The guidance issued for consultation includes an example which makes clear that young children of the opposite sex are allowed in single sex spaces and that wouldn't make them mixed sex.

Not quite - young children of the opposite sex are not allowed to just enter. You can't have mobs of young boys mucking around in female toilets due to some sort of loophole.

But women are allowed to bring them in, accompanied.

The judgement highlighted that if employers chose to make everything mixed sex then women would have a case for sex discrimination because of the lack of single sex changing rooms, toilets etc. Have a read of this from solicitors Irwin Mitchell:

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b3975d75-3502-42e9-a31a-7a5836f1b1c7

From my admittedly partisan perspective isn't all this hedging, delay, attempted obfuscation and prevarication just making it worse for everyone, especially transpeople? When the SC decision came out everyone (except the ones who called them bigots who'd taken a bribe) thanked them for the judgements clarity. To then immediately pivot to...this! There's been so much, imo, unwarranted catastrophising(sp?) that i can understand why tp must believe there's an axe hanging over their heads. Waiting for it to fall must be agonising. People maintaining this state are being cruel. Although telling folk, mostly children, that everyone hates them and wants them to die has long been a feature of this ideology and its supporters.

This is stopping solutions being found and implemented that work for everyone. And the axe won't fall. It doesn't even, and never has, exist.

'have to' = 'must' = 'this is the law'

We also need to refer to the HSE legislation:

https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/workplace-facilities/index.htmwww.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/workplace-facilities/health-safety.htm

'Employers have to provide facilities suitable for any worker, including those with disabilities, which includes:

• enough toilets and washbasins for those expected to use them – find out how many
• agreed reasonable adjustments for workers with disabilities, for example, a worker with prostate cancer
• separate facilities for men and women, except where each toilet is in a separate room lockable from the inside'

My bold.

' to require the exercise of certain functions to be with regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and other prohibited conduct'

front of the Equality Act.

Discrimination is prohibited.

Excluding males from female spaces is permitted, if proportionate means/legitimate aim.

Failing to exclude males from female spaces by including those males who identify as 'trans' would therefore be indirect discrimination. And is therefore prohibited.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/introduction

It is a bit of a round-about-the-houses way of setting up single sex spaces. But there you go.

The Supreme Court clearly went to a good deal of trouble to make this judgment as accessible and readable as possible. I wonder if they're tearing their hair at the fuckwittery being applied.

I am aware of specific technical standard environments where MAY, SHOULD and MUST are clearly distinct non-overlapping meanings, and where SHOULD does mean "not compulsory, but advised".

But those documents specifically call them out in capitals to make clear they're using those specific technical definitions, not general English, where "should" absolutely can be a synonym for "must".

Particularly in law, where there really is no "should".

The law is not a technical standard - it only rules on what is permitted and what isn't - there's no "advice" component, meaning the binary legal/illegal line pushes "should not" into synonymous with "must not".

Yes - but I'm not sure how that can be squared with the law's definition of men and women (i.e. that makes practical sense to me, but seems inconsistent with the wording of the law). But I haven't studied this so am only flagging up my puzzlement here.

As a direct translation, this is correct, although I understand „sollen“ to carry a greater sense of obligation than your above translation perhaps implies (not a native German speaker, though, so will defer to you on this!) Certainly, in English, „should“ very much does. It represents a moral imperative that is starkly distinct from eg. „could“. This latter conditional is very much an either/or, whereas the former requires a particular response.

Fundamentally, though, I‘d suggest that, in many contexts, in English at least, „should“ „must“ have become fairly synonymous in many contexts. A possible analogy is the words „may“ and „can“. Ultimately, the outcome of the below -

One should not steal.
One must not steal.

should (ha!) be the same either way. The difference between the two is primarily in tone: one is an ethical directive; the other, a didactic imperative. The latter feels rather pedantic & patronising, more suited to children than adults, & this is, essentially, because the assumption is that the former suffices to set a clear standard for adults.

Democracy is founded on consent. Our policing is by consent. To focus so closely on the distinction between the “should“, with its focus on right versus wrong, as opposed to „must“, with its focus on can versus can’t, is to further degrade our social contract. It’s akin to the argument that there’s no point in single-sex facilities because there’s no way to enforce this: the staring point is a depressing assumption that people will not behave appropriately.

but where will the non binaries go??? 😱

What hateful bigots, I hope you're boycotting?

It is required in schools and workplaces.

In some regulatory documents, "must" is defined as "primary legislation says this" and "should" is defined as "we, the regulator, say this". In those circumstances it's used to signal where you might want to go to court against the regulator to show they are wrong in law, or where there may be some unusual cases where you can argue that a different overriding principle applies.

In these cases, the documents typically define those two terms explicitly and bold them.

In the EHRC document there is no such key, so we interpret the word in context. The natural reading of "should not" in the document is "must not", not "may". That is then put beyond doubt because the EHRC goes on to explain the legal logic, which shows that at best, it means "may, if you wish to lose the legal protection that the law affords".

I fear that this is the way things will go... single sex provision is not legally required.. therefore relabelling will be the way forward... the reasons why single sex provisions were originally created have been ignored and instead, women loose... great.

That one demonstrating that the EHRC listen to Womans Hour. The loopholes have been beautifully pointed out to them.

(Now, I don't know how the law handles the case of young children, because men and women are defined as being males/females "of any age". But the position on adults is crystal clear both in the judgment and in the guidance).

The guidance issued for consultation includes an example which makes clear that young children of the opposite sex are allowed in single sex spaces and that wouldn't make them mixed sex.

Yes, and the sooner reality is accepted the sooner people will realise that it isn't that bad at all. You can continue to privately 'identify as' you wish and you have certain protections if you do; but 'Sex' is real and has consequences which is why we have single sex facilities, services and categories.

Unisex facilities are available, or will be, if you require them.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/part/7

Here's the section on single sex exceptions.

26(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing separate services for persons of each sex if—

(a)a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and

(b)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing separate services differently for persons of each sex if—

(a)a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective,

(b)the extent to which the service is required by one sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide the service otherwise than as a separate service provided differently for each sex, and

(c)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(3)This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

No, in English 'should not permit to' is not equivalent to 'it is suggested that'.

If you want the literal letter of the law, you'll need to go to the Equality Act itself.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/13

Chapter 2 Prohibited conduct

Discrimination

I understand should to be the same as our Sollen; this is something recommended or suggested. Is this not right?

This is different from our Müssen - your must - which is a clear instruction to do something. In Germany, most legal documents will use Müssen when the law is clear and not open to being interpreted.

And how rude to suggest that people are so dim and unthinking.

I think that's what's known as the triumph of hope over experience

A very good analogy.

Pathetic. Very detailed breakdowns here. And how rude to suggest that people are so dim and unthinking.

yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51545-where-does-the-british-public-stand-on-transgender-rights-in-202425

Honestly, I find that a little disingenuous in the light of how this thread has developed.

I’m very confident that the whole ruling & associated guidance is very clear; I don’t really see the scope for different “readings” across its hefty pile of consistent, well-reasoned pages.

However, since others aren’t as confident, & have therefore explicitly asked for snippets & fragments as evidence exemplifying what I understand the whole is saying, I & others have provided these. There’s a certain irony to then use this to suggest we’re being selective in our readings!

At risk of being a bit cheeky, I think a better example of selective use of fragments may be your focus on the adjective “interim” here. The common understanding of this would be (clumsily), “guidance to keep us going in the meantime until more detailed equivalent guidance is provided”. The interpretation of “interim” as signifying “guidance that [even if while clear in itself] may be compromised in its final version” strikes me as dubious. I’d say if that were the case, “provisional” would have been the adjective used.

But here, again, I’m feeling pressured into a kind of nit-picking I just don’t seem as necessary or rational in the light of the eminently clear whole.