Page 11 | Kelly v Leonardo Employment Tribunal Thread 4

ickky · 2025-10-24T08:14:25+00:00

The Tribunal has now finished and we await the judgement. Abbreviations: C or MK - Claimant, Maria Kelly NC - Naomi Cunningham, barrister for C KW - Katy Wedderburn, solicitor for C R or L - Respondent. Leonardo UK ST - Susanne Tanner KC, barrister for R J - Judge P - Panel member GC - gender critical GI - gender identity AL - Andrew R Letton VP People Shared Services Leonardo - respondent witness Tribunal Tweets coverage here [[https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/kelly-vs-leonardo-uk-ltd https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/kelly-vs-leonardo-uk-ltd]] Thread 1 [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5416903-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-29th-september-10am?page=1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5416903-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-29th-september-10am?page=1]] Thread 2 [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5420656-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-thread-2 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5420656-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-thread-2]] Thread 3 [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5421183-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-thread-3 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5421183-kelly-v-leonardo-employment-tribunal-thread-3]]

Legobricksinatub · 05/12/2025 00:00

SexRealismBeliefs · 04/12/2025 23:55

Just to say that this is about changing rooms. UK Athletics rules apply so if you are competing at a particular level you need to be in your biological sex category.
Trans identifying men won't be competing with the girls if it goes to qualification.

Agreed - judicial bias wouldn't be the limb I'd appeal on. The actual poor quality and failure to apply the law would make more of an impact.....

Show quote history

I don’t think people are thinking appeal on the basis of bias, more looking for reasons for this apparently biased judgement.

However, if they do have a policy of trans identified men using the women’s facilities then MS could be sued for discrimination as chair of the organisation on precisely the point she has made this judgement on.

SexRealismBeliefs · 05/12/2025 00:16

Legobricksinatub · 05/12/2025 00:00

I don’t think people are thinking appeal on the basis of bias, more looking for reasons for this apparently biased judgement.

However, if they do have a policy of trans identified men using the women’s facilities then MS could be sued for discrimination as chair of the organisation on precisely the point she has made this judgement on.

Show quote history

True

Better move to North Berwick, have a child of appropriate age and crowdfund! 🤩

NebulousSupportPostcard · 05/12/2025 00:17

MarieDeGournay · 04/12/2025 21:42

Maybe she just volunteers at her kids' athletic club.

Maybe like an awful lot of clubs and associations these days, the club has incorporated genderwoo into its rules and regs [though we're not even sure that East Lothian athletics club has done so].

I doubt if she chose her kids' athletic club on the basis of their pro-trans policy - if it has a pro-trans policy.

I don't think that indicates a bias/conflict of interests, it may just mean she's the athletics equivalent of a soccer mom

Show quote history

As a comparator, she and her partner do seem to be volunteer Surf Mom and Dad, eg from this much longer (!) older 2018 post here, in which they still undertake quite a bit of organisation work.

But in the Trustee roles, MS seems to have much stronger leadership/management roles (would be better perhaps if she recognised the difference and stuck to the intended governance roles!)

NebulousSupportPostcard · 05/12/2025 02:01

Looking it from a different perspective, does anyone else wonder if Leonardo UK is also thinking that the decision is bad news? 😁

They probably wanted the whole damn thing over, and to have the tribunal 'force' them to end the madness that most of them will never have had a heart for in the first place.

Now they have the expense and upheaval of an appeal to deal with. All entirely sef-inflicted as noone forced them to submit a defence. But I wonder if Andy Letton isn't crying and cursing into his whiskey tonight, over that Michelle has done to him with the surpride 'good news'.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/12/2025 03:09

CrocsNotDocs · 04/12/2025 20:53

Maya Forstater’s appeal had a full public tribunal with witnesses and Ben Cooper KC cross examining them. What would be the difference?

Show quote history

Wasn’t that the second tribunal hearing rather than the EAT? The EAT overturned the Tayler judgment and the tribunal was heard a second time, where she won.

ArabellaSaurus · 05/12/2025 07:42

SexRealismBeliefs · 04/12/2025 23:20

So to validate thinking - MS is a Chairperson of this organsisation.

Per OSCR https://www.oscr.org.uk/about-charities/search-the-register/charity-details?number=SC045501

6.6 To affiliate to the governing body of athletics, namely Scottish Athletics Ltd (SAL), and comply with and uphold the Rules and Regulations of both SAL and UK Athletics

So therefore as the directing mind of this organisation which has chosed to affiliate and adopt the rules and regulations of these entities - this makes the Club entirely 'trans-inclusive'.

https://www.scottishathletics.org.uk/about/equality/

https://www.scottishathletics.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Equality-Guidance-For-Clubs-Sept-2021-FINAL.pdf - therefore this document applies to the Club. (Page 30/58) Support the trans person with their choice of changing facilities where possible – a conversation should be had around where this person feels most comfortable changing.

So at the club which Michelle Sutherland chairs - she is familiar with the process that you support the trans person - and they choose where they feel most comfortable changing. More than someone who drives their kid to football in a minivan.

Show quote history

Who would have written that guidance?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 05/12/2025 09:47

ArabellaSaurus · 05/12/2025 07:42

Who would have written that guidance?

Show quote history

It says on the trans page that the guidance has been produced with support from LEAP Scotland and the Equality Network.

Keeptoiletssafe · 05/12/2025 10:04

theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw · 04/12/2025 16:09

Maybe it's time to take the fight to the HSE. If WR1992 are based on the social construct of moral propriety, then how is it meeting the needs of the up to 80% of British people whose sense of moral propriety is offended by having to share toilet facilities with certain members of the opposite sex who demand it?

And, claimants need to put in much more evidence. The SC were able to infer logically that the PMoAaLA underpinning Schedule 3 must be sex-based (because the solution had to work for people who are identical except for possession of a certificate) but never had to say what it actually is. Time to address that question.

Personally, I think that 'because we all want it' ought to be enough. But sex-based evidence is going to be more powerful.

Why separate provision is better for both sexes (safety data, crime stats, toilet design)

Survey evidence - how many avoid toilets based on signage? How many are made distressed and anxious by the signage or by the risk or actuality of encountering the opposite sex in there?

Also, especially for this Judge, some scientific papers on human ability to discern sex! And the % of TW that don't have genital surgery or a GRC. And survey evidence on how many people think TWANW. Because she acknowledges they exist but doesn't think their needs have to be met (they must be on the WSOH or something).

“Why separate provision is better for both sexes (safety data, crime stats, toilet design)”

Only one of these is measurable and that’s toilet design as the toilets are at the moment.
There’s no safety data and crime statistics. I have too short a list* and even then it’s difficult knowing what the toilet looks like or did look like at the time of assault/rape/death.

edit: it’s bloody depressing trailing through and creating a list it could be much longer if I put more time into it. Also I know now that provision is more venue based it’s almost impossible as no one is keen to publish bad or close-call stories.

prh47bridge · 05/12/2025 10:19

I have commented on the Sandie Peggie thread that the judgement in this case looks very appealable to me. I have been asked if I could outline here the areas I think are best appealable. It is hard to know where to begin!

Some thoughts:

Whilst the Supreme Court judgement in FWS was not about toilets, nor does it mention toilets. However, the SC was clear that some provisions require a biological interpretation of sex. They specifically stated that this included changing rooms. It is therefore hard to see how toilets are an exception.
The SC was clear that "women plus trans women" is unworkable for provision of services, and that therefore provision is either mixed sex or it is for biological men or biological women. This judgement ignores that completely.
The judge dismisses the idea that women can, in general, tell that a trans woman is actually a man with no apparent basis for doing so.
The judge decided that Croft means that any man with a GRC can use the female facilities, ignoring the fact that the SC said that this would undermine privacy and decency between the sexes.
Even if she was right about this, it is clear from Croft that a man without a GRC is not entitled to use the female facilities, and yet her judgement allows men to self-identify into the female facilities.
She says that Croft decided that a trans woman who had completed 2 years of living as a woman had a right to use the female toilet. Croft said no such thing. The judgement said that Croft, having only just started living as a woman, did not have the right to use the female toilet. It did no say that he would gain that right after 2 years.
Her reading of Croft is highly selective. For example, she quotes part of paragraph 56 in support of her position, ignoring the fact that it says, "ordinary good practice requires, as it seems to us, that an employer is to be expected to require those who are, or who are believed by him to be, at law males to use only the men’s facilities and those who are at law or who are believed by him to be females to use only the women’s".
She misrepresents the provisions of the Workplace Regulations regarding disabled toilets, inventing a problem that does not exist. There is no requirement to control access to prevent use by individuals who are not disabled, and the employer in this case does not control access.
The judge decided that, since women were only 20% of the workforce and only one woman had complained, the rights of the men should prevail. That isn't how the Equality Act works. If there had been racial discrimination but only one black person complained, would she have used that as justification to dismiss the complaint?
She says, probably correctly, that the requirement to control access to the women's facilities is limited to what is reasonably practicable, then decides, without any apparent justification, that it is not reasonably practicable for an employer to set rules based on biological sex and expect employees to follow them.

There is plenty more I could say, but that is my starter for ten. I will be surprised if this judgement survives appeal. Much of it appears indefensible to me. Of course, in the wider picture that is a good thing as an EAT judgement is binding on Employment Tribunals, but Maria Kelly should not have to go through this.

MistyGreenAndBlue · 05/12/2025 10:22

ItsCoolForCats · 04/12/2025 07:16

I listened to an episode of the Crime Agents podcast recently. They were discussing the abysmal conviction rates for rape. The guest was a DCI who does a lot of work in this area.

She said she believe conviction rates would improve if rape case were t
heard without a jury. She said female jurors in particular are less likely to believe victims. How depressing 🙁

Show quote history

I simply cannot get my head around this. If anything, if I were on a jury in a rape case, I'd be inclined to bias the other way. Assuming that if the case had made it as far as the courts, the accused was almost certainly guilty ' - bearing in mind the woeful record of the CPS on this issue. Also, I tend to believe women

SternJoyousBeev2 · 05/12/2025 10:26

@prh47bridge thank you for your very clear overview of the judgement. I admit that I have struggled to read this particular judgement and have only been able to face skim reading it so your post is very welcome.

SexRealismBeliefs · 05/12/2025 10:27

ArabellaSaurus · 05/12/2025 07:42

Who would have written that guidance?

Show quote history

The athletics association would do the drafting - she as Chair / board would be making decisions as to whether they adopt these policies and comply.

Keeptoiletssafe · 05/12/2025 10:34

I have asked loads of departments at first, the HSE, fire brigade, police, RSPoA, DfE, looked at coroners records etc.
How many of us reported voyeurism and assaults? I didn’t. ‘Just’ a man masturbating by the entrance to the ladies in the toilets in the park (from about 50ft away). I was walking home from school and ran. If I told my mum and dad at the time I doubt it was logged. However I bet those council-run park toilets have shut down now. I noted so many close due to ‘lewd’ behaviour.

This was interesting because it shows councils haven’t got data either.
https://translucent.org.uk/how-many-complaints-about-trans-women-using-toilets/

That’s a lot of work the Translucent organisation has put in to get not much. But the fact they got not much, constrasts with newspaper reports when men are taken to court, and their own reports about what’s going on in toilets being so bad.

Again, it just proves there’s no system of reporting it. What would a management team do if their cinema/supermarket/shopping centre had a bad incident happen in their loo? They certainly would try and ‘kill’ any story.

ItsCoolForCats · 05/12/2025 10:36

prh47bridge · 05/12/2025 10:19

I have commented on the Sandie Peggie thread that the judgement in this case looks very appealable to me. I have been asked if I could outline here the areas I think are best appealable. It is hard to know where to begin!

Some thoughts:

Whilst the Supreme Court judgement in FWS was not about toilets, nor does it mention toilets. However, the SC was clear that some provisions require a biological interpretation of sex. They specifically stated that this included changing rooms. It is therefore hard to see how toilets are an exception.
The SC was clear that "women plus trans women" is unworkable for provision of services, and that therefore provision is either mixed sex or it is for biological men or biological women. This judgement ignores that completely.
The judge dismisses the idea that women can, in general, tell that a trans woman is actually a man with no apparent basis for doing so.
The judge decided that Croft means that any man with a GRC can use the female facilities, ignoring the fact that the SC said that this would undermine privacy and decency between the sexes.
Even if she was right about this, it is clear from Croft that a man without a GRC is not entitled to use the female facilities, and yet her judgement allows men to self-identify into the female facilities.
She says that Croft decided that a trans woman who had completed 2 years of living as a woman had a right to use the female toilet. Croft said no such thing. The judgement said that Croft, having only just started living as a woman, did not have the right to use the female toilet. It did no say that he would gain that right after 2 years.
Her reading of Croft is highly selective. For example, she quotes part of paragraph 56 in support of her position, ignoring the fact that it says, "ordinary good practice requires, as it seems to us, that an employer is to be expected to require those who are, or who are believed by him to be, at law males to use only the men’s facilities and those who are at law or who are believed by him to be females to use only the women’s".
She misrepresents the provisions of the Workplace Regulations regarding disabled toilets, inventing a problem that does not exist. There is no requirement to control access to prevent use by individuals who are not disabled, and the employer in this case does not control access.
The judge decided that, since women were only 20% of the workforce and only one woman had complained, the rights of the men should prevail. That isn't how the Equality Act works. If there had been racial discrimination but only one black person complained, would she have used that as justification to dismiss the complaint?
She says, probably correctly, that the requirement to control access to the women's facilities is limited to what is reasonably practicable, then decides, without any apparent justification, that it is not reasonably practicable for an employer to set rules based on biological sex and expect employees to follow them.

There is plenty more I could say, but that is my starter for ten. I will be surprised if this judgement survives appeal. Much of it appears indefensible to me. Of course, in the wider picture that is a good thing as an EAT judgement is binding on Employment Tribunals, but Maria Kelly should not have to go through this.

Thank you @prh47bridge. That is so helpful. Why do you think the judge has taken this position, e.g. selectively quoting Croft?

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 05/12/2025 10:45

prh47bridge · 05/12/2025 10:19

I have commented on the Sandie Peggie thread that the judgement in this case looks very appealable to me. I have been asked if I could outline here the areas I think are best appealable. It is hard to know where to begin!

Some thoughts:

Whilst the Supreme Court judgement in FWS was not about toilets, nor does it mention toilets. However, the SC was clear that some provisions require a biological interpretation of sex. They specifically stated that this included changing rooms. It is therefore hard to see how toilets are an exception.
The SC was clear that "women plus trans women" is unworkable for provision of services, and that therefore provision is either mixed sex or it is for biological men or biological women. This judgement ignores that completely.
The judge dismisses the idea that women can, in general, tell that a trans woman is actually a man with no apparent basis for doing so.
The judge decided that Croft means that any man with a GRC can use the female facilities, ignoring the fact that the SC said that this would undermine privacy and decency between the sexes.
Even if she was right about this, it is clear from Croft that a man without a GRC is not entitled to use the female facilities, and yet her judgement allows men to self-identify into the female facilities.
She says that Croft decided that a trans woman who had completed 2 years of living as a woman had a right to use the female toilet. Croft said no such thing. The judgement said that Croft, having only just started living as a woman, did not have the right to use the female toilet. It did no say that he would gain that right after 2 years.
Her reading of Croft is highly selective. For example, she quotes part of paragraph 56 in support of her position, ignoring the fact that it says, "ordinary good practice requires, as it seems to us, that an employer is to be expected to require those who are, or who are believed by him to be, at law males to use only the men’s facilities and those who are at law or who are believed by him to be females to use only the women’s".
She misrepresents the provisions of the Workplace Regulations regarding disabled toilets, inventing a problem that does not exist. There is no requirement to control access to prevent use by individuals who are not disabled, and the employer in this case does not control access.
The judge decided that, since women were only 20% of the workforce and only one woman had complained, the rights of the men should prevail. That isn't how the Equality Act works. If there had been racial discrimination but only one black person complained, would she have used that as justification to dismiss the complaint?
She says, probably correctly, that the requirement to control access to the women's facilities is limited to what is reasonably practicable, then decides, without any apparent justification, that it is not reasonably practicable for an employer to set rules based on biological sex and expect employees to follow them.

There is plenty more I could say, but that is my starter for ten. I will be surprised if this judgement survives appeal. Much of it appears indefensible to me. Of course, in the wider picture that is a good thing as an EAT judgement is binding on Employment Tribunals, but Maria Kelly should not have to go through this.

@prh47bridge Thank-you for your thoughts.

The judgment seems to reflect the judge's opinions on the case rather than the law. It has also seems to have been released extremely quickly by the standards of recent GI tribunals. The judge must have known that their words will be subject to much scrutiny.

Any thoughts on why the judge has decided on this course of action?

Keeptoiletssafe · 05/12/2025 11:08

Keeptoiletssafe · 05/12/2025 10:34

I have asked loads of departments at first, the HSE, fire brigade, police, RSPoA, DfE, looked at coroners records etc.
How many of us reported voyeurism and assaults? I didn’t. ‘Just’ a man masturbating by the entrance to the ladies in the toilets in the park (from about 50ft away). I was walking home from school and ran. If I told my mum and dad at the time I doubt it was logged. However I bet those council-run park toilets have shut down now. I noted so many close due to ‘lewd’ behaviour.

This was interesting because it shows councils haven’t got data either.
https://translucent.org.uk/how-many-complaints-about-trans-women-using-toilets/

That’s a lot of work the Translucent organisation has put in to get not much. But the fact they got not much, constrasts with newspaper reports when men are taken to court, and their own reports about what’s going on in toilets being so bad.

Again, it just proves there’s no system of reporting it. What would a management team do if their cinema/supermarket/shopping centre had a bad incident happen in their loo? They certainly would try and ‘kill’ any story.

In this judgement that would be applicable to the ‘stats’ the judge came up with and the relative risks.

In mixed sex loos men ‘accidentally’ leave the door open. Is that voyeurism? What’s their intent? If they are holding their penis at the time a woman looks in, theres a wide spectrum of possibilities: it could be perfectly innocent or classed as a sexual activity under the Sexual Offences Act (2003) if any person would reasonably think it was a sexual activity. I remember seeing a photo of a sign on a new ‘gender-neutral’ toilet door at the Home Office telling men to please shut the toilet door when they are using it https://www.europeancleaningjournal.com/magazine/articles/latest-news/women-snub-genderneutral-toilets-at-the-uk-governments-home-office

Toilets are so vulnerable and that’s why they were placed in a specific clause in the Act. At a male- dominated workforce this could cause so many problems for ‘forgetful’ men.

I have spent hours looking at toilet designs and crimes committed in them (not pleasant). 100% are male assaulters. I have one recent incident where it was possibly a female but it’s not verifiable yet. All the others are men. Including men that said they were (fleetingly) transwomen and were tried as men. It’s absurd the conclusions she came to.

prh47bridge · 05/12/2025 11:18

Why has the judge gone down this route?

At one point she says, "Moral propriety is a social construct and standards of decency change over time, and accordingly it must be interpreted in a modern context."

I think that sentence is very telling. I think this judge believes that allowing trans women to use the women's facilities is in line with current standards of decency and moral propriety. Starting from this position, she has, in my view, bent the law to accommodate her beliefs. It wouldn't surprise me to find that she thinks the SC got FWS wrong. She certainly does not seem to accept the SC's reasoning.

I'm sure she genuinely believes she is right. She may believe her reasoning is sound and that the higher courts will uphold her judgement. If she does, I suspect she will be disappointed.

Walkden · 05/12/2025 11:20

"In mixed sex loos men ‘accidentally’ leave the door open"

Men leave the door open all the time even in men's loo's - although usually only when urinating. Privacy in men's bathroom usually involves turning your back to everyone so plenty of men just push the door too.

Japanese trains have male only toilets / urinals you can see inside - which is how you know it's occupied.

"If they are holding their penis at the time a woman looks in"

This usually happens when a man urinates....

Keeptoiletssafe · 05/12/2025 11:25

Walkden · 05/12/2025 11:20

"In mixed sex loos men ‘accidentally’ leave the door open"

Men leave the door open all the time even in men's loo's - although usually only when urinating. Privacy in men's bathroom usually involves turning your back to everyone so plenty of men just push the door too.

Japanese trains have male only toilets / urinals you can see inside - which is how you know it's occupied.

"If they are holding their penis at the time a woman looks in"

This usually happens when a man urinates....

Exactly. It’s why legislation and building regulations will all have to be looked at if we can’t have single sex toilets anymore.

SexRealismBeliefs · 05/12/2025 11:26

prh47bridge · 05/12/2025 10:19

I have commented on the Sandie Peggie thread that the judgement in this case looks very appealable to me. I have been asked if I could outline here the areas I think are best appealable. It is hard to know where to begin!

Some thoughts:

Whilst the Supreme Court judgement in FWS was not about toilets, nor does it mention toilets. However, the SC was clear that some provisions require a biological interpretation of sex. They specifically stated that this included changing rooms. It is therefore hard to see how toilets are an exception.
The SC was clear that "women plus trans women" is unworkable for provision of services, and that therefore provision is either mixed sex or it is for biological men or biological women. This judgement ignores that completely.
The judge dismisses the idea that women can, in general, tell that a trans woman is actually a man with no apparent basis for doing so.
The judge decided that Croft means that any man with a GRC can use the female facilities, ignoring the fact that the SC said that this would undermine privacy and decency between the sexes.
Even if she was right about this, it is clear from Croft that a man without a GRC is not entitled to use the female facilities, and yet her judgement allows men to self-identify into the female facilities.
She says that Croft decided that a trans woman who had completed 2 years of living as a woman had a right to use the female toilet. Croft said no such thing. The judgement said that Croft, having only just started living as a woman, did not have the right to use the female toilet. It did no say that he would gain that right after 2 years.
Her reading of Croft is highly selective. For example, she quotes part of paragraph 56 in support of her position, ignoring the fact that it says, "ordinary good practice requires, as it seems to us, that an employer is to be expected to require those who are, or who are believed by him to be, at law males to use only the men’s facilities and those who are at law or who are believed by him to be females to use only the women’s".
She misrepresents the provisions of the Workplace Regulations regarding disabled toilets, inventing a problem that does not exist. There is no requirement to control access to prevent use by individuals who are not disabled, and the employer in this case does not control access.
The judge decided that, since women were only 20% of the workforce and only one woman had complained, the rights of the men should prevail. That isn't how the Equality Act works. If there had been racial discrimination but only one black person complained, would she have used that as justification to dismiss the complaint?
She says, probably correctly, that the requirement to control access to the women's facilities is limited to what is reasonably practicable, then decides, without any apparent justification, that it is not reasonably practicable for an employer to set rules based on biological sex and expect employees to follow them.

There is plenty more I could say, but that is my starter for ten. I will be surprised if this judgement survives appeal. Much of it appears indefensible to me. Of course, in the wider picture that is a good thing as an EAT judgement is binding on Employment Tribunals, but Maria Kelly should not have to go through this.

@prh47bridge - thank you, I have a lot of other stuff on today but am going to work your way down your list and add anything else I can think off. I think the mis-reading of the statistical analysis is off and really mis-represents the risk.

Seainasive · 05/12/2025 11:59

My whole LinkedIn feed is full of batshit advice and commentary today. ☹️

Legobricksinatub · 05/12/2025 12:04

Whilst the Supreme Court judgement in FWS was not about toilets, nor does it mention toilets.

The Supreme Court ruling refers to toilets as ‘sanitary facilities’, which it mentions on several occasions. Presumably as it is more accurate; we never actually mean just the toilet itself when we refer to toilets, we mean the sanitary facilities - the toilet, sink, cubicles, toilet rolls, sanitary bins, urinals etc.

ItsCoolForCats · 05/12/2025 12:04

prh47bridge · 05/12/2025 11:18

Why has the judge gone down this route?

At one point she says, "Moral propriety is a social construct and standards of decency change over time, and accordingly it must be interpreted in a modern context."

I think that sentence is very telling. I think this judge believes that allowing trans women to use the women's facilities is in line with current standards of decency and moral propriety. Starting from this position, she has, in my view, bent the law to accommodate her beliefs. It wouldn't surprise me to find that she thinks the SC got FWS wrong. She certainly does not seem to accept the SC's reasoning.

I'm sure she genuinely believes she is right. She may believe her reasoning is sound and that the higher courts will uphold her judgement. If she does, I suspect she will be disappointed.

Thanks again @prh47bridge. What is considered acceptable in terms of moral propriety is so subjective. And I'm not sure that women's need for privacy and safety away from men is something that evolves over time to no longer be necessary.

I find the judgement surprising because my assumption is that a judge would look at the law objectively, as it stands, not try to bend the law to what they think it should be or might be in the future. I find it worrying that a judge would do that.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 05/12/2025 12:05

Walkden · 05/12/2025 11:20

"In mixed sex loos men ‘accidentally’ leave the door open"

Men leave the door open all the time even in men's loo's - although usually only when urinating. Privacy in men's bathroom usually involves turning your back to everyone so plenty of men just push the door too.

Japanese trains have male only toilets / urinals you can see inside - which is how you know it's occupied.

"If they are holding their penis at the time a woman looks in"

This usually happens when a man urinates....

I have always wondered who uses the open air 'public urinals'. Recently spotted some on Cambridge Circus outside the Palace theatre (Harry Potter and the cursed child)

ItsCoolForCats · 05/12/2025 12:09

Seainasive · 05/12/2025 11:59

My whole LinkedIn feed is full of batshit advice and commentary today. ☹️

In relation to this case or in general? I think this judgement has the potential to cause so much confusion. So much for the clarity of the SC judgement.

I don't think this judgement helps anyone. If it does get overturned at appeal, then in the interim, it will give trans-identifying people false hope and beliefs about what their rights are, when the best way forward would be for people to accept what the law is and advocate for appropriate facilities for everyone (without impacting single sex spaces). Or campaign to change the law if they are unhappy with it.