How are non binary people affected by the SC ruling?

[WallaceinAnderland]

I keep reading about 'support for our LGBTQ+ and non binary colleagues" or variations along that line.

Having to use toilets and changing rooms that align with your sex does not affect LGB or Q+ people. It only refers to T people so it all seems a bit forced teaming anyway.

But why specifically mention non binary people? Which facilities were they using before the SC ruling? If a female non binary person has always been using the female facilities, this changes nothing for them. Or do they switch it up and use different facilities on different days?

I've been musing this for a while but not sure how to coherently ask the question.

I suspect it's meant to be a "gotcha" in the sense of "If everyone has to use the loo that aligns with their sex, what about those who don't have one?" <insert hand wringing here>

It's up there with TRAs suddenly giving a shit about butch women and agonising performatively as to whether they will be misgendered (which some are, a female friend has been and it really upsets her so I'm not saying we shouldn't care about it, only that TRAs never cared before now).

Ultimately, non-binary people have a biological sex just like everyone else (including those with DSDs) so they should be using the loo that matches that.

Well the male ‘non binaries’ seem to regularly and bizarrely demand to use women’s spaces/hospital wards/fitness classes/nightclub search queues so I’m guessing they’ll be very upset to have it clarified that they have absolutely no right (and never did) to do so?

I suspect its because non binary people want unisex toilets. But TBH at this point who knows.

But yes they should be pulled up more for using LGB who don't have issues at all about this.

None binary people are not recognised in law and do not have a protected characteristic. Saying that i have no sex does not amount to some kind of transition that falls within the GRA or the EQA, since a non binary person has no sex.

Yet more nonsense. Like having someone asexual on that Pride float a while back. How on earth is being asexual relevant to anything at all. How on earth is being non binary relevant. Total dross lacking in any intellectual basis.

Just reminds me of the Spanish translation of non binary. No binario ( masc) No binaria (fem) ….

Yep if i was an employer my signs on bogs would be

female/ none binary female

Male none binary male

And this is my bog so fuck off

The 'what about' is irrelevant.

Non binary people don't have protected status legally and never have and they still have a sex regardless of gender identity anyway.

This is people making life unnecessarily complicated for the sake of it.

No such thing as non binary, you are either born male or female, you don't get to choose. You can choose to pretend you are the opposite sex or pretend you are neither male or female but all it will ever be is pretense.

Same in Italian. "a non-binary person" is "una persona non binaria".
'Persona' being grammatically feminine, and so also having the feminine form of any adjectives, whatever the sex of the person in question. So the male Ryan Castellucci is "una persona non binaria" in Italy.

Also, I will never tire of quoting the reference in the Italian media to Eliot Sumner "l'attrice britannica non binaria".
'Actrice' being feminine and meaning 'actress' (the masculine equivalent is 'attore') and followed by the feminine forms of the adjectives meaning 'British' and 'non-binary'.

There was the Jaguar case where the male non-binary person was found to have been discriminated against under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment when, amongst other things, we was not permitted to use the women's loos. So they are affected by the SC judgment as they are now are being correctly required to use the facilities that match their sex.

I think we still need further litigation to confirm if the protected characteristic of gender reassignment applies to people who identify as non-binary or not, because this is a debatable point of statutory interpretation and they made an absolute mess of it in Jaguar.

If non binary people claim not to have a sex (I know), which facilities were they using before the SC ruling?

Most nb females that I know personally do look very female. Surely those women would not choose to use the men's facilities for changing, showering and toileting.

The nb males have tended to veer more towards 'gender fluid' rather than non binary ala Eddie Izzard and Philip Bunce because they look so obviously male.

I don't know any nb males that you can't look at and tell immediately what sex they are.

So surely all these people, apart from boundary trampling people like Eddie, have just been using the facilities aligned with their sex anyway?

In my experience, women who identify as non-binary often want a third space and men who identify as non-binary often want to use the women's spaces. Make of that what you will.

We also already had the Elan-Cane SC judgment which confirmed that sex is binary in UK law and that the Home Office does not discriminate against people who identify as non-binary by requiring people to list male or female on their passports.

NB never existed in law so will never be affected by a court ruling. Cheers.

This has come up on most of the threads about the Supreme Court ruling.

The only people directly impacted by the ruling are those with a GRC or on the route to getting one.

All of the rest is a life style choice which Stonewall mis sold as a legal thing.

And unlike the "gender benders" of the 70s and 80s which were exactly that, challenging gender straight jackets (eg if you were male but dressed in a "female" way the whole point would be to use the men's toilets") but today's rebels are so conforming they want to re-inforce the stereotypes. ie a styles of dress and only for one "gender" or the other.

So every institution, workplace, hospital or whatever, has made changes to toilets etc., not because of the law but the most massive mis-selling of facts.

On one level you could congratulate Stonewall and others for having been so sucessful.

But as the major negative consequence of this has been on women, and of course what women want and need is just irrelevant, it continues to be spun sucessfully as a fact.

There have been no mainstream articles about this. Or rather there was one in the article and they then lied in the article headline to cover this up.

This is people making life unnecessarily complicated for the sake of it.

In a nutshell. ^^

The judgment is very simple. It says in essence everyone has a sex. Use the facility for your sex, or request unisex facilities where your sex is irrelevant.

People who would like to identify as NB have a sex, and have a choice to use the unisex facilities. Choice of two options like everyone else.

I'm thinking this through as I'm typing so hopefully it makes sense.

Surely it shouldn't matter to a NB person what toilets they use? If they don't identify with either sex then they would just be using the toilet to pee.

My logic being that women, for the most part use female spaces for privacy, safety, dignity away from men. Men use male spaces cos it's the right thing to do, we all know why men who identify as not men use female spaces so no need to go into that. If a NB person doesn't think they are either male or female then it would just be a case of finding somewhere to pee.

In that sense they are not affected by this ruling.

Yes, that's why I was thinking @Alucard55 The ruling makes no difference whatsoever to people who are non binary.

We are all either male or female. Use the facilities for your sex, or else use a third option if available.

Aargh, it's NON binary, not none binary.