Houses of Parliament refuses to ban trans women from female lavatories

I think this person is the mouthpiece for the HoC, should have guessed it's the Privy Council 🤣

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/lucy-powell

Eta Just googled her. She's the woman who made the tin earred remarks about grooming gangs recently.

And yet polling suggests that the vast majority of people - male and female, all ages and political persuasions - agree.

So we really need s plan of lobbying MPs and holding them to account.

Plus maybe not being a native English speaker, the implication of the word should is lost.

I'm not lawyer, but even to me, it means that you should do this, and if you don't and get sued, you'll lose.

I think you are spot on with this, yes.

This guidance from Irwin Mitchell is a very useful summary of the general responsibilities that employers and businesses have in complying with the law about sigle sex spaces. Written by a lawyer and answers some of the questions posed upthread:

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

First of all I admit I have never read David Copperfield, probably never will. Me and Dickens just don't get on. But all these people and organisations who claim to be waiting for the final guidance don't half put me in mind of Micawber. Hoping 'something will turn up' and they won't have to deal with the trantrums from the activists. For Gawds sake just rip the plaster off, get it over with, it's the law and it's perfectly clear.

I wonder if some people think that as the SC judgement doesn’t explicitly say “you must ban transwomen from female toilets”, then it isn’t law. A bit like when a parent at school protested her son’s exclusion for bringing alcohol to school because the school rules did not explicitly state “pupils must not bring cans of beer to school to drink with their lunch”.

@BeizenderKarneval

I could not find anywhere in the SC ruling any clause that states it is a requirement to ban trans-women from female bathrooms. I know you want it to be there, we all do, but I don't think it is.

I understand your confusion now, I think.

The SC case was about public appointments reserved for women, and whether a male with a GRC counts as a woman for those purposes under the EA.

To answer that question, the SC had to clarify the general legal principle. Having clarified that principle, it is clarified wherever that principle arises.

It was already settled and legally uncontroversial law that if you are relying on a single-sex exemption under the EA, you cannot legally permit people of the other sex to access the facility (if you do, you lose the protection of the EA single-sex exemption). We now know that "sex" in this case means "biological sex". The rest of the logical structure of the law is unchanged, so the SC doesn't need to cite and explain every possible case where this applies ("and also single-sex provision in clothes shops, and caravan parks, and on Wednesdays, and in Glasgow"), etc etc ad infinitum, in order for it to apply to those.

You mentioned not being a native English speaker, so perhaps you are familiar with a different legal system. But in a common law system the above approach is not confusing.

That said, this SC judgment does go a long way to explain how it applies, beyond what lawyers would need, because it's been written for a wide audience.

Businesses have to abide by laws and rules if they are to exist, and survive.

Legal action will be taken because there are plenty who are committed to doing so. How do you think this definitive ruling was achieved in the first place. Plus the many others before it?

All employers have to provide single sex facilities, and all schools need to have separate facilities for children from the age of 8 years old.

For handy reference: @NecessaryScene ’s posts at 07.20, 07.31 and 07.33.

@BeizenderKarneval you asked for signposting to the relevant sections but forgot to acknowledge @NecessaryScene, while engaging with subsequent posters.

The ruling, and the guidance, so far, is very clear. Which bits do you think are open to interpretation?

Yes. And that was its first mistake

😁

That was inevitable.......gradually they'll come round. All of this is simply bravado along with a big dose of denial and continued wishful thinking.

That is what it would be. So that is what it should be called...so that everyone understands what it means. Words have meanings. Without common agreement they have no meaning whatsoever.

The purpse of the ruling was to bring CLARITY.

Olive, perhaps you could directly reference more of the replies, citations & commentary posters are providing. These seem quite wide-ranging & thorough to me. If you addressed earlier evidence etc. more directly to clarify why, despite this, you still hold the views you do, perhaps we could then drill down even more deeply into the fundamentals of our disagreement.

I think many of these things are protected by a business' right to have whatever sort of themes and gimmicks they like.

I'm unaware of this right. Where can it be found?

There are plenty of restrictions on what sorts of themes and gimmicks a business can have in controlling access to facilities ("Whites or unicyclists only", "Left-handers and straights only", "To enter here you must moo as a cow"). Two of those are illegal, one of those is almost certainly not.

What is beyond doubt is that "women and trans women only" is in the illegal category.

It will make it to court because plenty of people care very much about this topic (on all sides). A case about "women and transwomen only" won't make it very high up the court system now, because the supreme court has clarified the GRC case, and the non-GRC case was already clear. The decision will be in the lower courts and will be in line with the law.

It’s not a new law. The question that was asked is “This law (that already exists), when it says women does it mean women, or can it also mean trans-women?”. And the answer from the SC was, “It means women”
No new legislation, just clarification of what already existed.

My point isn’t to say I agree with the guidance. Just that the guidance is equally open to interpretation. People pick out single phrases and claim that’s what the guidance is saying. Others pick out other single sentences.

it’s a typical ‘non directive directive’ that just isn’t helpful. It is an interim guidance so does that mean there will be a definitive guidance? I am very much hoping it is black and white with no space for people on different sides of the argument being able to haul out fragments to use to support their narrative.

Your Train of conversation is fondly imagining that most women want mixed sex toilets and changing rooms, and therefore that's what they will be, mixed sex.

That teens, women with their children, little girls, boys under eight, etc, are happy to share their changing rooms and toilets with men.

you believe that no one will challenge this as indirect sex discrimination.

The issue is, is that it will be indirect sex discrimination.

So even if you're right (you're not), the law disagrees.

I’m actually laughing at MyOliveHelper’s efforts to make the ruling seem ambiguous. It’s really not, and even my super trans-supporting workplace has managed to respond appropriately to the ruling!

We have unisex toilets at work. Completely closed stalls, sinks in each stall, etc. These are legal because they are designed to be unisex.

However, in the basement where bikes are stored there are showers and toilets shared by all companies in our building. These are separated into men’s and women’s facilities, ie by sex.

Our HR dept has already let everyone know that the ruling means that there is no change to the toilet set up in the office, but trans employees need to use the shower in the basement corresponding to their bio sex when and if they ever use them.

It’s very straightforward.

Actually no need to amswer

What is the 'feel' of a single sex environment?

Femme and masc, how quaint. Will we use according to what colour our clothes are?