Citizens Advice Scotland in trans rights row over bathroom change

[IwantToRetire]

Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) staff told staff last month that the charity would be enforcing a policy of “male only” and “female only” toilets on the basis of sex assigned at birth, according to an email seen by The Ferret.

CAS’s chief executive, Derek Mitchell, reportedly said in the email, sent May 6, that the charity was bound by “legal constraints” following the landmark ruling by the UK Supreme Court in April on how sex should be interpreted under the Equality Act 2010.

The ruling stated that, under the Equality Act 2010, the definition of “woman” refers to “biological sex”, a decision gender critical campaigners claimed had brought “clarity on the law”.

However, legal experts have pointed out that the ruling on the definition of “man” and “woman” relates to the 2010 Equality Act only, while campaign groups have also raised concerns over the interpretation of the ruling.

Mitchell reportedly sent a second update two days later acknowledging the upset that had been caused due to the decision, but doubled down on claims that the charity was bound by the law to introduce changes.

The decision has left staff at CAS feeling hurt, afraid, disappointed, and concerned by Mitchell’s claim that the decision had been taken out of the charity’s hands by legal changes.

Full story here https://www.thenational.scot/news/25213618.citizens-advice-scotland-trans-rights-row-bathroom-change/

The decision has left staff at CAS feeling hurt, afraid, disappointed, and concerned by Mitchell’s claim that the decision had been taken out of the charity’s hands by legal changes.

Yeah, well they’ll have to get over that, won’t they? Time to grow up.

Aww diddums to the staff feeling hurt. Result for the dignity and privacy of women.

Men are more than welcome to wear what they want but a dress 👗 isn't what makes someone female. Any more than jeans 👖 make someone male!

The “the SC decision only relates to the definition in the EA” seems to be this week’s TRA mantra of desperation
Whilst in a technical sense this is true, on what bloody planet are lower courts, interpreting analogous definitions in other pieces of legislation, which have similar rationales for sex segregation ie privacy, dignity and safety, going to come up with a different definition to that pronounced by the UK’s apex court? I mean come the fuck on

Are they trying to say that the definition of 'man' and 'woman' in the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 - or whatever that says employees must have single sex toilets and changing rooms, is a different definition of 'man' and 'woman' as appears in the Equality Act 2010?

Well done Derek Mitchell, a great bit of advice that, follow the law. 👍

The National seems to have suddenly taken up the cause, just as almost every other paper in Scotland has started to report reality.

As for the hyperbole about “hurt, afraid, disappointed and concerned,” I’m going to channel Germaine Greer. I don’t care.

Funny how women were never asked or listened to when they tried to say how “hurt, afraid, disappointed and concerned” they were about TW and various self identities were allowed to use women's toilets.

They spend their whole lives being ‘afraid’, afraid of the truth.

The decision has left staff at CAS feeling hurt, afraid, disappointed, and concerned

Exactly how many of the staff have expressed these sentiments I wonder? Did any of the staff who don’t feel the same get a voice here? Why would any women feel hurt, afraid, disappointed, and concerned about the SC ruling?

Isn't it just.

Or when Building Regs say:

Toilet accommodation T1.
(1) Toilet accommodation in buildings other than dwellings— (a) must consist of
(i) (ii) reasonable provision for male and female single-sex toilets

their definition of 'male' and 'female' is not the same as 'man' and 'woman' as used in the Equality Act 2010?