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

More tribunals and money for lawyers.
Maybe fines by the EHRC who have been flexing a bit towards NHS Scotland but not actually done anything about fining them

Interestingly I think Lord Sumption seems to be reading this in a similar way to my interpretation:

The former supreme court justice, Lord Sumption, questioned the way Wednesday’s judgment had been interpreted.

Sumption said: “I think it’s quite important to note that you are allowed to exclude trans women from these [single-sex] facilities. But you are not obliged to do it.
“So, for example, the authorities of a sport such as women’s boxing, women’s football, are allowed to limit it to biological women. They were not in breach of the discrimination rules of the Equalities Act.

“But the judgment does not mean that the sporting authorities have got to limit women’s boxing or women’s football to biological women.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant

I love ‘trans men look just like men and must use their spaces’ in combination with ‘you mustn’t talk about women ever in pregnancy care or breastfeeding because trans men have babies all the time’.

As usual he’s thinking of it only from the perspective of the male with a trans identity. Women could and hopefully won’t have to argue in court that they were disadvantaged by having to play sports against someone male.

Paragraph 235 clearly uses boxing as a
n example of where physical strength, stamina and physique of the average woman would put them at a disadvantage to an average man.
The judgement goes so far as to call this disadvantage ‘readily apparent (indeed, obvious)’.

So if an organiser goes ahead and allows trans women into a boxing event for women, then this puts biological women at what the judgement has called a readily apparent, indeed obvious, disadvantage. And yet, what Lord Sumpton takes from that is that organisers can still go ahead and permit trans women to a women’s event if they want. Putting the onus on women again as the above poster says, to have to argue it out in court. Which costs.

So Sumption either hasn’t read the judgment or is being pedantic to show off how oh so clever he is - as lawyers often do - namely focussing on the fact that yes, technically, there is small de facto area of discretion to choose not to invoke the exemption but doing so in relation to facts for which it is glaringly obvious that it would be immoral and very much pushing the boundaries not to …. Either way it’s really unhelpful and disingenuous when there are lay people listening who will be using it as their main source of info - it’s pure ego.

Although frankly, I still think he’s wrong. It’s surely that it would need to be a SS or a fully mixed sex event otherwise you’re discriminating against non trans women males by barring them.

Yes, this fact is being widely misreported. It does make things worse for transwomen because it means that trans-inclusive things - even where everyone is happy about it - are technically illegal. Law needs a tweak. Although they'll probably make a right gender fudge dog's breakfast of it.

As others have said, it looks like there is scope for more litigation here.

It's not clear how Sumption has arrived at his view. Perhaps on the basis that discrimination against non trans-identifying men (by not letting them participate) is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim? Although I can't think what the legitimate aim is.

Non trans women males

love that - that is indeed the effect of the SC ruling

Thanks all for the discussions and views.

I think I’m going to bow out of these online discussions for a while. Need to focus on other things ! Happy Easter all!

I agree with you. This is the whole basis of the judgement, or more specifically, you would then be discriminating against those without a GRC and a piece of paper makes no difference whereas biological sex does.

Anyway, I also need some time for normal things. The ruling seems clear to me.

Sumption did not even know the correct name of the legislation.
Nuff said.

Oh believe me it can be understated if you really try hard enough. Clearly you lack stamina.

What does the law say? Workplace regulations in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland require employers to provide sufficient and adequate toilets. These must be separate facilities for men and women, except where they are provided as fully enclosed unisex rooms.

From Sex Matters website.

Yes, I think the glee with which Evan Davis received a number of questionable comments from Lord Sumption tells us very clearly whose views Sumption is most concerned with supporting. Davis seems to feel he's untouchable.

Law needs a tweak.

It really really doesn't. There's no circumstance under which women would need to exclude most men but not the ones in dresses. Either a space is mixed sex or it isn't.

Surely they can only do that if there are alternative mixed sex facilities for them to use? They can't have no option available to them.

As always it's the females who get the worst deal out of this toxic gender nonsense.

It's not just about need though. There are women who are happy to share space with transwomen. Is that any skin off our nose, provided that single-sex space also exists?

Not at all but I would lay heavy odds that all those women who are oh so happy to share their spaces with TW will mostly be in the women’s spaces

Yes, it will be an interesting exercise in market competition - provide TERF space and TW+allies space, and you may end up with total segregation. But I'm sure there will be women's clubs that genuinely want to be trans-inclusive.

TERF space? Is that how you want to refer to women’s single sex spaces??

Well that will depend won’t it?

women’s clubs being trans inclusive of trans men is fine because trans men are women so it’s still a woman’s club

if they want to be inclusive of men they just need to clear that it’s not in fact a women’s club it’s a women & men who identify as women club. As long as they’re honest it’s fine

if they want to be inclusive of men they just need to clear that it’s not in fact a women’s club it’s a women & men who identify as women club. As long as they’re honest it’s fine

Agree. But presently doing this might be illegal, and that could be fixed.

Think of it as like allowing religionists to have their place of worship.

TERF is not an insult. I'm happy to be one. But I was using it on this occasion as tongue-in-cheek shorthand.

The rank misogyny on the signs at the marches yesterday
links directly to the misogyny teachers face in schools

join the dots
Trans rights are misogynist