A worrying thought about the SC judgment

[PlayerOneReady]

Is anyone else concerned that what may happen now, in reality, is a big increase in ‘gender neutral’ facilities as organisations realise they don’t actually have capacity for a third space, at least in the short term?

And we all know from what we’ve seen in theatres, etc, that that will end up with effectively one ‘Men’s/with urinals’ and one ‘Gender Neutral’.

It was this story in today’s Times that made me think about it. I’m especially worried about gym changing rooms etc. Would we have the right to challenge if this does happen?

story:

Equalities watchdog inundated with questions on trans women ruling

https://www.thetimes.com/article/557269e6-2902-4b30-b873-4fac87ba6253?shareToken=131768232050262c20823acf6fe87c92

This is the key point - the safety issue only goes one way! Female bodies are never an equivalent danger in a male space.

It’s the plainest of plain facts.

I think the judgement is clear that certain single sex facilities are required for the privacy and dignity of each sex, plus some are required for specific purposes (like domestic violence or rape counselling)
So I think the people suggesting simply have unisex or gendered facilities have not read the judgement. Having unisex or gendered facilities leads to direct or indirect discrimination.
I am on my phone, so I cannot give specific paragraphs but from what I have read so far (to para 223), this seemed to me what it was saying.

Mixed sex toilets and changing rooms remain illegal under the 1992 Workplace regulations

(see Sandie Peggie and Darlington)

Good luck with EIAs!

The DfE enclosed the design of all secondary school toilets. Even single sex ones.
The reason this is dangerous is that there are groups of vulnerable children in each school with invisible disabilities like diabetes, epilepsy, heart conditions etc who are more likely to collapse. They should be covered under Disability and given reasonable adjustments. An emergency cord is not safe when pupils pre-collapse don’t have the ability or awareness to pull it. In fact all children need to be kept safe in a medical emergency, rather than out of sight. I asked for the EIA under a FOI. The DfE don’t have that information and referred me back to 1974 Health and Safety legislation. School toilet manufacturers, designers etc are following 2023 DfE guidance on toilets (the toilet section mentions ‘privacy’ multiple times but not ‘safety’) not 1974 legislation.

In schools and in public toilets, enclosed designs affect women and children more because they are more likely to be assaulted in them. Unfortunately that includes disabled toilets - because they are private and mixed sex.

Mixed sex toilets are called Universal Toilets in Document T (2024). They are not illegal. But they are not the safest design as they are fully enclosed. So if you are ill or attacked you have less chance of being rescued. To put it bluntly - they have a ‘safety’ mechanism of rejigging the door so it opens outwards -because a body stops the door opening. So these designs are never properly ‘secure’. The enclosed designs are also more likely to be smelly and dirty and give you an airborne disease.

Went to night school last night and every toilet had a new sign with men/women icons printed on paper over the previous single sex sign.

They all all closed rooms though with their own basins.

Just now you have to deal with raised toilet lids and piss everywhere.

Just like at work where all the staff loos are unisex. Every bloody time I use them there is piss everywhere and skid marks in the loo and they smell like a well used litter tray.

Could anyone please point to the relevant part of the judgment? I'm struggling to get my head around this.

If an organisation offers one toilet for women and transwomen (legally men with the characteristic of gender reassignment) and another for men and transmen (legally women with the characteristic of gender reassignment) then who is being discriminated against, bearing in mind the definition of discrimination for statutory purposes? Are women not being treated in the same way as men? I can see all sorts of problems, but I still can't see (even taking onboard the new interpretation of sex for EA purposes) why anyone is being discriminated against under the EA.

Several people have said the SC judgment explains, but I can't see where.

Presumably the SC ruling means that anyone has the right to object to the presence of someone they think shouldn't be in a single-sex space - a right which used to be acknowledged but which we were told we had lost.

@CherryFlan
Men no matter how they identify cannot be given more facilities than women.
That is sex discrimination

Gender reassignment is the wrong protected characteristic in this case.

The toilet is for women, therefore the protected characteristic is sex, woman = any adult human female whether they have the PC of gender reassignment or not. Therefore woman's toilet = women and women who are pretending to be men, who may call themselves transmen.

If men who are pretending to be women are allowed in the women's toilet, the relevant characteristic is sex, and therefore this would discriminate against other men who are not allowed to use the women's toilet.

PC of gender reassignment is irrelevant

This goes against Document T (2024).
If there’s any type of refurbishment they should now be single sex. With the option of a universal one if there’s room.

Thanks @Talkinpeace , that makes sense, but in the situation I described (the situation towards which everything seemed to be tending) men were not being given more facilities than women. They were being given exactly the same facilities.

Thanks, but what if the toilet is not for women? What if it is expressly labelled as for women and transwomen, and next door to a toilet expressly labelled as for men and transmen - is this discrimination?

@CherryFlan
Male toilets, female toilets, wheelchair toilets
nothing else needed

The organisation is not providing single sex toilets for women in that situation which they have always been legally required to do.

unless they’re fully contained cubicles with wash basins, in which case they’d be labelled unisex.

That's discriminatory on the grounds of sex because a subset of males are allowed to access the women's toilets, but other males are not.

Then it's a mixed sex toilet, surely, and therefore anyone can use either toilet, or there is discrimination on the PC of sex.

You cannot let some men in the toilet and not others.

Gender reassignment isn't a relevant characteristic, unless you refuse to let any people with that PC into the toilet correct for their sex because of their gender reassignment, then it would be discrimination based on that characteristic.

Thanks @WarriorN , this was the missing part of my thinking, I was not aware of that obligation.

However, if the SC judgment only gives us a sex-based definition of woman for the purposes of the EA is it still possible for transwomen with a GRC to claim to be women for the purposes of whatever the toilet legislation is?

But surely these ‘trans’ people can use the toilets for their biological sex?

i thought this was the point of the ruling, to define what a man or woman actually is?

However, if the SC judgment only gives us a sex-based definition of woman for the purposes of the EA is it still possible for transwomen with a GRC to claim to be women for the purposes of whatever the toilet legislation is?

NO
THat is the whole point.
GRCs are effectively loo roll now

If you can get the link to work, so people can share it properly, I'd be grateful!

Thanks, I think I'm beginning to get it!

My understanding was that the judgment only affects the relevance of GRCs in the context of the definition of sex in the EA.