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.

Exactly.

The Hampstead ponds have updated their website!

The City Corporation is carefully considering the recent ruling of the Supreme Court. We remain committed to providing a safe and enjoyable environment for all. The City Corporation’s existing policies remain in effect at this time.

I don't know the ins and outs of how the Hampstead ponds are run (not from the area) but the issue now under the clarified Equalities Act is that women are being directly discriminated against because there is one pond that only men can use but no ponds that only women can use.

There are plenty of people commenting in the media, some of them with authority and highly confidently, who neither understood how the EA SSEs work or understand this ruling, and its significance. Some of it is genuine, and I believe some of it is deliberate disinformation.

I’m hoping that any organisations who have been misinformed/advised before will have learnt the lesson and get proper advice now.

If retailers decide to go with mixed sex changing facilities they might find sales decline.

When they do surveys that find certain groups are self excluding because they can no longer try on clothes, I'd put money on there being a change in policy.

Also when cases start arising and are publicised about incidents in mixed sex changing rooms associated with certain brands, once again the publicity isn't going to go down well.

Oo could be interesting.

I suspect that this is a case where someone will be willing to go legal...

Hands out popcorn.

Your opinion is not the law.

No one can change biological sex.

If something is single sex, it's single sex.

If something is single gender it's not using a legal term and runs the risk of discrimination either on the basis of another protected characteristic (depending on who is involved) because gender excludes certain groups.

I think we are going to see a swift return to single sex all over the place because organisations and companies can now say it's not our fault, we're not transphobic, the supreme court made us do it.

M&S included.

I'm not sure that is true. France has become swept up in the trans craze like most other countries, but single sex options are the norm in most french organisations and institutions.

Is it? Not in my experience?

"Yes, in England, there is a legal requirement for new non-domestic buildings to provide separate single-sex toilets for men and women, according to the government. These changes to building regulations, effective from October 1, 2024, also allow for the provision of self-contained, universal toilets, but these are only allowed in addition to single-sex toilets or as a substitute if space is limited"

It is obviously your prerogative if you are happy to to use pronouns etc, but that cannot be automatically expected of everyone else. Pronouns are a private matter to be negotiated between an individual and their nearest and dearest.

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.

That has always been the case as it is spelt out in the SSE in the EA.

Which by the way, althought Labour is denying it now, clearly shows that they intended that "for all purposes" a man with a GRC was a legal woman. And because this is what they intended they very kindly created a mechanism so that "when it was proportionate" a women's service could be biological women only.

So many people coming up with deceitful self serving revisions of the history they were part of in undermining women's sex based rights.

Nor in my observations. I've been in one restaurant which had single ocupancy cubicles with 'All Genders' on the doors, but all the pubs and other venues I can think of have single sex facilities. The new Aviva Studios in Manchester has just a very large mixed sex toilet area.....not a very comfortable experience.

Yes, Labour are as slimy as can be........still trying to suggest they agred with this all along, whilst at the same time insinuating that single sex spaces would be automatically applicable in only select types of circumstance eg prisons and refuges. The implication being that women's toilets and changing rooms would still be open to men with trans identities or certificates.

You know not only men excrete and piss right?

And the 'squat to avoid piss on the seat' vicious circle is a thing

Exactly. This was discussed. Sex is not “certificated sex”.

Well it's my opinion on how the law applies, and it's an area that I have particular experience in.

Look, I'd love it if Croft no longer applies, but given that the SC refer to it approvingly on one point in the judgment I don't think we can safely conclude that it's now bad law unfortunately.

What part of France? Apart from the automatic self-cleaning ones on the street which are gender neutral and w/chair accessible, and sometimes the toilet at the back of a very small café, any public toilet I've seen in France has been clearly marked for hommes or femmes.

Except for one on an autoroute rest area, which was only for men, there was no women's toilet at all, but hey, needs must etc..
It is etched on my memory as one of the most disgustingly filthy places I have ever been in in my entire life😱
But I don't base my opinion of all French toilettes publiques on that traumatic example!

However -
Even if mixed public toilets are the norm in other places around the world, they are not the norm in this part of the world, separate single sex toilets are 'normal' here and there's no reason to de-normalise a set-up that up to recently worked well for men and women.

Certainly found it pretty commonplace last time I was in London.

Yes I can imagine this happening as well.

However I work in a university and they are very focussed on getting the LGBT+ student approval. I'm not sure they will change their policies of "use whichever space you prefer" without a fight. The UCU are vehemently pro trans as well (and being taken to court for it). It will be interesting to see what happens.

Any space that is currently single sex is already considered a proportional means to achieve a legitimate aim. The only difference now is the SC has made it clear that those spaces cannot include people of the opposite sex regardless of if they hold a GRC

Female sex spaces (no men, regardless of GRC) are required where not provided such a space would cause detriment to (discriminate against) women and girls.

The only difference now is the SC has made it clear that those spaces cannot include people of the opposite sex regardless of if they hold a GRC

As I keep saying that is already the case.

That is what the SSE are.

That has always been the case.

The problem is too many people listened to Stonewall telling them it wasnt

In fact the ruling yesterday changes nothing in relation to single sex provision under the SSE.

What it has done is given a far wider remit to the right to have biological women only spaces, services, eg NHS and so on.

So on one level the win isn't for single sex services already operating under the SSE, but to any number of organisation that have failed to provide services on the basis of sex, but instead on gender identity.

The case by case aspect much vaunted by stonewall is interesting though. It actually refers to being excluded from spaces of your own sex due to gender reassignment. So as well as being excluded from all female spaces, a man who identifies as trans can be excluded from male spaces on a case by case basis if a proportional act to achieve a legitimate aim. In the ruling;