Single sex - a poll

[andtheworldrollson]

IABU - single sex anything is no longer sensible as it is harmful to too many people and can’t be policed anyway

IANBU - we still need some things (sport or changing rooms , hospital wards , rape support ) to be single sex despite the issues

It’s not a question of doing away completely with single sex provision or not.

Why is people’s thinking so binary, where is the nuance?

Yes, sometimes, in some contexts, single sex provision may matter for a range of reasons. We do not have to exclude trans people to maintain these services in a reasonable ,
proportionate and non discriminatory way.

IANBU. I'm confused by the perspective that sss are 'no longer sensible'? Has the world turned into a equal utopia overnight without me realising? Are women suddenly free of disproportionate vulnerability that needs mitigating?

A lot of the 'be kind' message actually working depends on everyone being good faith actors, free of bias or darker intentions. Until that's the case we need to take pragmatic steps to safeguard certain categories. We can't legislate for an ideal world, we need to legislate for the world we have until the problems are fixed if they ever are.

Ideally we need five spaces. So: 'male', 'female', and 'accessible' (disabled), then add a new 'mixed' space which would be fully enclosed like the accessible toilet but for anyone to use including trans and non binary people. Finally we need a 'family' fully enclosed space for people who need baby changing or where the parents' sex is different from the child's.

There are situations that single sex spaces are necessary and this can be for a myriad of reasons - rape crisis, refuges, prisons, sports. I do think the option of mix sex is fine for those who want them but there should be single sex spaces available for women (and men) who want them.

Until women achieve equality and feel safe, single sex spaces are necessary. I don't think we should be discriminating against trans people at all but not allowing them access to female only spaces is not discriminatory, especially where there are mix sex options available.

We do have to exclude trans people of the wrong sex in order for it to actually be single sex though.

Of course we need single sex provisions, and always will. The whole point of safeguarding is to protect the more vulnerable. I would not want to send my newly independent 9yr DD into a mixed sexed toilet knowing how many paedophiles and rapists there are walking around. Half the time even if they are convicted they are still released, just a slap on the wrist.

Those enclosed cubicles are actually very unsafe for anyone who suffers from medical episodes and should be banned, and those that have an open bit at the bottom have been proved not to work for the safety, dignity and privacy of women in a mixed area. How many surveys need to be done before it's accepted they do not work?

Why, oh why, do we have to keep arguing for things that actually work because some people get upset (or for cost cutting purposes) for things that DO NOT WORK for the majority?

'We do not have to exclude trans people to maintain these services in a reasonable , proportionate and non discriminatory way.'

Yes. We do. And this has been explained on threads you have been on over and over.

If a male person enters a female single sex provision, that immediately makes that space mixed sex. If a provision is not needed to be single sex, then it should not be single sex and everyone is welcome.

Your post is contradictory. If you agree single sex is sometimes required then that will be for women only. As defined in the ruling.

Actually it’s not contradictory at all, but a lot of people are confused. The ruling hasn’t helped with this confusion, particularly as it is being manipulated by people who want to use it to further their own political agenda. This article provides a helpful summary of what the ruling actually means;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/16/supreme-court-definition-woman-judges-law

An article relying on the term ‘cis woman’ isn’t worth bothering with.

We’ll see organisations that have to provide single sex respond.

Here’s a clearer summary from the BBC

What does the ruling mean in practice?

Public bodies - from the NHS and prisons to sports clubs and businesses - will already be reviewing their policies.

Women's toilets, changing rooms and other single sex spaces will be for biological women only.

Gosh I wonder who you think should be the arbiter of what constitutes discrimination?

You can’t be bothered reading anything informative that you suspect might not agree with your pre-existing political opinions. I’m not the least surprised.

if institutions respond in this way the BBC suggest, it is not because of any actual change in law but rather a cynical misuse of the judgement to advance a particular political agenda.

And I’m not surprised you’re relying on an article using unclear agenda driven and politically aligned language.

I’ve quoted the BBC, which isn’t just an opinion piece.

Here’s the clear BBC on the outcomes.

Including a statement from the EHRC. I’m happy with what they are putting forward.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g27n80lnjo#:~:text=Women's%20toilets%2C%20changing%20rooms%20and,correspond%20to%20their%20biological%20sex.