For which services is separate by "gender" appropriate?

[MyAmpleSheep]

Assuming it to be compliant with all relevant legislation (which is another discussion), which public services make more (or enough) sense to separate by self-defined gender rather than by sex?

We are often told that segregating by sex is permissible but not the only way to split "men" and "women" and that it's proportionate and appropriate to split men-identifiers from women-identifiers in some services in "appropriate circumstances" or some other phrase.

What are those services, and what are the appropriate circumstances?

This is a question about services, so I'm explicitly not referring to what the EA2010 covers under associations. Social groups are not services, and they can already be split or made exclusive in a much wider range of ways; I'm not asking about them. Only about public services. For clarity it's probably best to avoid terminology like "single sex spaces" because it's easy to misunderstand whether a "space" is a service - or an association.

So - which services can appropriately be segregated as women+trans-identifying men (women+ "trans women") and men+trans-identifying women (men + "trans men")?

I think it depends on the circles you move in.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/15/trans-australian-uk-britain-tolerance

This man seems to only present as a woman sometimes on nights out in the UK, and as above some men identify as non-binary and want to use women's facilities. It's vague enough that universities have policies that stress that users of facilities should not question whether anyone should use a single sex facility.

Speaking personally, I remember exactly the kind of man who would have pushed this boundary when I was a student.

You must never have encountered the geezer, dressed in male business attire who, when challenged about his presence in the ladies' loo, responded with "I'm a gender non-conforming trans woman".

Michael Foran thinks this is an issue, but I think his book may have gone to press before judgment in R (GLP et al) v EHRC. Swift J thought one might hypothetically be able to fix the direct sex-discrimination problem without meeting the conditions of Schedule 3. But not so confidently that he told EHRC to delete their warnings about possible sex-discrimination!

This thread is more about the logic of these services than the existing law, though....

Depending on the space, the gendered spaces will be universal inside.

So there'll be two single sex services - one for women, and one for men. Then two unisex spaces labeled for two genders - they would have to be to allow both sexes to use them.

Theres no need for two universal spaces labeled differently?

So it isnt based on need from a gender shared by all women and TW. Its humouring the trans people by pretending that the unisex space is gendered somehow. Again without the need to define anything.

The only situation in which i can even imagine that gender categories might be useful or applicable is in a TQ+ space in which attendees hold store by such things.

Well, fair enough, the trans allies in the trans-inclusive toilets will just have to take the rough with the smooth, won't they? Or maybe they'll come and join us in the women-only toilets, and customer demand for trans-inclusivity will wither. Viva market forces.

I think we have to assume that nobody is going to get rid of the laws that prohibit sex discrimination.

But we still haven't really established who would be providing these services and why.

I don't get the impression that there is a big drive to provide single gender services that exclude non-binary people given that non-binary people make up a very significant segment of people who identify as trans.

Is this really what e.g. Lambeth council wants?

Its humouring the trans people.

Well, yes.

What I mean is, men who identify as women don’t necessarily want to ‘dress as women’ all the time. It could be argued that, currently, they must signal in some way that they are women (rather than they are transwomen) in order to gain access to women’s spaces. The bar is higher than a ‘single-gender’ service where they don’t need to be women, just trans.

I’m not saying that is going to precipitate an influx of all sorts of men, but I don’t see there being any to police who is a transwoman. I’d also suggest that, even where members want to be transinclusive, there may be no consensus about what that means. Some will think fully transitioned, others ‘says he’s a woman’.

Your comment is based on existing regulations. My hypothetical is based on the existence of women who are willing to share single-sex provision (door gaps, shared sink space etc) with certain men. Maybe there aren't very many, in which case it will fail for lack of demand.

It all seems to depend on gendered expectations being maintained and enforced, which isn't very progressive.

you think some people's lifestyles should somehow be catered for

We accommodate the needs of religious people all the time.

The trick is to ensure that the non-believers are also catered for, which was not the state of affairs pre-FWS.

Wow. The entire point of this thread went flying right over your head, didn't it?

No they are not. They are the terms used to describe adult humans according to their sex.

An adult human female is called a woman
An adult human male is called a man.

It's like saying ram and ewe are gender constructs or bull and heifer. It's nonsense.

Masculine and feminine are gender constructs.

Except they don't. The original point was that TiMs don't experience the same fear and vulnerability as women. This is a fact. They are men and they are statistically the safest demographic in the majority of the western world. Safer than both women and men who do not identify as trans. So the idea that they would have ANY understanding of how women feel about their safety is absolutely laughable.