Wetherspoons on the SC Ruling

[MyKingdomforaNameChange]

Don't know if this has been posted yet, sorry if it has - but thought it was interesting!

This issue of let's just label everything unisex is going to have to be addressed by the guidance.

It clearly, and statistically, disadvantages women. Therefore it will not be considered a fair solution.

It's also bloody cowardly. These people would rather actually endanger women, than stand up for them in the most equitable way possible that takes everyone into account.

What could possibly be fairer than men's, women's, and mixed sex??

The only people who don't want that are the men who want to use the women as validation tools.

It's absolutely astonishing that they're getting huge swathes of corporations to agree with them.

Fortunately, I don't think the law will.

It means that if spaces are designated as single sex then they must be single sex.

It was explicitly noted that this includes spaces labelled as female, women, with a “female” sign or any other proxy for “sex”.

However, Weatherspoons do not have to offer single sex spaces to their customers, and can designate all toilets mixed sex, presumably by changing the signage.

Whether this is indirectly discriminatory to the female sex probably needs to be tested legally.

They do have to provide single sex toilets for staff.

It comes from a political group that believes, like a small child, that unless they have everything, that they don't have enough. Unless women are visibly trampled, the political lobby members haven't been shown enough 'love'. You have to hurt women to prove they're more important.

Equity and provision for all won't do.

This is exactly why women have to have cast iron protections in law that cannot be messed with. Men as a sex class have proved beyond all doubt that it is necessary.

They do have to provide single sex toilets for staff.

I know we've had, quite literally, years and years on this board of watching optics play out, and predicting exactly how it's going to look. And have been proved right every time.

And I can just see this one happening.

Female customers complaining to managers that they're being forced to share toilets with drunk, gobby men but the staff aren't.

It won't look good for Mr Wetherspoon. Especially if he says no, but they would've done, but my hands were tied

Yes Tim was Brexit and no dogs and we loved his pubs. Surprised he thinks men are women

The ruling says that any facility that is designated 'single sex' means exactly that. Only people of that sex may use that facility. To permit those who are not of that sex to enter means you are falling foul of the equalities act and the protections it affords for the category of 'Sex'.

On a previous thread regarding loos at various London theatres I mentioned the Royal Court with its 'five cubicles and 4 urinals' (i.e. Men but they don't say so) and '7 cubicles' (i.e. Women ditto) signage; plus a reminder to Be Kind.

I'm going this week and it will be interesting to see if they've changed anything. They were just typed-up pieces of paper so not a big job to comply with the SC ruling.

Yes, we've been enabling and feeding narcissism, and narcissism can never get enough of what it needs.....and as a result it simply keeps on demanding more in a futile attempt to fill the void.

I can see that younger people are going to start to be more open to religious faith than they have been for a long time. Those deep needs for acceptance and love cannot be met sufficiently by political ideology and activism.

If an organisation decides to go down the unisex route it will very quickly find that they are beset by incidents of sexual assault and misbehaviour - which threatens their customers; especially in the night time economy or in any place in which alcohol is sold.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/the-truth-about-toilets/

This is Sex Matters guide to loos.

Just changing stickers to say unisex on traditional mens or women's loos is inadequate provision.
"Unisex" loos have to be fully enclosed lockable rooms with handbasin and dryer.
If loos are labelled eg men/women, gents/ladies or by stick people to indicate that then they must be for single sex only, based on biological sex.

The issue with single cubicles is that men piss on the seat.

Men and women are designed differently and need different provision

And they'd have to convert them all to floor to ceiling doors and handbasins in each. Since they currently don't even fund much in the way of cleaning that seems unlikely!

They must provide single sex toilets but can also provide mixed sex toilets too. Employers must also provide single sex toilets for their employees but can also provide mixed sex toilets.
Unsurprisingly, wetherspoons’ interpretation of the Equality Act is wrong. Anyone who falls within any of the protected characteristics cannot be treated less favourably in certain situations. So a TW cannot be refused entry to the pub just because they identify as a TW, but they CAN be denied entry to a single sex ladies toilets BECAUSE they are male. Allowing TW into the ladies toilets could result in a claim for discrimination from men if they weren’t allowed in the ladies. The comparator would be sex - you would be discriminating against some men on the basis of sex.

"any transgender person is entitled to use whichever toilet where they feel most comfortable using[sic], whether that be male. female, or access toilets."

So they are encouraging able-bodied to use the disabled loos? That's not on.

Hmm, which toilet do I feel most comfortable using? The answer is probably "not a Wetherspoons".

This is not what Tim Martin said on Preston the other night. He basically said that trans people can use the disabled toilets. He also said that they're currently making sure they're providing single sex toilets for their staff. I'm no Tim Martin fan btw.

Yes, or if what they say is true, I'm going be most comfortable using the staff toilet.

Great idea. We'll all identify as being staff. Problem solved!

Pondering changing genders absolutely DOES NOT count as a protected characteristic.

Quite

But if they don't, they can't call it a female or woman's space because both of those words now mean single sex, no men with or without certificates.

And then they will be in breach of the licensing objectives and lose their status as premises licensed under the Licensing Act as required by the Local Authority. Oh dear.

No way this is Tim Martin’s policy. Any of it.

There's no date on that. It reads to me, like a response to a query before the SC ruling.
I'd be surprised if this was current as I can't see Wetherspoons being that bothered about trans and openly going against.
The clientele of my local Spoons aren't exactly TRA

Edited to add: is this from their website? If not, I mean I could create that same screenshot on my phone in a few minutes

Yes, it does, the EA2010 states that:

"A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

Wetherspoons has misunderstood. This will be changed by the end of the week.

They do not tolerate discrimination in all its forms?

OK who has kids? Lets see if they will serve them at the bar. If not why not, they don't tolerate discrimination.