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.

It's not breaking the law anymore than a male prison guard breaks the law by working in a women's prison or a female prison guard working in a male prison but I expect you know that you halfwit.

Man is adult human male
Woman is adult human female.

Any different "interpretation" is an incorrect interpretation.

The EA2010 refers to women and men.

If you don’t want to believe it that up to you, but here it is in black and white on the gov legislation webpage. Oh, and it’s also referred to in the Supreme Court judgement.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/212

I am genuinely surprised and wish I hadn’t allowed myself to be drawn in.

The EA2010 tells you how it should be interpreted here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/212

Are you/have you been responsible for a young child @PoisedRubyLion ?
Not necessarily a parent, but in a capacity where you need to assist a child with their toilet needs?

This is such an abusive male tactic - if you don’t let adult male cross dressers in your paces we’re going to make it hard for you to take your toddler son to the loo

how dare you, how dare middle aged men snivel behind baby boys.

Please no one do anything to make getting clean toilets even harder. It must be a horrible job and I'm thankful anyone does it.

Aaaandddd here comes the agenda. My bets on a #bekind followed by a scold when we say no. Any bets on 6ft transmen or are we going g for the “lovely trans friend” trope.

The law implies it is an "adult male of any age" or and "adult female of any age" given that the EA2010 in it's creation addresses spaces for adult humans.

It's not rocket science.

The word 'man' does not refer to a male baby.

Obviously.

Caring for children isnt covered by the equality act. Little children will use the toilet of the adult taking care of them because they cannot use the toilet alone.

I hadn't thought of that, does it mean a 17 year old can use toilets for opposite sex or are the using a different definition for adult?

Here are the words of the Supreme Court:

213. If sex has its biological meaning in this paragraph, then a service-provider can separate male and female users as obvious and distinct groups. For example, a homeless shelter could have separate hostels for men and women provided this pursued a legitimate aim, which might be the safety and security of women users or their privacy and dignity (and the same for male users). By contrast, if sex means certificated sex, the service- provider would have to allow access to trans women with a GRC (in other words, biological males who are female according to section 9(1)) to the women’s hostel. The following practical difficulties would arise. First, it would be difficult or impossible for the service-provider to distinguish between trans women with and without a GRC because, as we have explained, the two groups are often visually or outwardly indistinguishable. Secondly and more fundamentally, it is likely to be difficult (if not impossible) to establish the conditions necessary for separate services for each sex when each group includes persons of both biological sexes. For example, it is difficult to envisage how the condition in paragraph 26(2)(a) (a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective) could ever be fulfilled when each sex includes members of the opposite biological sex in possession of a GRC and excludes members of the same biological sex with a GRC. In other words, if as a matter of law, a service-provider is required to provide services previously limited to women also to trans women with a GRC even if they present as biological men, it is difficult to see how they can then justify refusing to provide those services also to biological men and who also look like biological men.

Run this through in your mind OP, first while considering the inclusion of men who say they are women in female only spaces, and second, while considering the inclusion of little boys accompanied by their mothers.

It's the latter

I completely agree with you that it is different. But the law is binary. If it doesn’t explicitly make provision for opposite sex children in a single sex space then it is not permitted.

‘man’ means adult male human being
‘Woman’ means adult female human being

There is nothing to say a biological male can’t use the women’s toilets or vice versa, it is just now since the court ruling venues can legally stop it, or remove the people. If the venue wish to still allow it they can.

You are wrong on this. The EA defines man / woman as a male / female of any age to make clear that sex discrimination against children is unlawful.

PoisedRubyLion has spectacularly missed the point that the EA2010 was drafted for employers.

The words in the EA2010 will refer to adults and adults alone because it's illegal to employ children.

The EA2010 doesn't even mention toilets. It's not about toilets.
It's about unlawful discrimination at work, or housing, or being granted benefits or healthcare.

The words man and women being "of any age" will refer to people "of any adult age" as this is implied by the very point of the act in and of itself.

Men obviously doesn't mean boys. The dictionary definitions are very much locked in to any act of parliament, it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Legislators are very precise. Wouldn’t they have specified ages if they meant that?

Why did the Scottish Government lose then?

You think the word man can be used to describe a male baby?

Lawyers are also very precious with their use of superfluous words.

The act was drafted for employers.
It's illegal to employ children in the UK.
There was no need to specifically say "a male of any age but not including children".