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

Lol, the High court no less is quoted. One more time for the slow ones!

The High Court emphasised that where service provision is equal and separate for both men and women, this is unlikely to be true:

[61] …In a case where the provision of separate lavatories labelled male and female was materially similar in terms of the extent of the provision, location, and so on, I consider there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the “the female” lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex…

Nope. The case was rejected for no standing.

Nope. The case was rejected for no standing.

Already answered. No less favourable treatment. Anti discrimination requires a disadvantage be present for an exemption.

https://goodlawproject.org/resource/faqs-trans-inclusion-after-the-high-court-decision-on-the-ehrcs-interim-guidance/Is

"Some organisations have claimed, following the Supreme Court decision, that allowing e.g. trans women to use the women’s toilets would amount to direct discrimination against men. The High Court emphasised that where service provision is equal and separate for both men and women, this is unlikely to be true:
[61] …In a case where the provision of separate lavatories labelled male and female was materially similar in terms of the extent of the provision, location, and so on, I consider there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the “the female” lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex…

This means that service providers may lawfully provide, for example, women’s toilets which both cis and trans women are permitted to use, but from which cis men are still excluded."

https://goodlawproject.org/resource/faqs-trans-inclusion-after-the-high-court-decision-on-the-ehrcs-interim-guidance/Is

Lol, the High court no less is quoted. One more time for the slow ones!

The High Court emphasised that where service provision is equal and separate for both men and women, this is unlikely to be true:

[61] …In a case where the provision of separate lavatories labelled male and female was materially similar in terms of the extent of the provision, location, and so on, I consider there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the “the female” lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex…

The basic line is a space being in a state of undress. Overwhelmingly that's not the case for public toilets but would be for change rooms. Unless Ive missed something in my sixty odd years of public toilet usage, naked women doing their washing at the sink isn't a normal occurrence.

Yes, they didn’t have standing. But the “trans people” they were bringing the case with arguably did, and the case was heard, wasn’t it? The judge threw out your argument about “outing”. He also brought the workplace regs firmly within scope, which is another way GLP made the situation worse, not better, for TRAs and their allies like yourself.

Have you read it?

They didn't have 'standing'. I suggest you go look up what that means.

Quoting from Maugham spin 🤣

Women frequently use communal public toilet space in a way that would be exposing if men were there. Women fix clothing. Muslim women use it to adjust their hijab.

Already answered up thread. You have a habit of repeating yourself.

Why didn’t GLP win that case @Choppingwoodcarryingwater- it was one of their arguments? Why didn’t the EHRC get told to amend their guidance?

The basic line is a space being in a state of undress. Overwhelmingly that's not the case for public toilets but would be for change rooms. Unless Ive missed something in my sixty odd years of public toilet usage, naked women doing their washing at the sink isn't a normal occurrence.

So what disadvantage will à TIM experience from using male facilities that males without a gender identity would not experience?

But that’s what we’re all saying. The single-sex spaces that now exist and are expected by social convention in this country (and supported by the vast majority of the public in polling) didn’t just appear one day by magic. Those spaces were fought for and with good reason. The urinary leash was real. Elizabeth Fry worked long and hard to prove the need for women’s prisons. Statistics still demonstrate that the vast majority of sexual and physical violence against women is by men. In order to facilitate privacy, dignity and safety and thus full and meaningful lives for women outside of their own homes these services are now provided on a single-sex basis. The exceptions have all been proven over the course of history.

I don’t know what happens in men’s toilets, besides “we just want to pee” and abusing transwomen who try to follow the law, but women have more and potentially messier bodily functions than men, and particularly in public we need a private space to deal with those with some level of dignity. Periods mean that we may emerge from even a closed cubicle with blood on our hands, or we may need to rinse stained clothing. I have previously had to use the loo with my baby’s pram half-in-half-out of the cubicle (I.e. with the door open) because there was no other way of doing so while keeping an eye on him. We’re not just hanging out in there giggling and sharing tampons, whatever the Reddit crowd thinks. And our regular poster KeepToiletsSafe can regale you with statistics of why individual self-contained toilets are less safe for everyone.

People who argue that there is no need for these spaces to any longer be single-sex remind me of anti-vaxxers, who have never lived in fear of their child dying from measles or diphtheria or being permanently damaged by polio. They don’t (or won’t) see that our current state of relative safety (still not nearly safe enough as regards women from men) is specifically because of the systems and provision that others fought for.

But its not purely sex based because if it was there would be no need for other qualifying criteria.

Imagine having to quote from the Good Law Project to argue a point!

Already answered. No less favourable treatment. Anti discrimination requires a disadvantage be present for an exemption.

https://goodlawproject.org/resource/faqs-trans-inclusion-after-the-high-court-decision-on-the-ehrcs-interim-guidance/Is

"Some organisations have claimed, following the Supreme Court decision, that allowing e.g. trans women to use the women’s toilets would amount to direct discrimination against men. The High Court emphasised that where service provision is equal and separate for both men and women, this is unlikely to be true:
[61] …In a case where the provision of separate lavatories labelled male and female was materially similar in terms of the extent of the provision, location, and so on, I consider there would, in principle, be scope for a strong argument that a rule or practice that permitted trans women to use the “the female” lavatory but required other biological men to use the male lavatory would comprise different but not less favourable treatment on grounds of sex…

This means that service providers may lawfully provide, for example, women’s toilets which both cis and trans women are permitted to use, but from which cis men are still excluded."

https://goodlawproject.org/resource/faqs-trans-inclusion-after-the-high-court-decision-on-the-ehrcs-interim-guidance/Is

"I'm simply making the point that sex on its own isn't a qualifier for single sex spaces rather context is."

I mean your own words confirm that it's sex-based. Which means gender has got nothing to do with it, so how is it relevant what your gender identity is to access single sex spaces?