Aren’t the front pages and headlines glorious!

[SameyMcNameChange]

I know there is a fair amount of bandwagon jumping, but it feels like the newspapers have finally read the room and realised that the SC ruling is welcomed by FAR more people than it disappoints. And so the front pages have smiling faces and headlines that would never have been published before.

Even, for example, the Metro which has had a pretty shocking record before has a pretty clear headline and a picture of smiling women.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czd3jg60q4no

For the purposes of applying the act, it makes no difference if a man has a GRC or not. The judgement explains why in depth, there's several sections on it.

Don’t a lot of a toilets say ‘ladies’ or just have the woman in a dress symbol on the door? That’s another way it could be got around. I really don’t think we’re going to see major moves at the level of your local bars and restaurants etc not yet anyway

This!

Considering how much large parts of the press have tried to skirt round this issue, seeing it be the headline on every paper and the lead story on the BBC news two days running is nothing short of bloody brilliant.

A single sex lavatory doesn't have to specifically state the words, and relevant section of the Equality Act, on the door. If it is designated for women - however that designation is communicated - then it is for women. It's not a workaround or loophole to claim the universally understood symbol for 'ladies lavatory' now means 'anyone in a dress lavatory'.

@NoBinturongsHereMate I think this is where I've been getting confused. I thought that only workplaces had to provide single sex toilets/changing rooms. But bars etc exempt from having to provide these under the EA could say 'Womens' but it not actually mean single sex.

I hate them, hope they will start disappearing now.

It was hilarious. This bit:
In terms of the broader effects of the decision, there is some suggestion that this might affect women-only groups that wish to exclude trans women. It won’t. The law permitted such exclusions already. (Although it may be that some groups would feel more confident in using them after this decision.)

The SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT (and countless other orgs) were telling them the exclusions didn't allow them to exclude transwomen! And I didn't see this idiot busy correcting them!

You should be right but I think probably a lot will still plead ignorance on that score.

My hope is that places that don’t need to provide single-sex facilities and pretended that they did will now do a proper risk assessment based on the fact that those facilities are defined as mixed sex. I don’t know if they need to, but I’d hope a large organisation like M&S would need to for insurance purposes.

I don’t know how I’d go about finding out about something like that.

He's an utter twit. Aqua Reindorf took apart his article on X.

EH SORRY SLIPPED OOT O CAPS LOCK THERE

Bunty?

No. The EA doesn't specify that anywhere must provide single sex lavatories. But if they provide any type they must do so in a way that doesn't directly or indirectly discriminate against any protected group unless such discrimination is permitted as an exeption under the EA.

The EA permits discrimination in the form of limiting the Ladies to women and the Gents to men, but doesn't make provision for other groupings. Fully mixed sex is fine if women are not disproportionately disadvantaged (and any relevant regulations for the safety and privacy of mixed sex facilities are met). Single sex is fine. Sort-of-single-sex-but-not-really is not allowed - because that's not a permitted exception, or a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim. Gents plus Unisex is not allowed - because that means women are given less provision than men.

Ah maybe it's not toilets. But the EA does state that changing rooms in the workplace must be single sex right? As in the Sandie Peggie case

Gents plus Unisex is not allowed - because that means women are given less provision than men.

So that means the universities that only provide Gents and Unisex are breaking the law?

But the EA does state that changing rooms in the workplace must be single sex right? As in the Sandie Peggie case

That's the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, rather than the EA. And schools come under separate legislation as well.

So that means the universities that only provide Gents and Unisex are breaking the law?

Yes.

The Sandy Peggie rule is the Health and Safety at Work Act, not the EQ. The H&S act states that is someone is required to change at work as part of their job then single sex changing facilities must be provided.
Not sure what the H&S act says about loos.

H&S has stipulated required numbers based on number (and sex) of staff.

@Arseynal @NoBinturongsHereMate thanks for the reminder about the H&S act in terms of workplace single sex requirements . I've been focusing so much on the EA I'd completely forgotten about that

the daily mail is always very factually accurate. It’s frequently the interpretation which is problematic for me

I seem to have been seeing more labelled ‘female’ in the last few years, which I think was sensible places quietly clarifying they meant actual women.

That one has always baffled me. What do they think is observed when a pregnant woman has a scan?

And how is gender assigned? Do the midwives have a rota? “Your turn to assign genders today.” “No, it’s your birthday, you can do this one!”

And, of course, many women do not wear dresses.

Has Keir Starmer given any comment as yet? I may have missed it but it's not looking good when on X he's commented on everything but this momentous judgement.