Are toilets still allowed to be cleaned by members of the opposite sex?

I think it's perfectly reasonable for a venue to put up signs saying this female area may be serviced by a male cleaner/plumber. Usually if cleaning or maintenance is taking place they cordon it off anyway. I don't think the court ruling will change that.

Yes and Mr Muscle products can now only be used in Men's or Gender Neutral toilets.
I'm not lying, it's not made, it's a genuine new law.

It is obviously the latest ill thought out TRA take on Reddit.

Op, you seem a little over invested in toilets and who uses them.....

The latter.

The EA covers workplaces, provision of services (to adults and children), education (for adults and children), public functions (i.e. anything the government or LA do for adults or children), associations (including children's associations like girl guiding) ...

Then how do you explain male staff in female prisons/schools and female staff in male prisons schools?

There are obvious exceptions and no matter how much you squeal about little children in women's toilets it is still the law that they are single sex spaces and no men are allowed.

I would absolutely love a TRA to try and bring this to the courts arguing that as women take their young male children into the womens toilets that means womens toilets should be a mixed sex space and allow men in dressed as women. It would be the final nail in the coffin for any dwindling public sympathy for TW.

Indeed.

OP, you surely can't be that thick to not see the difference? Or is this the latest ill thought out TRA take on Reddit?

Lawyers are also very precious with their use of superfluous words.

The act was drafted for employers.
It's illegal to employ children in the UK.
There was no need to specifically say "a male of any age but not including children".

You think the word man can be used to describe a male baby?

Why did the Scottish Government lose then?

PoisedRubyLion has spectacularly missed the point that the EA2010 was drafted for employers.

The words in the EA2010 will refer to adults and adults alone because it's illegal to employ children.

The EA2010 doesn't even mention toilets. It's not about toilets.
It's about unlawful discrimination at work, or housing, or being granted benefits or healthcare.

The words man and women being "of any age" will refer to people "of any adult age" as this is implied by the very point of the act in and of itself.

Men obviously doesn't mean boys. The dictionary definitions are very much locked in to any act of parliament, it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

You are wrong on this. The EA defines man / woman as a male / female of any age to make clear that sex discrimination against children is unlawful.

There is nothing to say a biological male can’t use the women’s toilets or vice versa, it is just now since the court ruling venues can legally stop it, or remove the people. If the venue wish to still allow it they can.

‘man’ means adult male human being
‘Woman’ means adult female human being

It's the latter

Here are the words of the Supreme Court:

213. If sex has its biological meaning in this paragraph, then a service-provider can separate male and female users as obvious and distinct groups. For example, a homeless shelter could have separate hostels for men and women provided this pursued a legitimate aim, which might be the safety and security of women users or their privacy and dignity (and the same for male users). By contrast, if sex means certificated sex, the service- provider would have to allow access to trans women with a GRC (in other words, biological males who are female according to section 9(1)) to the women’s hostel. The following practical difficulties would arise. First, it would be difficult or impossible for the service-provider to distinguish between trans women with and without a GRC because, as we have explained, the two groups are often visually or outwardly indistinguishable. Secondly and more fundamentally, it is likely to be difficult (if not impossible) to establish the conditions necessary for separate services for each sex when each group includes persons of both biological sexes. For example, it is difficult to envisage how the condition in paragraph 26(2)(a) (a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective) could ever be fulfilled when each sex includes members of the opposite biological sex in possession of a GRC and excludes members of the same biological sex with a GRC. In other words, if as a matter of law, a service-provider is required to provide services previously limited to women also to trans women with a GRC even if they present as biological men, it is difficult to see how they can then justify refusing to provide those services also to biological men and who also look like biological men.

Run this through in your mind OP, first while considering the inclusion of men who say they are women in female only spaces, and second, while considering the inclusion of little boys accompanied by their mothers.

I hadn't thought of that, does it mean a 17 year old can use toilets for opposite sex or are the using a different definition for adult?

Caring for children isnt covered by the equality act. Little children will use the toilet of the adult taking care of them because they cannot use the toilet alone.

The word 'man' does not refer to a male baby.

Obviously.