Supreme Court ruling

[Flybee]

Presumably my university is not alone in having a transgender policy that states, amongst other Stonewall Speak, that transgender people may use any toilet of their choosing?

Presumably this policy will now have to change?

I've seen that the NHS and other public bodies will be issued with renewed guidance - will the same be done for universities?

Thanks to @ThisJadeFinch for dropping all of the hyperbolic and legally incorrect arguments in quick succession

1. there is no reason for trans people to drop out of sports or public life. They can use the facilities for their sex class or campaign for third spaces or open categories in sports.
2. the test of something being “proportionate” is whether the single sex exemptions apply at all. If making a space, service or sport single sex is proportionate (and the bar isn’t terribly high - any changing facilities, toilets, sleeping and washing facilities, sleeping facilities, healthcare etc will qualify) then all people of the opposite sex MUST be excluded, regardless of identity and certificates. There isn’t an additional test for whether a single sex space can exclude trans people, if it’s single sex they are excluded.
3. I’ve seen a few men who claim to hold a GRC making this point about having to use women’s facilities or they’ll be committing perjury. I don’t find this very persuasive - for starters that’s an issue for the GRC process and not this ruling, which was very clear. Secondly given that trans men have not been prosecuted for perjury for having babies after being awarded a GRC, the risk of being prosecuted for perjury for using the correct sex facilities seems vanishingly small
4. this is not new legislation, this is a clarification on existing legislation

HTH

Our uni has third space toilets but they are also the disabled loos. I think in practice they are used by people who want a poo!

And this is how we can tell you’re a man. Only a man would think it’s better to have everything mixed sex anyway.

women’s rights to single sex spaces exist for reasons of safety, privacy and dignity, and we’ve finally got them back.

Trans men are not a threat to women. Because they are female. Men are not a threat because they wear suits or have a beard, but because they have a penis.

In any case, it is hard to imagine trans men turning up and being demanding and threatening. They haven't been doing that until now, in any kind of space. Can you guess why?

I’m a woman and I wear suits…I’m still a woman.

I think you’re confused about what perjury is. And in any event, gender and sex are different, so GRCs are not relevant to single sex spaces - that is precisely what the Supreme Court has confirmed.

There’s nothing muddled about the judgment - it’s crystal clear. Have you read it?

Because women want - and are entitled, by law to have - single sex toilets.

What you would like the law to be, and what it actually is are entirely different matters. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. And the Scottish and UK governments have, respectively, accepted and welcomed its clarification. Organisations will need to abide by the law. It really is as simple as that.

There will, no doubt, be lobbying to change the Equality Act. But that will need to go to Parliament. And those supporting that change will not have to do so in the full understanding that they wish to remove the protected characteristic of sex, rather than trying to do that surreptitiously, as has been the case up until now.

The perjury stuff is nonsense, by the way. You've just watched on to a somewhat tongue-in-cheek post that a trans person made on here today.

Give it a rest, why on earth would a goverment write a law that discriminates against half its voting population, aside from breaching the universal human rights convention.

There are risks with unisex facilties. Toilets are fully enclosed and they are risky for people with certain conditions such as epilepsy as it won't be obvious if there is a medical incident. In unisex changing rooms, women are nine times more likely to be assaulted than in single sex changing rooms. Because of male people.

It is going to be rather funny when women who have transitioned to being men start coming into women’s toilets, in suits, because they can. They can come into all women’s spaces, and there is nothing you can do about it. It is a very effective form of protest.

This is quite hilarious. Imagine! People wearing suits in the Ladies! 😆 Where we delicate sorts powder our noses and certainly never wear trousers, never mind suits!

The horror.

Back on planet reality, transmen are fine in women’s spaces as they are women and in practice also look like women (albeit sometimes with little wispy beards if they’re on T). I’ve not yet ever seen a transman who would look remotely scary in the loo. And a suit might actually make them look even more feminine, to be honest.

We have a very high number of Muslim students so even if atheist women were happy with it, then it wouldn't work.

I live in a city with two universities. I’ve had reason to visit the toilets in several of their buildings over the years while attending meetings or other events there.

I’ve attached photos of the two outer door to the toilets in one college’s JCR bar - stern porters restrict who can enter the college and there’s also a code lock on the door to the bar.

The two toilet areas are for Men, and for Bar Customers. The notices have been like that for at least the last couple of years. I’m going back in a couple of months so will check if the notices have changed.

I finished at Goldsmiths 18 months ago, and some toilets were gender neutral. Did us ladies use them - Hell No - the seat was always covered in piss and they smelt pissy despite previously being ladies toilets.

Who is 'they'? If you're referring to the female Muslim students and staff then the queues would be hours long and prevent disabled people using the toilet.

Why can't trans people get dispensation to use the unisex disabled loo?

That's a rhetorical question, btw.

I would also venture again, that if there was encouragement for people to be human first, a particular gender second, there would be less assault, in no matter what type of changing room. I’m also guessing that the amount of assaults in unisex changing rooms are relatively small compared to total sexual assaults.

Sorry, you say there would be fewer assaults if people were taught to think of themselves as human first and a particular gender second?

Men have always thought of themselves as the default type of human first of all. Doesn’t seem to have stopped them raping women, does it? They rape with their sex organs, not their gender.

Gosh this debate produces some - ahem - interesting ideas. 🙄

Because they aren’t disabled? And disabled people already have poor provision without it being reduced further by increasing the number of people who will be using it.

“Life has risk. To eliminate all risk from men, you can segregate yourself from men your entire life. That’s your choice, if you want to do that. I do not. I do not consider men enemies.”

You’re quite right. Eliminating or segregating men from women in your entire life would be bonkers.
Do you know what would be proportionate though?

Segregating the sexes in certain circumstances where women are more vulnerable, or at a particular disadvantage to men, in order to provide dignity, fairness and safety for women.

Off the top of my head… where women are partially clothed, naked, conducting intimate activities such as changing sanitary protection, competing in sports, giving birth, requiring intimate care….

Luckily, we have a piece of legislation that provides such legal protections. It’s called the Equality Act!

Increase the provision for who?