The ‘quiet rainbow’

[IwantToRetire]

No suprise really but just another example of how most people seem to think that either the Supreme Court ruling is not really important or that the response should be how to support those with a trans identity.

No interest what so ever in how to help women achieve and keep their sex based rights.

... there has been a “substantial lack of clarity” about how people can move around in the workplace, including the use of toilets and other facilities, since the UK Supreme Court ruling in April this year, which stated that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex and “binary”.

This ruling means that a person who is not born biologically female cannot access the legal protections the Equality Act 2010 affords to women by changing their name with a Gender Recognition Certificate. However transgender people do still have protections against discrimination and harassment under the Act.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission later sent out an interim update on workplaces, public places, sporting bodies, schools and associations.

On single-sex facilities, the EHRC says that trans women should not be allowed to use the women’s facilities and trans men should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, but acknowledged that in some places trans women would not be able to use the male facilities and vice versa.

Davies says that, in the wake of the ruling, having a workplace policy and being vocal about it is a crucial way to show trans employees that they are working in a supportive environment. “If you’re not outwardly showing that you support all of the people that work for your business, then it leaves space for people to think that maybe you don’t support them.”

https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/quiet-rainbow-far-agencies-backing-trans-inclusion/1931104

“I am exhausted at having to come out every day and do mini education sessions for people I encounter,” Sam says. Sam, whose name has been changed for the purposes of anonymity, is a trans, non-binary person working at a small independent agency.

Lacking a gender transitioning policy, or any kind of policy about transgender and gender-diverse people, the workplace culture at Sam’s agency has been entrusted to the idea that “We’re all good people here”. The results of that have been mixed, with a culture that Sam describes as “warm tolerance”.

When Sam arrived, they were the person who asked for pronouns in signatures, who took the “Male” and “Female” signs off toilet doors to create gender-neutral spaces. “What I crave is people doing those things ahead of me, pointing them out, taking care of me before I have to ask for it,” they say.

What other sector of the population starts a new job with such entitled expectations that the rest of the workplace will revolve around them?

Well I thought the article in the OP was more than a little lost in the trans takes priority over everything, but then came across this.

May have mis-read but it seems the British Psychological Society thinks the Supreme Court Ruling was about sexual identity!

The society also suggested the updated code is at risk of oversimplifying or misrepresenting sexual orientation by describing it as a 'feeling'. 'From a psychological perspective, sexual orientation is more accurately understood as an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attraction toward one or more sexes.

'Moreover, the sexual orientation categories referred to in the Equality Act, such as lesbian, gay, and bisexual, are not merely descriptive terms but represent sexual identity labels and an important part of a person's social identity and sense of self... This is particularly significant for individuals who may face discrimination based not only on attraction but also on how they identify and are perceived by others.'

https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/equality-and-human-rights-commission-response

So not only should there be single sex toilets and gender neutral toilets, but toilets for single sex heterosexual toilets and single sex same sex attracted toilets?

Wow! Stratospheric levels of entitlement and narcissism. Sam is very lucky to get ‘warm tolerance’ of that behaviour in his or her workplace - most colleagues would be mightily unimpressed at someone new marching in and demanding everyone change everything to suit them.

I hope Sam is outstandingly good at his or her job as I doubt the ‘warm tolerance’ of that behaviour will last.

The BPS aren't wrong about the FWS ruling and sexuality. It's now clear that the protected characteristic of being a lesbian applies only to female people who are exclusively sexually attracted to other female people. Previously it was often interpreted as a category that anyone could identify into.

So yes, there will be people who consider themselves to be lesbians who are now being told that an important part of their sense of their own identity is made up bollocks. I hope they cope okay.

Does anyone actually know what transitioning to NB actually involves?

But them seem to be saying the opposite re sexual orientation:

'Without this distinction, the Code may create a chilling effect, whereby service providers who have long offered inclusive services may wrongly conclude they must now exclude trans people to remain compliant. This could result in the unnecessary withdrawal of services that have operated safely and inclusively for many years, undermining access to vital support and participation in everyday life for trans people, many of whom already face significant structural barriers to services.'

The response suggested strengthening the code by clarifying lawful approaches to trans inclusion; providing examples of how trans-inclusive services have balanced dignity, privacy and legal compliance; and supporting providers in navigating the balancing of different service-user needs, affirming that the rights and dignity of all groups, including both women and trans people, can be upheld without one group feeling excluded or unprotected. 'These changes would enhance clarity and promote psychologically safe service provision.'

When Sam arrived, they were the person who asked for pronouns in signatures, who took the “Male” and “Female” signs off toilet doors to create gender-neutral spaces

I would have complained about Sam very fast indeed

This is from the BPS submission to the consultation:

Moreover, the sexual orientation categories referred to in the Equality Act, such as lesbian, gay, and bisexual, are not merely descriptive terms but represent sexual identity labels and an important part of a person’s social identity and sense of self (APA, 2021; Skrzypczak et al., 2024). This is particularly significant for individuals who may face discrimination based not only on attraction but also on how they identify and are perceived by others.

It is unclear how a trans man who is attracted to men and identifies as gay will be treated under the Equality Act if their sex is considered female for the purposes of the legislation. The guidance could be clearer that protections under the characteristic of sexual orientation will continue to apply to trans people in line with their self-identified and perceived sexual orientation.

We therefore recommend that the Code provide clear reassurance that sexual orientation protections apply based on a person’s self-identified and perceived sexual orientation, to ensure that trans individuals are not excluded from legal protection or mischaracterised in law.

Bold my emphasis

From https://cms.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-07/BPS%20Response%20-%20Equality%20and%20Human%20Rights%20Commission%20Consultation%20-%20Code%20of%20Practice.pdf

Quite though I expect Sam is a massive pita permanently on the edge of lodging grievances about everything and is therefore humoured by thems workplace to keep them quiet

I think Sam just may have found the ultimate first world problem. "People didn't take the 'male' and 'female' signs off the toilet doors for me!"

Deciding which is the binary options you are, binary or non binary.

Oh dear, that's embarrassing for them. Why bother responding if they haven't read the judgment?

204. The second core provision is section 12 of the EA 2010 which defines the protected characteristic of sexual orientation and is framed by reference to orientation towards persons of the same sex, the opposite sex, or either sex. Read fairly, references to sex in this provision can only mean biological sex. People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate.

People are not sexually oriented towards those in possession of a certificate.

This is an excellent sentence!

😁

TBF I bet there are some men with a paperwork fetish 😬

‘My Warm Tolerance Hell’

🙄

Why can't they get it? If you were born male use the men's toilets. It's so simple. The level of self obsession is off the scale.

To be fair lots of people are sexually attracted to people in possession of certificates. Like share certificates...

My brain is hurting working out how you could be both trans and non-binary. Aren’t they contradictory?

Maybe they are trans Monday to Friday and non binary at the weekend.

Wait what? So why was I supposed to keep all my primary school handwriting certificates?

More than a little concerning that the BPS is advising Psycologists.

"The BPS also works to increase public awareness of psychology's impact and influence policy to benefit society."

How can they have any credibility if they think that someone can identify as same sex attracted when they identify as the opposite sex to the one they were born. So a woman who identifies as a man says they are a gay man who is sexually attracted to men. In other words she is a heterosexual woman.

Sorry in my second link about the BPS has rather over shadowed the OP where it seems people who advise advertising campaign professionals are churning out the nonsense as in the article.

But I suppose not surprise that the reality of women's lives doesn't feature very highly in the recognition of people who do this sort of work.

That would be telling everyone that your NB even when its highly inappropriate to do so whilst whining that everything is sooo much harder for them than bog standard gender non conforming people.

From the first article- This ruling means that a person who is not born biologically female cannot access the legal protections the Equality Act 2010 affords to women by changing their name with a Gender Recognition Certificate.

No shit, Sherlock. I mean, how can anyone find that remarkable? Person who is not a woman can’t access the protections afforded to women. Boohoo.