Let's Ignore The Supreme Court and the Rule of Law (or We Hate Women. We Hate That They Have Rights. So We're Going To Break The Law Because We Feel Like It.)

[BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp]

Just a reminder:

Equality Act 2010 - 16 years ago
Supreme Court ruling (April 2025) - 15 months ago

I'm so angry about all the public services in the UK that are refusing to obey the law, that I thought I'd just start a list of them, starting with the most recent I can think of (and have recent threads on FWR). Please feel free to add any others you find.

Lambeth Council
NHS Scotland
Staffordshire Police
Hampstead Ponds
Bristol City Council

Don't forget to add services that are breaking the law to the list! Thanks!

How can males generally not be disadvantaged by not going into female spaces but trans women (trans identified males) might be, when the comparator group for trans identified makes is non-trans identified males? 🤔

I feel that unions should be on the list, you're right, but I did also wonder if they can be classed as services?

I'm not sure either, maybe leave them off for now?

For a service to be single sex, it must meet the criteria in the Equality Act. If some people of the opposite sex are included, then in most cases you will be demonstrating that the criteria have not been met so the service shouldn't be single sex.
(Children under 8 would be the obvious example of an exception, but this is a blanket rule for an objectively quantifiable group and at the discretion of the service provider.)

Justice Swift's ruling against GLP did find there was “scope for a strong argument” that allowing a trans woman to use a female toilet did not amount to discrimination against biological men so other exceptions are possible.

They might be able to argue that there aren't sufficient unisex/mixed sex provision, but there is no right to use services for the opposite sex. Similarly I can't argue that I have suffered discrimination because of my sex if I can't use a blue badge parking space.

Its human rights law under privacy that trans people shouldn't be forcibly outed or othered so other established legal precedents matter.

I don’t understand how any publicly funded body has the audacity to say it’s going to flout the law. They’re like stroppy teenagers sticking two fingers up at mum and dad for asking them to be home by midnight. It’s embarrassing and in agreement with a PP it’s a sign of potentially dangerous times. Worst of all it plainly shows the misogyny at the heart of our taxpayer-funded institutions.

Not for specifics like loos they didn't.

Yes, it has also been bad in employment situations, however, employers are covered by a different law, which has never needed to be clarified. So, you're right- private sector employers who have been allowing males to use women's toilets and changing rooms (as examples) have been consistently breaking the law, without even "confusion" as an excuse. I'd like to see a number of them sued by female employees, then the company can sue Stonewall in turn.

I would include unions. They have a history of refusing to help GC members who have suffered sex and belief discrimination, even since Forstater, which is much older than FWS.

The point is an individual can challenge the reasonableness of the proportional claim.

From the Equality Act:

733.This paragraph contains exceptions to the general prohibition of sex discrimination to allow the provision of single-sex services.
734.Single sex services are permitted where:

• only people of that sex require it;
• there is joint provision for both sexes but that is not sufficient on its own;
• if the service were provided for men and women jointly, it would not be as effective and it is not reasonably practicable to provide separate services for each sex;
• they are provided in a hospital or other place where users need special attention (or in parts of such an establishment);
• they may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa); or
• they may involve physical contact between a user and someone else and that other person may reasonably object if the user is of the opposite sex.

Children under 8 are not like adults.

The law says that a service can be single sex if it "may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa)". and although there have been extensive threads on MN where people do object to the presence of opposite sex children in changing rooms, it is generally considered that children under 8 are not a threat.

On the other hand, 'trans' is a subjective concept and there is no clear difference between a man who says he identifies as a woman and a man who doesn't. A woman might observe that she is in the presence of a man, but the service provider has judged that this is not relevant, and so the general prohibition of sex discrimination applies.

You aren't allowed to discriminate, but only when you feel like it.

And there are a couple of court cases ongoing, if I recall correctly.

Ok, thanks and thanks to @Floisme For now, I'll put them under the "Special place in Hell" section 😆

Its human rights law under privacy that trans people shouldn't be forcibly outed or othered so other established legal precedents matter.

So, a man who is really well disguised as a woman should be allowed in? That's not creepy at all 🙄.

And he knows what sex he is.

Well we've disagreed with your assessment repeatedly and this does rather feel like an attempt to derail now. Why don't you trot off and take a service provider to court and we'll stock up on the popcorn.🍿

The court will be required to balance the competing rights according to the particular circumstances.

Are you actually in the UK? Your ignorance of our laws is quite staggering.

The Equality Act 2010 permits discrimination on grounds of sex. Women have a right to expect that their toilets are strictly female only. Likewise for men. There are no competing rights as those with a PC of gender reassignment are only permitted in the toilets that match their biological sex not whatever fancy is in their head. Trans identifying men have never had a right to use the Ladies.

What has or hasn’t Lewisham done? Asking because it’s my LA…

The "reaching" is spectacular, isn't it?

If a service is deemed "single sex" then it has already passed the "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim" test.

"The reasonableness of a proportionality assessment (often framed as whether a measure is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim") can be directly challenged and scrutinized in UK courts under the Equality Act 2010.

How Proportionality Works under the Equality Act

• Indirect Discrimination: A defense of "objective justification" requires the respondent (e.g., an employer or service provider) to prove that the provision, criterion, or practice is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Durham Research Online (DRO) +2
• Justification for Other Characteristics: Proportionality also applies to specific exceptions or justifications under the Act, such as age discrimination or certain single-sex service exemptions. YouTube·STV News +1
• The Balancing Test: The Employment Tribunal or County/High Court does not simply accept the respondent's word. The judge conducts an objective balancing exercise, weighing the importance of the legitimate aim against the severity of the discriminatory effect on the claimant. Housing Ombudsman +1"

😂

One day, society will return to sanity where those pushing for men to be able to access women's toilets will be considered with the suspicion and derision they deserve.

I have faith.

Well go on then, if that’s what you think. Come back and let us know how you get on.

In the meantime we’ll go on adding to the list of organisations who are brazenly refusing to follow the law.

Does South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust make the list although this is only for staff?

Which laws are they going to flout next because they decide they don’t like them?

Exactly. This is what a lot of women have been asking for years, and especially since April of 2025.

The answer, apparently, is "as many laws as we think we can get away with, oh, and especially those that might impact on women."

Surely a union is an association under the act (part 7). Although it might in some circumstances also be a service provider (eg when providing legal services to its members) and indeed an employer.

If there's been evidence that they are breaking the law, possibly? Or being taken to court? I suspect most NHS/ambulance services-adjacent organizations have been breaking the law.

I would, however, like to focus specifically on those services who have said outright that they will continue to or are intending to not follow the law.

Otherwise, the list will end up including everyone!

Oh and forgot to mention the Scottish Government.

"The reasonableness of a proportionality assessment (often framed as whether a measure is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim") can be directly challenged and scrutinized in UK courts under the Equality Act 2010."

Absolutely, but you would be challenging whether the service should be single sex at all. What you can't do is advocate for a mixed sex single sex space.

It has already been established by the Supreme Court that if a space meets the criteria for being single sex, it is not discriminatory to exclude people of the opposite sex.