"Misandry is the root of all trans fear. Men’s fear of other men. Women’s fear of all men."

Reminds me of the reddit chap this week when told he had gender neutral facilities and could not use the women's single sex ones, trying 'but what if I'm really desperate and the women's is nearest...'

No. Not even if an emu walks backwards on a Tuesday playing the banjo.

Single sex facilities have to be provided and left in peace for the women who want and need them. End of. Just leave them alone. They don't want to play.

to be fair - if it were a decision based on maturity of the male... 😉

I remember Robin Moira “Barry” White booming on Woman’s Hour that if mothers can take male toddlers in, he can go in there too.

Id be inclined to say yes, provided he’s accompanied by his mum, both grandmothers, & all 4 of his great grandmothers…

I'd forgotten that GLP tried the "but what about mums taking little boys in?" line. Thanks for the laugh!

And Swift did indeed dispense with that spurious argument in GLP v EHRC. Not that chopping will acknowledge that.

The problem for those trying to argue a 'TRA' perspective is that life is really very simple:

• Man / Woman
• You remain the same for life
• Some spaces are for men, some for women, some for both.
• you can go into the spaces which are yours / mixed.
• It is biology / law / fact

really not tricky - the average 2 year old toddler understands the difference between boy and girl.

So from that point - all the discussion is simply a word salad, trying to find a way of changing meaning to allow something that simply is not legal.

It doesn't matter whether there is talk of context, feelings, genders, beliefs, circumstances, etc.

it always comes back to the same:
You are a man - this is a space for women - please leave.

It is that simple, there is no discussion any more - men do not enter women's areas under any circumstances other than when allowed (maintenance / cleaning / etc. - just to kill off that spurious argument!)

sex on its own isn't a qualifier for single sex spaces

Bonkers.

It's the only qualifier.

Women (currently) have the legal right to a space without men in it to use them as they wish.

I get you really don't like this.

You don't think women should be allowed this.

You're illustrating why women need legal protections and who from.

It really is the most ridiculous sentence, I struggle to believe anyone with level of basic thinking and comprehension skill could write it.

This has to be one of the most arse-backwards sentences ever written. Sex on its own is the only qualifier for a single sex space where providing a single sex space is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. Otherwise there is no requirement for such a space.

None of this changes the fact that single-sex services are both permitted by law and preferred by users.

Any argument that, say, single-sex toilet provision is equivalent to Jim Crow laws would be laughed out of court. And who is going to sue the HSE?

Service providers who allow selective opposite-sex use of single-sex services are asking to be sued, both for direct and indirect sex-discrimination. High Court says the result will depend on the fact evidence. There have been at least two cases where providing only a mixed-sex (ie 'trans-inclusive') service was found to constitute indirect sex-discrimination against women (because they are more disadvantaged by it than men are).

The only reason to provide a 'trans-inclusive' service is ideological, not legal.

There are two arguments for trans-inclusive services.

One: it doesn't vitiate the single-sex nature of the service, cf small children, plumbers etc. Rejected by High Court.

Two: forcing trans people to use services for their own sex, or a unisex alternative, is outing, and therefore illegal discrimination as to gender reassignment. Also rejected by High Court.

Jurisprudence currently has 'trans rights' on the back foot.

Your move.

Yes, the way some people use the word has changed beyond all recognition.

I remember reading the gender theorists of the 1999s [edit: I mean 1990s], who thought that cross dressing was radical specifically because it revealed there was no necessary connection between sex and gender.

And now some people are keen to claim that because they do certain gendered behaviours (eg wear women’s clothing), their sex is (or should be) different.

Do you think the categories have become collapsed in some peoples’ eyes? As in gender = sex? I find it fascinating that so many people are convinced their gender needs to match their sex.

I have seen legal argument that any segregation by sex, without the exemptions granted in the EA(2010), has the potential to be inherently discriminatory, even if the facilities are separate but equal. The shameful history of racial segregation suggests that this might be so.

Exactly, this claim is doing double duty.

Sex work isn't even illegal in this jurisdiction (some associated activities, like rape, coercive control, false imprisonment & sex trafficking are - and should be)

They have to make themselves out to be innocent victims, & at the same time, highly sexualised victims at that.

If anyone wants to read the judgment in full

https://www.iclr.co.uk/document/2026001063/2026ewhc279admin_TNA/html

He threw out the contention that the toilets couldn’t be “policed” and therefore single sex restrictions weren’t feasible (my bold)

^The final contention in support of this submission is that a reading of regulation 20 that require the lavatories in the room provided for men to be used by biological men, and those in the room provided for women to be used by biological women, would place too great a burden on employers, requiring them to either “police” the use of lavatories or risk prosecution for breach of the 1992 Workplace Regulations. This point is significantly overstated.
40.If the obligation under regulation 20 is as I have concluded, an employer who provides the lavatories required in the rooms required, and who in good faith adopted and applied a policy that the female lavatories were available only to biological women and the male ones only available to biological men, would do what is required by the Regulations. The employees concerned would know what was expected of them. Contrary to the Claimants’ submission, this is not to say that an employer’s compliance with regulation 20 will depend on the “minutia” of how the use of lavatories is managed. The notion that an employer or anyone else is required to “police” the use of a lavatory, person by person and day by day, reveals the application of a “logic” so strict that it is divorced from reality and from any sensible model of human behaviour.^

“While I am less certain than the Interim Update that a man prevented from using the Claimants’ trans-inclusive female lavatory would be likely to establish the less favourable treatment necessary to make good a claim of direct sex discrimination, I do not consider that the way the point is put in the Update is necessarily wrong. Rather, it is a point that may turn on the facts of a situation.”

this is why he doesn’t rule that EHRC are wrong to say it.

From the GLP v EHRC judgment, dismissing the point about “outing”

”On this issue, the circumstances of a particular situation could, as a matter of theory, lead to the conclusion that a requirement to use the unisex or accessible lavatory rather than an available single sex one might amount to less favourable treatment, but I consider this is likely to be the more rare rather than more common conclusion. So far as concerns use of public lavatories it ought rarely, if ever, be the case that a person using a unisex lavatory rather than an available single-sex one will ever be a matter of comment by others. One point raised was that the unisex provision is often labelled “accessible” or “disabled”. That is a current common practice, but it is not a practice that is invariable or need continue. There is no reason why, if only as a matter of sensible accommodation, the labelling could not change. A propensity for gossip is a feature of every workplace. So far as concerns gossip at work, no employee can expect not to be the subject of gossip about something on some occasion. Gossip is usually temporary; it is in its nature to be short-lived, as one subject is quickly overtaken by another. Up to a point, being the subject of comment by others is burden that anyone can expect to bear from time to time, and ought not to be a foundation for legal redress.
74.

Overall, I do not consider that either point (ix) or point (x) contains any misstatement of law.”

This is from the Supreme Court judgment FWS v Scottish Ministers itself, as quoted in Swift’s judgment - my bold

para 224

”Here too it is plain that sex has its biological meaning. The Inner House however, held at para 59 that “sex” in this context is defined as including birth sex for those still living in that sex, and “acquired sex” for those in possession of a GRC in the opposite gender. In our judgment, this would undermine the very considerations of privacy and decency between the sexes both in the availability of communal sleeping accommodation and in the use of sanitary facilities which the legislation plainly intended to provide for. If sex has a certificated sex meaning it is difficult to envisage any circumstances in which this gateway could sensibly be met since there would be no rational basis for saying that “for reasons of privacy” any communal accommodation and sanitary facilities should be used by women and trans women with a GRC (so legally female but biologically male) only, but not by trans women without a GRC who may be indistinguishable from those in possession of a GRC (and vice versa). This interpretation would run contrary to the plain intention of these provisions.”

From the judgment GLP lost against EHRC

they gave some bad arguments about letting TIMs use women’s spaces in the workplace being like letting a male cleaner in or a male toddler etc

Swift wasn’t convinced:

“Further, none of the examples above would be materially the same as the one of the employer who decided that the lavatories provided to meet the obligation under regulation 20 should be trans-inclusive. Rather, that employer has adopted a policy or practice to allow some biological males to use the female lavatory. An employer would not comply with the obligation under regulation 20 (to make sufficient provision in separate rooms containing lavatories provided for men and women, respectively) if he permitted the room for women to be used by some men and vice versa. That would go against the purpose of the regulation.”

he’s saying that such a toilet would be mixed sex and non compliant

That sub doesn't understand that its trans rights that they demanded have caused their problem.

Not only is a GRC only based on a diagnosis, the certificate itself is reasonably private. Therefore, for the service provider and service user, there is no difference to Fred before and after transition. Also Fred is indistinguishable from 'middle age cis man' Fred, and PC of GR Fred.

SSE are justified on the bases of sex, and designed to accommodate only one sex. Nobody can change sex, but if it could be demonstrated that a 'meaningful ' transition has taken place, that both service providers and users could live with, there's a good chance the courts would accommodate them somehow.

But reddit trans want to be women because they said so and to be in women's spaces.

Some now think its easier to move towards 'nothing without us'. If they cant use women's SSE, then they shouldnt exist.

That’s the bit Mr Maugham chooses to omit in his spin memo to his gullible supporters. That was stated in the judgment, in a way it had not been before.

I’m kind of in danger of that reading some of these posts tbh!

Yes exactly.

No no you didn’t. You would need to show that à TIM would be at a significant disadvantage if he used a male facilities that no other male would have. You don’t quite manage that.