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.

Exclusion of all males

I don’t still don’t understand why it’s relevant re a person being post op. Before the GRA entitlement to be treated as a woman was based on surgeries and treatments and passing. The GRA superseded this. We no longer take those things into account at all. You only have to have followed the Peggie case to understand this. There were no questions from NC on whether or not Upton had had surgery or how far into a medical / surgical tradition he is. Those things are irrelevant now. All that is necessary is a declaration of “I am a woman” and then whether or not that person is a GRC holder. Questions about medical transition status are now considered to be private medical information. There is no way that a court would be using this to decide a case.

And how would an employer possibly enforce such a policy anyway?

That's para 27 of Schedule 3 which as I keep repeating is only relevant to service providers.

I’ve read plenty of legal commentary suggesting that men in women’s spaces could be construed as sexual harassment. I think in the light of this ruling that will be a stronger position.

Provision of toilets is a service, and the employer is a service provider. There is no distinction between providing services to employees or to others.

Where is it written in the Equality Act that there are no exceptions for single sex spaces in workplaces, please?

Exactly.

That’s interesting thanks for sharing. I still don’t understand how a changing room policy could possibly be based on level of medical transition. How can that be practically enforced in an employment situation?

This predates the SC ruling.

Maybe it’s a sign of the times. Back in 2003 nobody could foresee how harmful transgender ideology would become. On the plus side if Croft is still relevant it presumably only applies to a vanishingly rare number of men who have had the chop and they would have to share their pvt medical information to access workplace single-sex facilities. Also I presumably this could still go up to the SC because it appears to be a weird anomalous judgment considering everything that has happened since 2003.

Yes I know. But it relates to workplace facilities not provision of services.

Can you point me in the direction of any Employment Tribunal decision or court judgment that has applied Part 3 or Schedule 3 that apply to service providers in a work context? I am genuinely happy to be corrected if there are any but I am not aware of any.

The SC did not make any exception for men who have had cosmetic surgery of any type.

So how do you square the circle of women of certain religious backgrounds who are not permitted to share these type of facilities with males? The court has just ruled that yes, transwomen are men. This means if you have toilets that do allow males in, then these women are indirectly being discriminated against because they can't use those facilities and they have a clear legal recourse.

And yes harassment would be relevant if someone pestered to get 'special treatment' or made comments about women objecting to 'special treatment'. Anything that sets up a hostile environment for women potentially may fall into the trap of harassment too now, because legally women have the backing of the law to say that transwomen are men. Protesting might be ok, but all this business of forcing women to change venues to talk, placards which contain threats and targeting of lesbian groups etc, I'd argue have become even more contentious particularly in certain contexts (eg at work or within a university).

Can you point to where in the equality act it says SSE do not apply to services provided by an employer?

I am going around in circles here. Here is what I said upthread:

The single-sex services provision in Sched 3, para 27 relates to service providers rather than work. Section 31 brings in Sched 3 for the purposes of Part 3 (Services and public functions).

There is no equivalent provision to my knowledge in Sched 9 which is the work exceptions or in Part 5 which is the main work provisions.

Again, if someone can point me to any source suggesting that the provisions for service providers can be relied on in a work context, I'll gladly change my mind. But I am not aware of any. It's always been Part 5 and the relevant schedules for work cases to my knowledge.

And you are welcome to take a look at Part 5 and Schedule 9 (or anywhere else) if you want. I am more than happy to be corrected. But everyone just seems to be talking about Schedule 3 without appreciating that it doesn't apply in a work context.

The exceptions in the EA are not mandatory are they? They are permissive so an employer can choose not to use them. But the Workplace Regs are mandatory so employers are required to offer facilities to the each sex on that basis. IANAL so I don’t know the answer to this Q but could an employer not just say we are just following the Workplace Regs as required?

Agree.

No because those Regs predated Croft so I can't see a basis for that position unfortunately.

Following workplace regulations seems to be as strong a legimitate reason for single sex exemptions as is possible to have.

Not that I've noticed. Mainly still make and female.

I'll gladly change my mind.

I somehow doubt that

But these are two separate laws. I’m assuming you would make use of one or the other not “we’ll apply that one and if that doesn’t work we’ll apply the other”. Each law should work in its own right. Personally I think Croft is an anomaly (if it is still relevant after the SC ruling) that won’t stand up to a challenge (if that ever happened).

I think Croft has been superseded by the EA and the SC ruling.