Page 3 | Interim guidance from EHRC is out, thread 2

Darkgreendarkbark · 2025-04-27T22:11:29+00:00

Unless someone has beat me to it? Seemed like an animated discussion still going, if anyone wants to continue. I wanted to reply to Cautious Lurker who said it was for society to uphold the law and stop people going into the wrong facilities. My post (before the thread filled up) was going to be: Well, may I nitpick - it's down to service providers and employers. They are the ones subject to this law. It's not "for us as a society" to ensure that individuals follow the rules that service providers and employers bring in so that those organisations may comply with the law. I'm all in favour of the law, but it's not on my shoulders to uphold and enforce it in every leisure centre and office block. We did all the hard work of campaigning and crowdfunding just to get the law itself clarified. I can now just use my voice to complain to the provider if my single-sex space turns out not to be. Because the law is on our side.

Retiredfromthere · 28/04/2025 00:22

Many cafes, shops etc. (especially small ones) will provide one unisex self-contained toilet). They can continue to do this. They cannot be required to conjure up space for extra toilet facilities and in most cases it would be impossible to do so.

Cross posted. (I don't think you would call a unisex space a single sex space - it does not matter what your gender ID is or whether you have one at all).

KilkennyCats · 28/04/2025 00:21

CautiousLurker01 · 28/04/2025 00:17

I think that may be open to interpretation @KnottyAuty ? Lots of small local cafes where I live have only one customer toilet. So it is both a single sex space (as only one person can use it at a time) and a unisex space (as persons of either sex can use it). I suspect SMEs will move towards single usage spaces on this basis as they will struggle to provide 3 separate facilities given the restraints of space and funding?

The one toilet, one user at a time scenario is perfectly fine.

Retiredfromthere · 28/04/2025 00:20

KnottyAuty · 28/04/2025 00:12

Article from the Times

"Unisex lavatories risk ‘discrimination against biological women’ - The EHRC has warned shops, pubs, restaurants and cafés that after the Supreme Court ruling, failure to provide single-sex facilities may leave them open to legal challenge"

https://archive.is/NLwwD

Isn't it more accurate to say that claiming to provide single sex facilities which are in fact mixed (include biological males, which includes trans females) is open to legal challenge. Since to have been providing single sex facilities there would either have to be discrimination which was proportionate because of the protected characteristic of sex, or a legal requirement to have single sex facilities. Such as Health and Safety at work legislation. If its proportionate to provide single sex facilities and you choose not to (say ah, well its too difficult let's all be mixed its easy) then you could be legally challenged? Particularly if you used to call the space single sex but now do not (since SC judgement) with no change to risk factors etc.

BiologicalRobot · 28/04/2025 00:18

Thanks Knotty.

Pat McFadden, Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet Office chief, confirmed that Whitehall would now bar transwomen from using women’s lavatory facilities.

CautiousLurker01 · 28/04/2025 00:17

I think that may be open to interpretation @KnottyAuty ? Lots of small local cafes where I live have only one customer toilet. So it is both a single sex space (as only one person can use it at a time) and a unisex space (as persons of either sex can use it). I suspect SMEs will move towards single usage spaces on this basis as they will struggle to provide 3 separate facilities given the restraints of space and funding?

KnottyAuty · 28/04/2025 00:12

Article from the Times

"Unisex lavatories risk ‘discrimination against biological women’ - The EHRC has warned shops, pubs, restaurants and cafés that after the Supreme Court ruling, failure to provide single-sex facilities may leave them open to legal challenge"

https://archive.is/NLwwD

CautiousLurker01 · 28/04/2025 00:11

@Darkgreendarkbark yes, as I understand it you can’t include ‘some men’ but not all men. So it is either a club for women (and no men allowed at all) or it is a mixed sex group in which case you cannot discriminate men who are NOT Piscean by excluding them, so yes, a club for women and pisces men would be discriminatory - and non Piscean mean can bring a case against the club?

You could however hold a club that is just for Piscean men and women… that would not be discriminatory as men and women are included/excluded on the same basis (and not being Piscean is not a protected characteristic).

Original poster

Darkgreendarkbark · 28/04/2025 00:03

WandaSiri · 27/04/2025 23:55

Yes, correct - they can restrict entry to women, but not to women+some men. That's unlawful discrimination against the men who don't claim to be women and the organisers are currently not operating a single sex service.

Show quote history

This one always confuses me, to be honest. Maybe I need to go back and reread the judgement. Where my brain gets stuck is - the PC of gender reassignment only works one way, right? So it's presumably always fine to exclude someone for not having that characteristic. So what makes it any different to saying "This club is for women, and also men whose star sign is Pisces" or any other random subset of men? Would a "woman and Pisces men" club be unlawful? I am probably missing something but my brain always falls down at this part.

OP posts:

JumpingPumpkin · 28/04/2025 00:02

it will b interesting to see the fallout from this, either mixed sex or back to how it was in the 80s.

WandaSiri · 27/04/2025 23:55

JumpingPumpkin · 27/04/2025 23:43

Can I get some opinions on the Nottingham Women’s Centre? They say they are still trans inclusive and are for all self identifying women. Can they run a service which includes women and some men legally now? Or would this be open to challenge by men who are excluded?

Yes, correct - they can restrict entry to women, but not to women+some men. That's unlawful discrimination against the men who don't claim to be women and the organisers are currently not operating a single sex service.

JumpingPumpkin · 27/04/2025 23:43

Can I get some opinions on the Nottingham Women’s Centre? They say they are still trans inclusive and are for all self identifying women. Can they run a service which includes women and some men legally now? Or would this be open to challenge by men who are excluded?

Original poster

Darkgreendarkbark · 27/04/2025 23:29

CautiousLurker01 · 27/04/2025 23:17

Granted and I don’t disagree… but service providers and employers have been pretty unreliable in understanding and complying with the law. And I don’t feel it down to women to police, but both men and women to hold those organisations to account?

We’re probably agreeing with each other but talking at cross-purposes?

Perhaps, yes! I'm all in favour of holding them to account. They have been unreliable, but they've had authoritative voices telling them they had to allow self-id. Now they know they don't have to listen to those voices. I hope most will be quietly relieved.

In terms of reporting individual incidents, for me I'd want any inappropriate behaviour dealt with immediately, no "oh but you should just avert your eyes from her penis, there's no man there", more like "we will get security on it right away". Something like "there's a young woman in the men's section" I do think is more delicate, it's not a predatory situation, just a bloody awkward one, and one where the risk goes the other way. I don't know how a service provider should best deal with it in the moment, but I do think it's a different kettle of fish, and hopefully one that will go out of fashion. I'm not sure how keen transmen are to use male facilities anyway. In my limited experience, they tend to avoid it. Access to men's spaces certainly isn't their driving force.

OP posts:

CautiousLurker01 · 27/04/2025 23:17

Granted and I don’t disagree… but service providers and employers have been pretty unreliable in understanding and complying with the law. And I don’t feel it down to women to police, but both men and women to hold those organisations to account?

We’re probably agreeing with each other but talking at cross-purposes?