There was a lot in there about the expert evidence by Speccie Loddie (Jim Borwick/Borthwick) and the contrasting evidence from NHS Fife and their "IT" "Expert". The Fifer and I both have strong opinions on that, which I'll come back to in the future.
For now I think the following paras really capture the essence of the judgement. That Big Sond is not at all convinced that Single Sex changing rooms are legally required. He's shilly shallying about that, very much not prepared to make the call himself. "potentially but not necessarily lawful under the Act to permit a trans woman to use a female only space"
I mean could be, mebbe, might no, might be aye, ahm no sure, who's tae say likes ken?
-
We concluded that it is potentially but not necessarily lawful under the Act to permit a trans woman to use a female only space, such as the changing room, in the context of work. We considered that the construction of the Act in light of the Supreme Court decision relevant to this case was that the claimant can argue both before an employer and at the Tribunal the claims of direct and indirect discrimination and of harassment as she has made in this claim if a trans woman is granted permission to use the female changing room, but also that the second respondent can make arguments both before an employer and at the Tribunal of indirect discrimination and harassment if excluded from that same changing room. How an employer may attempt to resolve these competing arguments and the protected characteristics on which they are based we address below.
-
In our view the claimant’s attempts to persuade us that the Regulations required a single sex space from which all biological males required to be excluded because the definitions in FWS should be read across to the 1992 Regulations went beyond an issue we are able to determine, as it is a matter arising only under the criminal law.
859.
The 1992 Regulations do not have a definition of men or women. FWS does not determine the meaning of words in the 1992 Regulations. As stated above its analysis of the meaning of words such as “woman” was specifically confined to the 2010 Act itself. The terms of that decision therefore contradict the claimant’s argument.
860.
There are arguments both for and against the claimant’s position that the same approach should be followed, and for and against the respondents’ position that a definition of women which is inclusive of those who are trans women is appropriate in order to construe the 1992 Regulations consistently with Article 8. In our view these arguments are not ones that we can competently address.