European Court of Human Rights

[HollieHock]

Just head a TRA on LBC saying they are going to take the case there. Please tell me this is not going to start again.

It doesn't say that you have to interpret 'women' that way. So leisure centres could, if they wanted, continue to allow biological males into the women's changing rooms.

Wrong
If they allow men in they have to label the place as mixed sex.

The whole point of the ruling is that "woman" means "biologically female"
so any space labelled "women" that allows men in
is breaking the law

The sign on the door would have to say "unisex" or "mixed"

There are places that ' could' provide mixed sex facilities but some places ( workplaces certainly, but I think places where dignity and privacy is required, and I think leisure centres would be that) have to provide single sex facilities. I think the only possible appeal to the echr may be if a ftm transman is not allowed into the ladies because they have masculinified themselves so much they present as male but can't use the mens because they are women.

It is no surprise, try to buy time, then use the argument that nothing should change until the EHCR have ruled.

Or you say 'women and those who identify as women'

There is also the GRC angle. The SC decision also applies to people with a GRC, some of whom have also undergone surgery. So I don't think we've heard the last of all the possible permutations on this.

Please read the judgement.
They have specifically covered all of this for both sexes

No because use of the word woman precludes men

Quite. Men can no longer ID into women’s spaces. They’re categorically men.

I have the full 88-page ruling here in front of me. Can you point to where it says that?

Paragraph 236

Paragraph 236 is part of the review of the implications of the judgment on the Equality Act 2010, reflecting the judges' careful consideration of that entire act. The paragraph is couched in conditional language ("a women’s boxing competition organiser could refuse to admit all men", "the gender reassignment exception would be available", etc). They appear to have decided that although the upshot of their judgment is that the organiser of a women's boxing competition could henceforth refuse to admit biological men, this is not a bad or unreasonable thing. Which is great! But again, it doesn't say anything about whether the boxing organisers must henceforth refuse to admit all men. That would probably require an Act of Parliament (which, were it ever to be proposed, would surely include this judgment in its preamble).

Put another way, that paragraph isn't the judgment in itself (arguably, the judgment is just the five words in paragraph 268). It does not say or imply that "We, the judges of the Supreme Court, hereby decree that organisers of women’s boxing competitions must exclude biological men", because that was not the question in front of them. The only question in front of them was the definition of "women" in the Equality Act 2010, and that's all that they were able to pronounce on. The law is often very boring, and often doesn't do as much as we might like. 🙏

Give over @samarrange
Read the analysis by experts such as Audrey Ludwig.

Woman means female. No more messing about with self ID in the UK.

The judgement is clarifying the meaning of the word "woman" in Equality legislation backdated to 2010

is my understanding that for the purposes of the equality act, the act which specifically allows you to discriminate, you can legally discriminate against men by excluding them. You can't legally discriminate against some men, but not others. Because the 'others' in this case are still men. Stonewall wanted it to be that they are legally women.

The whole case was about whether the Scottish government could, if they wanted to, include tw in women's quotas for public boards. They can't.

171. The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man. Persons who share that protected characteristic for the purposes of the group-based rights and protections are persons of the same sex and provisions that refer to protection for women necessarily exclude men.

As soon as a leisure centre allowed some men into the women's changing room it would no longer be a single sex space. They could no longer rely on the single sex exception in the EA.

Yes that’s what I thought too Pencils but can you combine two protected groups for positive action, such as women and trans people? I’m not clear on whether the exceptions stand completely alone.

Not sure about the legal detail @samarrangehas expanded on but doesn’t it come down to the ECHR guidance?

And which places are required by law to provide single sex facilities? Is there a list of who has to

I don't know. I think they could provide additional changing just for trans using positive action but if they combined it with women's changing and called the whole thing positive action I think that would be tricky. Positive action has its own proportionate means/legitimate aim test and I can't see how that would be met for the women expected to share. Especially as there's a perfectly good single sex exception they could have used.

You are fighting the WRONG fight and you are making it clearer every single time.

Trans people NEED to know and accept that Biological sex is a reality, it's actually crucial for us and TRAs have failed the trans community by selling them a falsehood that you can in fact just decide to be the opposite sex completely and that it won't impact the rest of the world (but mostly it has impacted women and children severely).

People like you do not speak for me, we could start working towards something better and see this as a reset but you'd rather prolong an ugly situation and cause more harm and here's the other thing: do you even actually think you're doing the right thing right now? Or are you just set on a loop.

FYI: Good Law Project sucks so good luck.

A model of clarity. Akua Reindorf explains the SC ruling.

www.thetimes.com/article/f89ecc90-d81e-4f92-967b-8b6309cbb65f?shareToken=063a08c00b1a7f7f0669edbc5bc281a1

@Imnobody4, are you quoting the kimono kid here or are these your own words? It’s not quite clear.

They are definitely Jolyon's words. Sorry punctuation fail.

Certainly a TW with a GRC can no longer claim discrimination if they are excluded from women-only facilities.

But there is no requirement in law for most organisations to provide single-sex toilets and changing rooms (schools and workplaces are an exception). Several theatres (for instance) now provide only gender-neutral toilets, for example. So if a theatre chooses to offer single-gender toilets (labelled as men's and women's, but working on the basis of self-ID), is that necessarily unlawful? I'm not convinced it is.

Well, it is. They can have unisex toilets, but they can’t have labelled Ladies and Gents and allow said ladies and gents to self identify into the one of their choosing.

Do any of these gender neutral toilets in theatres still contain urinals?

Isn't it just!

At the the Old Vic, the Soho Theatre, the Royal Court, the Lyric Hammersmith, the Kiln Theatre (all in London), yes.