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.

I think there may be more push back on whether making a space / group specifically for 'women' is necessary.

I'm delighted people can now ask for / get SS spaces and services when there is a genuine need. It's less clear if we need SS craft groups / book clubs etc.

I'm disappointed (but not surprised) at some of the anti-trans views I'm seeing on social media. Some people seem to be gloating about being able to use this ruling exclude TW socially, or speaking as though it becomes mandatory for groups to exclude TW if they use the word women in their description. I support including TW / TM socially and respecting how they want to interact with the world in situations where sex/ biology aren't relevant.

I think there is something to do with toilet provision where it's ok to provide mixed sex if there isn't room for single sex, eg in a little cafe.

Maybe women should start using the urinals. I predict that would change things pretty quick.

A health minister couldn’t answer what this meant for changing rooms / hospitals etc

I’m very happy about this ruling, angry women have been gaslighted for so long.

But I’m still not certain what we will see. I hope we get single sex spaces back.

For women = female only.

A book group for women recovering from domestic violence might need to be single sex. Same for a crafting group for women recovering from breast cancer.

I grew up with DV. Father was an utter monster. By my late teens, I was self harming, borderline anorexic, had selective mutism and crippling social anxiety. I was terrified of men. I couldn't go anywhere that men might be. I couldn't go in a shop if there was a man behind the counter. I once had a panic attack and hid at the bottom of the school field because I went to a school event (girls school) and there was a group of teenage boys there. For a year, the only place I went was the female only session at the local council run gym. No male staff worked there during that time.

So yes, we do need female only things even when women aren't undressing.

PriOn1 I agree, I think the landscape has changed. The GRA was 20 years ago and at that time it was understood to apply to the small group of old-school transsexuals who had actually undergone, or were about to undergo, a fair amount of medical treatment. Personally 20 years ago I was not bothered about the small chance of seeing a transsexual person in the loo. I do feel sorry for this group now that Stonewall and TRAs have upset the balance.

I don't think there was any such word as "transgender" or any such concept as just declaring "I'm a woman" back then.

We've also seen a big increase in cosmetic surgery generally (not just relating to trans) so the landscape has changed there as well. Plus the influence of the internet and social media.

I agree that if this is covered again in the present day it would have to take account of the current ruling and the current meaning of trans.

Incredible on radio someone told not to use ‘biological woman’. Just woman.

The ruling means we get our word back.

Amazing.

This is interesting and I'm torn on this!

Also I'm not sure if you're referring to mixed sex social groups or women's social groups? If mixed sex then yes of course trans people should be welcome.

If they are women's groups, I'm not sure how I feel. I probably wouldn't overly mind if a trans woman joined, but some women really need/appreciate a social space without males. Also I've read various accounts of certain creepy males trying to join as many women's groups as possible under the guise of trans (not suggesting for one second that most genuine trans people are creepy, just that this is an easy "in" for creepy blokes).

So, tricky one for me!

Also going back to the point about different rules based on how far someone has physically transitioned - the Supreme Court was clear that they didn't want to create two tiers of trans people with different rights (with and without a GRC) so I think the same would apply here. Also I think there would be a real risk of people feeling pushed into very invasive surgery they might not otherwise have had, which would be unethical.

Only if you’re a fan of Primark porn.

But that was in the context of service providers etc not employers. Employers will have access to more information.

The SC did refer to Croft on the comparator issue approvingly without any suggestion that it was affected. As I say, the underlying principle in Croft derives from Human Rights rather than the Equality Act and the SDA, so it doesn't appear to be affected.

I have not joined a couple of things which are for women as they admit men who identify as women. I did ask about this issue before and was told that was what they did as they admitted women clearly it was pointless continuing the conversation. I will now ask again

Can you define 'genuine trans'

This is the sticking point for me. What does 'genuine' mean. And someone can really believe they should have been the opposite sex and still get a sexual thrill from being in spaces intended for the opposite sex, the two aren't mutually exclusive (and actually, I would argue, are two sides of the same coin).

And why should we be taking that man's wants into consideration at all, when it comes to women's spaces?

@AmIHumanOrAmIAYeti thats a disgusting remark. I don’t like any porn and I think your response was idiotic. You just like how you sound.

Letting men into cubicles used by women, be they changing or toilet, gives them clear opportunity to hide cameras. It’s happening. You might be fine with it. I’m not.

I wonder what will happen with the Hampstead swimming ponds?

No. There is no concept of gender separate from sex in UK law.

You can discriminate on the basis of sex under the EA exemptions - e.g. you can refuse men access to certain jobs or groups or accommodation.

But you can’t discriminate on the basis of made up nonsense that has no legal status like feeling that someone has a genuine gender identity or not. You can’t say ‘only men with special feelings can come in’.

Yes it will be one of the many places to watch, If they want to call it a woman’s pond, they will have to exclude men.

I heard the head of the EHRC on R4 this morning. She was unequivocal that there is usually no need in Law to provide single sex spaces, but if organisations say they provide them and use the terms “men” and “women” they must be single sex. Like others here, I worried that many organisms will just go “mixed”. 😞

I don't think anything will necessarily change there. In an employment situation, it seems fairly clear that separate facilities for women and men have to be provided (except if locked doors are available). For anything else, a business or association can make its own rules, and they could say "Here you're a woman if you say you are", and the law wouldn't prevent that. (So Marks & Spencer could let trans-identified men into the women's changing rooms, or not.) At the Hampstead Ponds, apparently the City of London allows user groups to make the rules, and the Ladies' Pond Association has voted to have self-ID, so I expect that would be allowed to stand.

Yes, I see your point. I just wonder, with this and other similar situations, whether single-sex spaces having the weight of the law behind them in a different and clear away now might change some groups' minds as to how they make and implement.their rules.

Having trudged through the entire 88 page judgement, it has been clarified there that if a space is designated single sex a GRC does not apply.

Yes, I don’t see how a trans woman can use female toilets at work at any stage. The second a trans woman uses a female toilet, it ceases to become single sex provision and then you are open to claims under the Equality Act as women are being treated less favourably than men. The alternative is that the employer turns all toilets into mixed sex toilets that meet the regs for mixed sex toilets - separate rooms with washbasins etc.

I’m interested in what this means for the Girl Guides and the WI. Many of those organisations admitted trans women as they were told it would be illegal not to. I think this judgement means they can revert to women only if they wish without fear of legal challenge. But i dont think they have to? As theres no legal right to access women-only craft activities?

Or people just use the toilet appropriate to their sex, and if any male staff take issue with the male member of staff who is pretending to be a woman being in the male toilet, that the employer deals with this appropriately, ensuring that the man pretending to be a woman is protected from harassment based on his protected characteristic of gender reassignment, as is his right.

If the male member of staff who is pretending to be a woman doesn't want to use the male toilet, he can ask for special provision, again, as is his right.

What he cannot do is demand access to the female toilet.

There is no need to make all toilets mixed sex.

Maybe had that been what was lobbied for...

No they are on dodgy ground legally. They would have to be fully mixed sex legally. They are all using single sex exceptions. And “trans women” are men.