What practical difference do you think the SC ruling will make?

[GCornotGCthatisthequestion]

What do you think will change following the SC ruling on the definition of woman in the equality act?

Nome unless it’s enforced which is of course the issue

Hopefully nothing.

I accidentally posted before I'd finished. I was going to say....

From what I understand, the ruling clarifies that people are allowed to exclude transwomen from female spaces as their sex remains male. However that doesn't mean that they must. So in practice it might not make much difference to anything.

Is my interpretation correct?

Organisations who believe in following the law may need to change various policies/facilities. There may be some which have been bullied by trans activists who may be relieved by the clarity.
others, unfortunately will think they’re above the law and continue not giving a shit about women and girls rights.

I don’t think so. The case was specifically brought in response to the Scottish government including TW in their targets for women on boards. The ruling means they can’t do this even though they wanted to. They can add targets for representation of trans people if they want. (IANAL)

Thank you, I hasn't considered this.
I guess the big change is for things like this, and collection of stats for who commits crimes etc.

The Equality Act doesn't require you to provide single sex services instead it permits you to provide them if there is a legitimate reason. If single sex services are provided they can only be used on the basis of biological sex. So if there is a legitimate aim to have a female only space it can only be used by women.

Yes thank you. So it could mean more unisex toilets, changing rooms etc. If it's considered easier to provide these than trying to police whether or not people using the single sex spaces are trans.

You mean because trans women can’t be trusted to keep out of women’s spaces?

The implications are huge, but I think a lot of organisations will await the EHRC guidance before doing anything.

Some organisations are likely to respond by scrapping single sex spaces, some will provide third spaces, most (imo) will stick with men’s and women’s facilities and will follow the law by making them actually single sex.

I find all the pushback really strange. This is what the law always said, but the TRAS wanted Stonewall law, so they covertly manipulated everyone to believe stonewall law was the law. But actually it was just ideology. Now if they want stonewall law they’re going to have to campaign for it as they should have done in the first place.

I'm not here to make sweeping generalisations about any groups of people. I'm just trying to understand the implications of the ruling and what could change because of it.

Single sex services are mandated under various legislation. Schools are required to provide single sex toilets and changing rooms and employers must provide single sex changing facilities if employees are required to change as part of their employment eg nurses

I can understand why some trans people will feel like this an attack on them, although I don't believe it is.

I think that this whole thing has become framed as a battle between trans people and gender critical people when really, it's two groups fighting for their own interests.

I think there is something very sinister about transwomen who insist on changing with women who don't want them there.

The feeling under attack is natural but childish. The way the activists went about things was hubristic and underhand. They thought they didn’t have to follow the proper process for getting what they wanted. This is the consequence.

They could have campaigned for this openly ten years ago and we as a society could have settled the question using the correct legal and democratic processes. Then they could have spent the last ten years fighting and fundraising for third spaces and open sports.

Where single services are not mandated then service providers could offer just mixed sex rather than single sex services but I'm not sure how well that will go down with the general public.

If a shop/gym/swimming pool wants to have only mixed sex changing rooms they can but I can't see that the majority of their customers are going to be happy with it

Prisons it probably will, maybe some groups supporting women who are victims of violence. Maybe in one or two sports that have not done so already.

Not sure about many others, because of lack of actual and social enforcement, or in some cases it will just be made clearer that those born male whose gender identity is female can use spaces marked for women.

If we had not had six years of politics being almost about one thing only (Brexit then Covid), then there might have been such a political discussion. If there had been a grown up Tory party engaging with the SNP instead of it getting to the Supreme Court to decide, possibly likewise.

I expect they will await the EHRC guidance. But I hope existing single-sex spaces are not lost. The only justification for their existence is to meet a legitimate aim: if they go, the aim will be unfulfilled.

Oh I think it will have to be enforced, otherwise organisations are at risk of claims for not protecting spaces they have said are single sex.

i don’t think much will change in respect of things like loos in train stations, shops etc, but I do think hospitals, gyms etc will change their policy to comply with the law.

I do have concerns that some places may do away with single sex spaces or take women’s
spaces away to be “unisex”.

What would the legitimate purpose of providing a space or service marked as for ‘women’ that also admitted males?

I think any employers who still don’t comply will change their tune once the various NHS nurses’ cases conclude (although they’ll likely settle now anyway).

For service providers who don’t have the same obligation to provide single-sex spaces but try to continue to segregate toilets, changing rooms, etc by gender identity, I think it will probably take a few people (men, women or both) making discrimination complaints/claims under the EA before service providers are deterred going forward, as it will become obvious how high-risk the strategy of knowingly breaching the EA would be.

I think even for companies who have tweeted their intentions to defy the law, once their legal advisors explain the risks and it starts potentially affecting their finances, they will quietly change their minds.

For example, companies’ bank loans will have ongoing representations that they’re not knowingly breaking the law, etc, so while management might have been be happy for their social media person to tweet support for gender ideology on the day of the judgment, the practical implications of knowingly defying the law will make that an unworkable position in the longer-term.

From last Wednesday,

If it says "female" or "women" or "girls" on the door
of a changing room, toilet, refuge, service
no males no matter how they present, may enter.
If providers want to allow males they have to change the signs to "mixed sex "

The Women's Institute and the Girl Guides will have to clarify that they are mixed sex.

All male prisoners have to be moved out of the female prison estate.

Providers are welcome to be trans inclusive
but they cannot do so while pretending they are single sex

Any areas where other laws require single sex (school toilets, workplace toilets, workplace changing rooms) need to ensure that they comply with the law as it was actually written
not as advocacy groups pretended it was.

Fresh signs in many spaces on Tuesday I suspect.

As stated earlier the justification for providing a SS facility in some circumstances will be because if they didn’t, they would not be adhering to other legislation. I think there is also now something in the building regulations now, about the provision of single sex toilets for new non residential buildings where they have to provide them and can’t get away with all gender neutral ones.

Just for clarity, where is this quoted from?