Are toilets still allowed to be cleaned by members of the opposite sex?

[PoisedRubyLion]

I see signs saying toilets may be cleaned by members of the opposite sex in a lot of places. Is this allowed after the supreme court ruling? If a male cleaner was in there it would be a mixed sex space.

I could go into the toilet and encounter a male child. No sign for that.

Little children need to be accompanied by their carer. It is the carer's sex that determines which facilities they use.

Do you really need this to be explained to you?

I get it. Some people are only just starting to think about this.

It was obviously not a serious question

You'd be surprised. The lawyer Robin Moira White also made the same comment on Woman's Hour.

The Supreme Court says for the equality act sex is biological sex. The equality act makes provision for single sex spaces. Why would a male child using the space not make it single sex?

I don’t care that it has always been that way. How does the ruling allow that to continue?

I am not sending my 8 year old child into a men's service station toilet by himself. Social services would be on my case in a heartbeat.
Come off it. 😆

However, if I saw I 6 foot bloke in the women's while I was with my 8 year old child I'd give him a hard stare at the very least. Get real.

Oh look a squirrel!

Where does the law say this? The Supreme Court is clear that sex means biological sex in the equality act, and that act makes provision for single sex spaces.

Ah, so not a serious conversation then, just a weak attempt at a Gotcha!

OK, Gotcha!

Funny how women really really understand how this works, and men come up with whataboutery to find a loophole that lets them continue their entitled self absorbed behaviour.

Why would a male child using the space not make it single sex?

The exemptions make it clear it is about adult human females and adult human males.

No child is going to be sent alone into a single sex space without their parent or carer.

The exemptions specifically lay this out.

You do have to start doing that. It’s a process.

You lurk outside feeling panicked and glaring at all who go in and out, you say loudly- Straight in and out, Fred. I’m right here. Shout if you need me!

And everyone understands.

@Kangarude @myplace @titchy agreed.

Helen Joyce pointed out a few weeks ago on x that men who say they are women (& those who wish to remove female human rights to privacy, dignity and safety from men) , often argue that because mums are allowed to take little children in to public toilets with them, as otherwise they couldn't go out, then women should have to accept adult men (including those who say they are women, regardless of sexual fetishes/ paraphilias/ sex offence convictions/female privacy and safety concerns) in spaces where women/ girls are undressed or vulnerable too. An argument that does sadly tell you more about the people demanding this than they might wish.

On a general note, where any males are permitted access to spaces like this, there have been numerous reports of voyeurism/ hidden cameras placed by men in these toilets to spy on women. And the very men arguing for single sex toilets for women to go mixed sex, later to be found guilty of abusing women or girls. Here's one for starters- a quick look online finds loads more
https://reduxx.info/uk-politician-who-campaigned-for-gender-neutral-town-found-guilty-of-child-sex-abuse/

What a strange coincidence.

Joking right 🤣

The exemptions in the equality act use the word "adult" quite deliberately

Funnily enough our OP here can't seem to find the actual wording. The rest of us have known it for years.

I do understand the real argument. But I’m trying to understand how the law is coherent when some males are permitted and some are not. That is one of the reasons the supreme court rules the way it did. So it’s okay to break the law in some situations?

Probably because in the real world everyone who isn’t weird knows it’s generally not necessary to make the distinction between the sexes for little children.

Where does the law say this? The Supreme Court is clear that sex means biological sex in the equality act, and that act makes provision for single sex spaces.

The ruling relates to men and women. Little boys are not men.

Is it the holidays already? I'd never have guessed...

single sex services can exist as a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.
excluding small children doesn’t fulfil that, excluding older children and adults of the opposite sex does.

A good start would be reading the actual judgment and its language, OP. Don't try a gotcha if you've not researched at all. I haven't read the judgment but rest assured that if the judgment has not been well formulated, new legal challenges based on loopholes will come along and be widely publicised.

EA says it's lawful to provide separate services for persons of each sex.

The cleaner is not using the service. The toilet is not a service provided to him. He just cleans it. It's still a service provided for women only even if the cleaner is male.

Section 212 (general interpretations) of the Equality Act:

’man’ means a male of any age
’woman’ means a female of any age

Single sex spaces in the equality act refer to "men" and "women"

Not "boys" or "girls".

Children aren't men or women.

Did you really think in the dead of night before your exam revision, you'd come up with a chancy gotcha for some of the greatest legal minds in England? The act uses specific words for specific reasons.Children aren't relevant to the EA2010.

No, I think it's another in a long list of pathetic 'gotchas' - see also:

1. You share a bathroom at home with men so why not share public facilities
2. Not all TW are predators so you should be okay sharing with them
3. If men want to attack you then they'll do it anyway and designated single sex spaces won't keep them out

etc etc etc 🙄

The equality act doesn’t let you apply it selectively. If males must be excluded to achieve a legitimate aim, all must be excluded.

I very much doubt it seeing as these are not dictionary definitions.
Lawyers are pretty pedantic.

Again, the equality act states in section 212 (general interpretations) of the Equality Act:
’man’ means a male of any age
’woman’ means a female of any age

That would mean man and women in the equality act would also refer to children.