. No rebuilding required!

Personally speaking, the practical difference of the ruling will mean I can slow down on the Tunnocks and go back to eating a wide range of wrapped chocolate biscuit snacks

By that point hopefully labour are out.

Unfortunately the way things are looking reform might make serious gains.

Exactly. The notion of mixed sex isn’t a draw for women when they’ve most likely had experience of sharing space with men. That’s what’s mind blowing in all of this. Men never got a grip on the ones who creep women out, who are the reason single sex provision is necessary, who don’t respect boundaries & who keep their hands & eyes to themselves. It’s up to men to sort their shit out, not women.

Look at the young female entrepreneur who is working on a female only gym, who was monstered by the genderists because she determined the space should be female only with no larping men allowed. She has her entire business model based on a known need, because women in gyms know & have experienced enough of inappropriate male behaviour to want to just exercise without having to deal with that. It’s that simple & straightforward - women want to do things & have experiences without having to deal with inappropriate men making that feel unsafe. And men larping as women are included in that - it’s unnerving to have a man in a female space where women undress, and the fact he has no respect for the need for privacy & dignity makes his presence inappropriate too. That’s why those men who claim to be women should be excluded. They should never have been there at all.

I think there will be mounting pressure from within the labour party to rewrite/update the equalities act.

In the short term a few organisations might feel more confident to have single sex provisions and a few people might have more confidence to say what they believe.

But others will cary on as before, as like many things , most people haven't got the energy to go to court and enforce the law.

I think you are correct, and that is what the article says. It goes to show the importance of language. Local paper headline welcoming the opening of a 'new mixed-sex shelter for people fleeing DV and rape' would always have raised eyebrows amongst all but the most committed Butlerites. And a gym announcing 'our up-to-date and inclusive facilities incorporating mixed-sex toilets, showers and changing rooms throughout' would be avoided in droves.

Gender pay gap reports may be interesting from now on

I think the protesters are just not very bright.

I think it was planned for September, but maybe it's been put back a bit, so maybe November? Not sure

Where has Sarah’s case got to? I have followed it a bit

I think this is really key, i.e. if as a service provider, whether of a toilet or a rape crisis centre etc, you say that service is for women, you must not permit males to use it. This is where additional cases like the Survivors Network case can and likely will be made. And that case may well now be a slam dunk for Sarah Surviving because the ruling is "merely" clarifying what the law has always been, so that a sensible judge will rule that they should have applied it that way all along.

This is actually really positive. Men claiming to be women will never be able to enter female only provision again. At best, they can hope for mixed sex, and that also paves the way for third spaces/mixed sex in addition to single sex provision. Because any refusal to accept this is the new normal gives only the option to stick to the male single sex option if third spaces aren’t what they want.

This is a link to an archive version of the times article by Reindorf on what the judgement means:

https://archive.ph/1j6v5

and this section helps clarify this further:

“Single-sex arrangements are not mandatory in competitive sports or services open to the public, such as gym changing rooms or refuges for victims of domestic violence. However, it is likely to be discrimination against women not to provide them where they are appropriate, and public authorities must pay particular attention to making adequate provision for women under the public sector equality duty.”

So my reading of all of this is:

Defiant orgs who want to continue to provide ‘male inclusive’ provisions for women can choose to do so, under the correct banner of mixed sex. However, if a refusal to also provide female only (if necessary - and toilets/changing rooms I’d argue are necessary to be single sex for privacy & dignity & safety) leaves women at a disadvantage, they’re in breach of the law & are open to discrimination claims from women.

I am not a lawyer so happy to be corrected.

And re the classic ‘gotcha’ of how will people know if a biological male uses a women’s loo, who’s going to stand on the door and do a genitalia check etc
probably no-one.
same as when people without a blue badge are expected not to park in a disabled space, people who earn enough are expected not to claim benefits, people in a shop are expected not to take things without paying.
The male in the loo is deliberately and knowingly breaking the law. That wasn’t clear before, but it is now.

I think one of the best things about the ruling will be the end of gaslighting. Have mixed sex spaces if you want, but don't gaslight me by telling me it's a women's group when there are men there.

I think in practical terms they were previously assuming that GRC holders had to be allowed in, and that everyone else could sneak in on their coat-tails on the fact that nobody was going to ask if they had a GRC or not.

this is exactly it.

Look at the case it originally came from. A very mild case of positive action for women. And it was ruled in the first place that this /couldn't/ use self identified sex, and with this SC judgement that it also couldn't use certificated sex, it has to use actual biological sex.

There is not a compulsion to have positive action measures. But if you do, you have to use the category for which the exemption exists that allows you to legally discriminate. That category is now confirmed to be biological sex. Not self identified gender. Not certificated sex.

This is dynamite for policies. Most of which are in much more immediate and clear cut needs for single sex things than positive action.

It's all a bit odd though. It was already settled and agreed between both parties in this case that woman in the equality act did not mean self-identified women. That was the real dynamite and was already agreed. All this confirms is that it also doesn't include men who hold GRCs in woman-gender.

The protesters this weekend are kind of shooting themselves in the foot. They just acknowledged that this judgement DOES mean that women's spaces don't include transwomen. If providing woman-gender spaces was still legal, what were they protesting about? I think in practical terms they were previously assuming that GRC holders had to be allowed in, and that everyone else could sneak in on their coat-tails on the fact that nobody was going to ask if they had a GRC or not.

The next step is getting the current cases settled loudly and expensively. And seeing what EHRC come up with in terms of advice. And Labour confirming they're not going to try and screw things up.

Realistically, tribunal and court cases.

Because the group of social engineers who are at the top of the equalities training for a lot of companies are not going down without fighting.

Most people don’t like fully unisex intimate spaces so hopefully money will do the talking there for service providers.

I'm really hoping that it'll mean it is easier for women to run hobby groups specifically for women. I've got a group in mind which I've wanted to set up in my area, but it's precisely the sort of group which transidentified men might feel drawn to as it is -in part- based on women's lived experience. I'm watching this space.

But they can’t actually be enforced as women and transwomen spaces only now, as there is no protected characteristic of “inner sense of identifying as a woman” in the EA that unites both biological women and transwomen as one class whereby other biological men are excluded.

In practice, I’m sure most non-trans men wouldn’t be interested in attending anyway, and most will respect women’s right to associate without them. But men can’t be excluded if transwomen are allowed in.

I see it often for women only events. No-one is wearing anything other than the clothes you would in the street (so to speak). Women only social gatherings.

I imagine some companies and public bodies will take the clarification of the law seriously and will carefully consult so that they comply.

I suspect others will not comply and will carry on until challenged. More clubs will do this too as there won’t be the same pressure as there will be for businesses. I should imagine the WI will be one of those.

If you look back over the past ten years, I think you’ll find that there has been an ongoing transactivist campaign to deliberately target any and all women’s groups, clubs and spaces. It’s been very invasive and extensive. Very few things that women had remain untouched. A few held out, some closed down and the majority let the men in, presumably losing some women along the way, but carried on in their new mixed-sex “women’s” format.

If we want all those women’s spaces, clubs and groups back, I suspect we are going to have to run a similar campaign. We won’t be popular because the men are now embedded and the remaining women are those who agreed with the men being there. Consider the WI which now has a man in a position of power. I suspect that’s quite common too. And you can bet these men will fight to break the groups apart when challenged. In some cases it will be like trying to split from an abusive man. He won’t let go easily.

Apologies, OP! That ended up a bit darker than I expected. I think it will all work out in the end, but it’s still not going to be plain sailing for a while.

Cubicles - like on trains and planes - where the toilet and hand washing are behind a door
are fully compliant with the real version of the law.

Locker rooms with communal areas now have to be properly single sex