Supreme Court - are single gender spaces still allowed?

[DisappearingGirl]

I have a question.

The Supreme Court judgement makes clear that organisations are allowed to provide single sex spaces, services and sports which exclude all those of the opposite biological sex.

However, are they obliged to do this?

Can they still choose to define a space or service as "single gender" (e.g. anyone who identifies as a woman)? Or would this discriminate against males who aren't trans? In which case would they have to choose between "single biological sex" or "everyone"?

In the case of toilets, I think mixed sex (including "single gender") would need to be self contained, but not sure about the rules for other spaces / services / sports.

Basically I'm wondering if organisations can just choose to say, well we've decided trans women can still use our women's spaces/services etc.

In France most public toilets have been mixed for like forever..
First time l went in the 70s l found it " weired " but then it just became normal.
I mean there is always cubicles.

I think men would be able to challenge this on the basis that they've been excluded, which would be sex discrimination.

Of course the single sex exceptions would not apply, because it wouldn't be single sex.

Basically I'm wondering if organisations can just choose to say, well we've decided trans women can still use our women's spaces/services etc.

My understanding is that they would, in certain circumstances, have to offer a single sex offering for women in addition to any mixed space, and that a women only service means biological women.

Just wondering what this has to do with anything? I had to stand naked other than pants in front of a bunch of male medics passing by for a medical exam in France. They weren’t examining me, someone else was. You think we should do that here too just because they do it there??

irrelevant.

Perhaps the solution is a bank of individual cubicles including sink, which anyone can use?

It's my understanding that if it says it's women only, then it bloody is. End of story.

But, they can say it's mixed sex and then it could be for men and women. But they can't say it's women only, and allow any men in irrespective of their status.

So if Marks & Spencer's have a woman's changing room, they can't let men in.

They can maybe decide not to label it anything, but when pressed claim it's mixed sex.

But I think women will be holding retailer's feet to the fire about this. 'Do you have any women only provision at all??'

And we know women only provision is completely legal. So this is just sending a message to everyone you can have women only provision, it's totally legal, and you can refuse entry to men - irrespective of what they say, and what tickets they have.

It has, in one fell swoop, got rid of validation for fetishists.

Because they're not interested in mixed sex. They only ever wanted women only.

that's my understanding, but yes, I'd like to know, legally speaking, exactly what retailers and service providers can actually say and do.

A local bar has decided that either sex can use both sets of toilets that clearly used to be single sex. Not enclosed cubicles with a sink. Apparently women are welcome to use the urinals or the cubicles in the former men's. I'm not sure if they are breaking the law. Can I insist on single sex toilets?

I'd like to know the answer for that too.

Is my impression that it would be discriminatory to women not to provide single sex. Indirect discrimination where women are affected more than men, because mixed sexed toilets where women are vulnerable are more dangerous for women.

but it's great that people are trying to ascertain exactly what their rights are.

I'm wondering what the implications are, if any, for Sandie Peggie's case against NHS Fife and the Doncaster nurses.

Much as I (want to) love the NHS their managers need to be made to feel this.

You mean can an org decide to only provide mixed sex spaces and individual units?

The ruling is that a male remains a male under the act.

Where the law says that separate provision for men and women must be provided the org can choose not to comply with their legal obligation and be sued under the act by both women and men. And or be subject to other legal punishments. Eg If a work place then fails to provide SSS toilets it could be isssued a closure notice under H&S untill such time as the org complied with legal obligations ( changes the policy to SSS)

If the org decide on some males in female only "things" or females in male only " things" so it a mixed sex group they are engaged is sex discrimination against the sex they mainly exclude as they loose the SS exemption.

Look at the local planning legislation and specific permission for that premises and then go after the bars licence. The urinal will not be a proper provision for women but the original application would have 50%/50% split on F/M customers. So the argument would be the LA is allowing sex discrimination as provision would be 100% for males but only 50%+ for females

From memory most bars which were contacted 2/3 years ago decided they did not want to test the LA

The Sarah Surviving court case should clear this up. She asked a rape crisis centre to run an additional single sex group as well as their mixed sex groups but was refused. Hopefully she will win and it will set a precedent. Today has got to help her case.

I believe that if it's a workplace, there have to be separate women's and men's facilities, and with this court decision, that means that workers can insist on women and men being recognised, with nothing nebulous about it. That makes it look as if Sandie Peggie, and the other nurses in Darlington must win their cases.

On the other hand, if it's some other situation involving customers rather than workers, I'm not so sure. A business owner might say that their policy is that claimed gender rather than biological sex is what's important on their premises, as in Marks & Spencer changing rooms. Can a user of those facilities claim that "When you say it's for women, it has to be that way, according to the Supreme Court's definition"? Maybe that's going to emerge later on.

I’m looking forward to the retailer’s responses. John Lewis, Marks & Spencer, New Look - what are you going to do to comply with the outcome?

But in reality, this set-up ("urinals and cubicles" and "just cubicles" instead of Men and Woman) is pretty common in pubs and the like, isn't it? Espcially in the big cities.

The EA requires organisations/ service providers , in instances where they wish to exclude any group with protected characteristics, to show that this is a proportionate approach to achieving a legitimate aim. So, if it is legitimate and proportionate for women’s dignity or safety to provide a single sex service/provision, then to uphold the legitimate/ proportionate aim this needs to be single sex and not mixed sex via trans inclusion.

There are some laws requiring provision of single sex facilities (eg school toilets) but not many.

As discussed over the years on this board, it is difficult to see how a service for individuals who identify as women (regardless of sex) could be seen as legitimate/proportionate in relation to excluding men. Why would it be OK to include some men, on the basis of how they feel about themselves and not others. This is where ‘trans inclusive women only services’ are likely to fall short of being justifiable.

No thanks. I don’t want to follow a man in after he’s done a humongous smelly dump or pissed all over the floor and seat 🤮

Can they still choose to define a space or service as "single gender" (e.g. anyone who identifies as a woman)? Or would this discriminate against males who aren't trans? In which case would they have to choose between "single biological sex" or "everyone"?

You've got it right. They can either provide single-sex spaces (women only, or men only) or they can provide mixed-sex spaces. What they can't do is provide single-gender spaces, eg women and trans women or men and trans men, because if you allow some biological men in, but not others, you're discriminating against men.

Single gender would be problematic. If you create a service for women and those who identify as women then you treating men as a class unfairly.
Your service is in effect
Accessible to all biological females
Accessible only to those biological males who meet subjective criteria

So males and females are not being treated equally in the provision of the service.

There are problems with that set up - if there are door gaps then looking under/over if there aren't problems with people who are taken ill and can't be seen if they collapse. The risk of being pushed/ dragged in and assaulted. Issues with them being used for sex/ drug taking/ drug dealing. Camera being hidden etc.

How is that relevant?

Thanks all, these answers are reassuring!

I also agree with the point that now it's been clarified that the Equality Act means single biological sex, customers are more likely to demand/expect this to be available.

I do wonder if some establishments might try to cling onto their gender rules though.

I believe that if it's a workplace, there have to be separate women's and men's facilities, and with this court decision, that means that workers can insist on women and men being recognised, with nothing nebulous about it. That makes it look as if Sandie Peggie, and the other nurses in Darlington must win their cases.

I don't think I agree. We have previous case law such as Croft which said that employers must let trans employees switch to their acquired gender's toilets once they go far enough down the journey of transitioning.

The moment at which a person in the applicant's position is entitled to use female toilets depends on all the circumstances, including her conduct and that of the employers. The employers must take into account the stage reached in treatment, including the employee's own assessment and presentation. They are entitled to take into account, though not to be governed by, the susceptibilities by other members of the workforce. She must not be treated less favourably than other employed transsexuals but that is not in issue in this case. Her complaint is that being treated less favourably than the female workforce requires prior determination of the question whether she is entitled to be treated as a female, an approach reinforced by the statutory recognition of the existence of transsexuals.

That decision was based on previous human rights cases, not the Equality Act. Today's judgment concerns interpretation of the Equality Act.

That Croft judgment only concerns toilets at work though, where employers would have access to more information about the trans employees' transition than a service provider would.

The law remains a bit of a mess to my eyes, but at least we have some answers.

I hope that Sandie Peggie and the Darlington nurses win anyway as their employers seem to have just let the trans employee immediately switch changing room which is obviously wrong.

My understanding is that an employer like the NHS where staff have to change into uniform on site must provide single sex changing facilities. Someone more knowledgeable will come along and hopefully state the regulation - if my employer don't update their policy (which currently state that trans identified people can use whichever facility they wish, therefore rendering them mixed sex) I will be complaining as that is not legal.

For staff in the UK (this answer is from Chat GPT but reflects my previous understanding):

In the UK, the legal requirement for providing single-sex facilities for staff comes under health and safety and equality laws — primarily the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Equality Act 2010.

Key Legal Requirements (Workplace Regulations):

1. Separate Toilets for Men and Women

• Employers must provide separate toilet and washing facilities for male and female employees, unless the facilities are in *a room that can be locked and used by one person at a time (i.e. a unisex single-occupancy toilet).
• This is outlined in Regulation 20 and 21 of the Workplace Regulations.

2. Adequate and Accessible Facilities

• Facilities must be suitable, clean, and well-maintained.
• They must have adequate privacy, ventilation, and lighting.

Exceptions

• If the toilet or washroom is a self-contained, lockable cubicle, it may be used as a gender-neutral/unisex facility — but this generally must be in addition to separate male/female provision in larger workplaces.

What About Changing Rooms and Showers?

• If changing or shower facilities are needed, separate ones for men and women must be provided, unless the space is used by one person at a time and can be locked.