Page 19 | Are toilets still allowed to be cleaned by members of the opposite sex?

PoisedRubyLion · 2025-05-27T14:50:08+00:00

I see signs saying toilets may be cleaned by members of the opposite sex in a lot of places. Is this allowed after the supreme court ruling? If a male cleaner was in there it would be a mixed sex space.

Circumferences · 27/05/2025 16:48

PoisedRubyLion · 27/05/2025 16:43

Again, the equality act states in section 212 (general interpretations) of the Equality Act:
’man’ means a male of any age
’woman’ means a female of any age

That would mean man and women in the equality act would also refer to children.

Show quote history

The law implies it is an "adult male of any age" or and "adult female of any age" given that the EA2010 in it's creation addresses spaces for adult humans.

It's not rocket science.

Annoyedone · 27/05/2025 16:48

PoisedRubyLion · 27/05/2025 16:12

If we’re following it to the absolute letter of the law it is the same. It seems like common sense for me…

Transsexual have been around a very long time and using facilities. You could also say it’s always been that way.

Show quote history

Aaaandddd here comes the agenda. My bets on a #bekind followed by a scold when we say no. Any bets on 6ft transmen or are we going g for the “lovely trans friend” trope.

TheignT · 27/05/2025 16:47

Please no one do anything to make getting clean toilets even harder. It must be a horrible job and I'm thankful anyone does it.

HermioneWeasley · 27/05/2025 16:46

PoisedRubyLion · 27/05/2025 16:22

The Supreme Court says for the equality act sex is biological sex. The equality act makes provision for single sex spaces. Why would a male child using the space not make it single sex?

I don’t care that it has always been that way. How does the ruling allow that to continue?

Show quote history

This is such an abusive male tactic - if you don’t let adult male cross dressers in your paces we’re going to make it hard for you to take your toddler son to the loo

how dare you, how dare middle aged men snivel behind baby boys.

Greyskybluesky · 27/05/2025 16:46

Are you/have you been responsible for a young child @PoisedRubyLion ?
Not necessarily a parent, but in a capacity where you need to assist a child with their toilet needs?

Original poster

PoisedRubyLion · 27/05/2025 16:46

Circumferences · 27/05/2025 16:44

Man is adult human male
Woman is adult human female.

Any different "interpretation" is an incorrect interpretation.

The EA2010 refers to women and men.

The EA2010 tells you how it should be interpreted here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/212

Equality Act 2010

An Act to make provision to require Ministers of the Crown and others when making strategic decisions about the exercise of their functions to have regard to the desirability of reducing socio-economic inequalities; to reform and harmonise equality law...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/212

OP posts:

Kangarude · 27/05/2025 16:45

WallaceinAnderland · 27/05/2025 16:22

You'd be surprised. The lawyer Robin Moira White also made the same comment on Woman's Hour.

Show quote history

I am genuinely surprised and wish I hadn’t allowed myself to be drawn in.

Original poster

PoisedRubyLion · 27/05/2025 16:45

Circumferences · 27/05/2025 16:42

I very much doubt it seeing as these are not dictionary definitions.
Lawyers are pretty pedantic.

Show quote history

If you don’t want to believe it that up to you, but here it is in black and white on the gov legislation webpage. Oh, and it’s also referred to in the Supreme Court judgement.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/212

OP posts:

Circumferences · 27/05/2025 16:44

Man is adult human male
Woman is adult human female.

Any different "interpretation" is an incorrect interpretation.

The EA2010 refers to women and men.

JasmineAllen · 27/05/2025 16:43

PoisedRubyLion · 27/05/2025 16:30

I do understand the real argument. But I’m trying to understand how the law is coherent when some males are permitted and some are not. That is one of the reasons the supreme court rules the way it did. So it’s okay to break the law in some situations?

Show quote history

It's not breaking the law anymore than a male prison guard breaks the law by working in a women's prison or a female prison guard working in a male prison but I expect you know that you halfwit.

Original poster

PoisedRubyLion · 27/05/2025 16:43

Circumferences · 27/05/2025 16:38

Single sex spaces in the equality act refer to "men" and "women"

Not "boys" or "girls".

Children aren't men or women.

Did you really think in the dead of night before your exam revision, you'd come up with a chancy gotcha for some of the greatest legal minds in England? The act uses specific words for specific reasons.Children aren't relevant to the EA2010.

Again, the equality act states in section 212 (general interpretations) of the Equality Act:
’man’ means a male of any age
’woman’ means a female of any age

That would mean man and women in the equality act would also refer to children.

OP posts:

Circumferences · 27/05/2025 16:42

PoisedRubyLion · 27/05/2025 16:36

Section 212 (general interpretations) of the Equality Act:

’man’ means a male of any age
’woman’ means a female of any age

Show quote history

I very much doubt it seeing as these are not dictionary definitions.
Lawyers are pretty pedantic.

Original poster

PoisedRubyLion · 27/05/2025 16:41

ErrolTheDragon · 27/05/2025 16:34

single sex services can exist as a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.
excluding small children doesn’t fulfil that, excluding older children and adults of the opposite sex does.

Show quote history

The equality act doesn’t let you apply it selectively. If males must be excluded to achieve a legitimate aim, all must be excluded.

OP posts:

JasmineAllen · 27/05/2025 16:41

Kangarude · 27/05/2025 15:56

Is this a real question?

No, I think it's another in a long list of pathetic 'gotchas' - see also:

You share a bathroom at home with men so why not share public facilities
Not all TW are predators so you should be okay sharing with them
If men want to attack you then they'll do it anyway and designated single sex spaces won't keep them out

etc etc etc 🙄

Circumferences · 27/05/2025 16:38

Single sex spaces in the equality act refer to "men" and "women"

Not "boys" or "girls".

Children aren't men or women.

Did you really think in the dead of night before your exam revision, you'd come up with a chancy gotcha for some of the greatest legal minds in England? The act uses specific words for specific reasons.Children aren't relevant to the EA2010.

Original poster

PoisedRubyLion · 27/05/2025 16:36

WallaceinAnderland · 27/05/2025 16:30

Where does the law say this? The Supreme Court is clear that sex means biological sex in the equality act, and that act makes provision for single sex spaces.

The ruling relates to men and women. Little boys are not men.

Section 212 (general interpretations) of the Equality Act:

’man’ means a male of any age
’woman’ means a female of any age

OP posts:

navelgazing · 27/05/2025 16:34

A good start would be reading the actual judgment and its language, OP. Don't try a gotcha if you've not researched at all. I haven't read the judgment but rest assured that if the judgment has not been well formulated, new legal challenges based on loopholes will come along and be widely publicised.

PencilsInSpace · 27/05/2025 16:34

EA says it's lawful to provide separate services for persons of each sex.

The cleaner is not using the service. The toilet is not a service provided to him. He just cleans it. It's still a service provided for women only even if the cleaner is male.

ErrolTheDragon · 27/05/2025 16:34

PoisedRubyLion · 27/05/2025 16:30

I do understand the real argument. But I’m trying to understand how the law is coherent when some males are permitted and some are not. That is one of the reasons the supreme court rules the way it did. So it’s okay to break the law in some situations?

Show quote history

single sex services can exist as a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.
excluding small children doesn’t fulfil that, excluding older children and adults of the opposite sex does.

NextRinny · 27/05/2025 16:32

Is it the holidays already? I'd never have guessed...

WallaceinAnderland · 27/05/2025 16:30

Where does the law say this? The Supreme Court is clear that sex means biological sex in the equality act, and that act makes provision for single sex spaces.

The ruling relates to men and women. Little boys are not men.

ErrolTheDragon · 27/05/2025 16:30

PoisedRubyLion · 27/05/2025 16:22

The Supreme Court says for the equality act sex is biological sex. The equality act makes provision for single sex spaces. Why would a male child using the space not make it single sex?

I don’t care that it has always been that way. How does the ruling allow that to continue?

Show quote history

Probably because in the real world everyone who isn’t weird knows it’s generally not necessary to make the distinction between the sexes for little children.

Original poster

PoisedRubyLion · 27/05/2025 16:30

Dominoodles · 27/05/2025 16:20

Nobody fears being raped, stalked or beaten by a small child, and children are not what people are taking about when they say males in women's spaces. Come on. Be serious. You know exactly what the real argument is.

Show quote history

I do understand the real argument. But I’m trying to understand how the law is coherent when some males are permitted and some are not. That is one of the reasons the supreme court rules the way it did. So it’s okay to break the law in some situations?

OP posts:

Circumferences · 27/05/2025 16:29

myplace · 27/05/2025 16:26

You do have to start doing that. It’s a process.

You lurk outside feeling panicked and glaring at all who go in and out, you say loudly- Straight in and out, Fred. I’m right here. Shout if you need me!

And everyone understands.

Show quote history

Joking right 🤣

The exemptions in the equality act use the word "adult" quite deliberately

Funnily enough our OP here can't seem to find the actual wording. The rest of us have known it for years.

Chariothorses · 27/05/2025 16:29

@Kangarude @myplace @titchy agreed.

Helen Joyce pointed out a few weeks ago on x that men who say they are women (& those who wish to remove female human rights to privacy, dignity and safety from men) , often argue that because mums are allowed to take little children in to public toilets with them, as otherwise they couldn't go out, then women should have to accept adult men (including those who say they are women, regardless of sexual fetishes/ paraphilias/ sex offence convictions/female privacy and safety concerns) in spaces where women/ girls are undressed or vulnerable too. An argument that does sadly tell you more about the people demanding this than they might wish.

On a general note, where any males are permitted access to spaces like this, there have been numerous reports of voyeurism/ hidden cameras placed by men in these toilets to spy on women. And the very men arguing for single sex toilets for women to go mixed sex, later to be found guilty of abusing women or girls. Here's one for starters- a quick look online finds loads more
https://reduxx.info/uk-politician-who-campaigned-for-gender-neutral-town-found-guilty-of-child-sex-abuse/

What a strange coincidence.

UK: Politician Who Campaigned for "Gender Neutral" Town Found Guilty of Child Sex Abuse - Reduxx

A former councillor who argued for implementing gender neutral spaces in his community has been found guilty on charges related to the sexual abuse of two children.

https://reduxx.info/uk-politician-who-campaigned-for-gender-neutral-town-found-guilty-of-child-sex-abuse/