Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A business owner can legally provide female and male only toilets. It is not illegal to not follow guidance. " You’re right that guidance isn’t law — but discrimination still is. A business can provide male and female toilets, but once they’re open to the public, they fall under the Equality Act. If a trans woman is stopped from using the women’s toilet because she’s trans, that’s direct discrimination under the “gender reassignment” protection. The new EHRC sex-based guidance doesn’t change that; it just makes things messier. If providers follow it too rigidly and exclude trans people, they risk discrimination lawsuits. If they ignore it and stay inclusive, they risk gender-critical activists using the same guidance to drag them into legal disputes from the other side. So either way, the people running the venues are the ones facing the lawsuits — not the trans people, and not the government. That’s why this isn’t “clarity”; it’s a legal trap disguised as guidance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A business can offer female only and male only toilets if it is for legitimate privacy, dignity, safety reasons. It is an exception written into the equality Act." That exception exists, yes — but it isn’t a free pass. Any exclusion has to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That’s the legal test, and it’s a very high bar. Courts have already found that simply saying “privacy” or “comfort” isn’t enough. The provider has to show a clear, evidence-based reason for exclusion and prove there’s no reasonable alternative. If the men’s isn’t a viable option — and it rarely is — then excluding a trans woman usually fails that test. There’s case law on this — A v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2004) confirmed that trans women are protected under the Equality Act’s predecessor, and later cases have kept that same principle: blanket bans almost never meet the proportionality standard. So yes, they can apply the exception. But if they get it wrong, they face a discrimination claim. And most of the time, history shows they would lose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Simple, Female Only, Male Only and a third door All Others "That setup would make sense in some newer buildings, sure — single-occupancy lockable cubicles are the simplest way to balance privacy and inclusion. The problem is most existing buildings don’t have the space or funds to retrofit that kind of layout. And legally, they still have to comply with the Equality Act as things are now, not as the ideal floorplan might allow. So until building codes actually require universal single-stall toilets, trans people still have to be accommodated under the current law. The EHRC guidance doesn’t change that — it just makes the compliance risk more confusing for everyone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A business can offer female only and male only toilets if it is for legitimate privacy, dignity, safety reasons. It is an exception written into the equality Act. That exception exists, yes — but it isn’t a free pass. Any exclusion has to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That’s the legal test, and it’s a very high bar. Courts have already found that simply saying “privacy” or “comfort” isn’t enough. The provider has to show a clear, evidence-based reason for exclusion and prove there’s no reasonable alternative. If the men’s isn’t a viable option — and it rarely is — then excluding a trans woman usually fails that test. There’s case law on this — A v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2004) confirmed that trans women are protected under the Equality Act’s predecessor, and later cases have kept that same principle: blanket bans almost never meet the proportionality standard. So yes, they can apply the exception. But if they get it wrong, they face a discrimination claim. And most of the time, history shows they would lose." You might have evidence of some failings in the process, but the exception is in the Equality act.. If I were a business owner, I would be entirely within my rights to insist on a female only and male only toilet spaces on the grounds of privacy, dignity, and safety. As long as the reasons are genuine and applied to all, the Act would 100% support me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A business can offer female only and male only toilets if it is for legitimate privacy, dignity, safety reasons. It is an exception written into the equality Act. That exception exists, yes — but it isn’t a free pass. Any exclusion has to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That’s the legal test, and it’s a very high bar. Courts have already found that simply saying “privacy” or “comfort” isn’t enough. The provider has to show a clear, evidence-based reason for exclusion and prove there’s no reasonable alternative. If the men’s isn’t a viable option — and it rarely is — then excluding a trans woman usually fails that test. There’s case law on this — A v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2004) confirmed that trans women are protected under the Equality Act’s predecessor, and later cases have kept that same principle: blanket bans almost never meet the proportionality standard. So yes, they can apply the exception. But if they get it wrong, they face a discrimination claim. And most of the time, history shows they would lose." Even after the Supreme Coirt ruling that defines men as biological men? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do if a young lass goes to the lasses bogs and Jimmy saville is stannin wanking into the sink saying he is allowed to as he’s now transgender and the landlord throws him out the landlord is liable to prosecution ?? " I don't think the law currently allows wanking in public. What is does say, is that gender reassignment is a protected characteristics and transgender people are entitled to treatment as per their gender identity from the point of social transition. It's the tension between that and sex (now biological sex) that is causing the problem and the review from the ECHR. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You might have evidence of some failings in the process, but the exception is in the Equality act.. If I were a business owner, I would be entirely within my rights to insist on a female only and male only toilet spaces on the grounds of privacy, dignity, and safety. As long as the reasons are genuine and applied to all, the Act would 100% support me. " That’s not quite how the Equality Act works. The single-sex exception exists, but it doesn’t override the protection for gender reassignment. You can’t just declare “privacy and dignity” and automatically exclude trans people — you have to prove exclusion is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. That’s not a box you tick; it’s a legal threshold. It needs real evidence that inclusion would cause tangible harm and that no reasonable alternative exists. Blanket policies almost never pass that test — that’s why most organisations quietly avoid them. So no, the Act wouldn’t “100% support” a business that excluded trans women from women’s toilets. It would 100% land them in court. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" You might have evidence of some failings in the process, but the exception is in the Equality act.. If I were a business owner, I would be entirely within my rights to insist on a female only and male only toilet spaces on the grounds of privacy, dignity, and safety. As long as the reasons are genuine and applied to all, the Act would 100% support me. That’s not quite how the Equality Act works. The single-sex exception exists, but it doesn’t override the protection for gender reassignment. You can’t just declare “privacy and dignity” and automatically exclude trans people — you have to prove exclusion is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. That’s not a box you tick; it’s a legal threshold. It needs real evidence that inclusion would cause tangible harm and that no reasonable alternative exists. Blanket policies almost never pass that test — that’s why most organisations quietly avoid them. So no, the Act wouldn’t “100% support” a business that excluded trans women from women’s toilets. It would 100% land them in court. " The Supreme court has made it very clear that a woman is a person born female. If there is individual spaces provided for females and males, the act supports this along with the Supreme court ruling. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even after the Supreme Coirt ruling that defines men as biological men? Mrs x" The Supreme Court ruling didn’t redefine everyone’s rights — it clarified one clause in relation to the Gender Recognition Act, not the whole Equality Act. Trans people are still protected under the “gender reassignment” characteristic. That protection applies regardless of whether someone has a Gender Recognition Certificate. So yes, the judgment said “sex” in one legal context refers to biological sex — but it didn’t erase existing protections or allow blanket exclusion. The Equality Act still requires any restriction to be proportionate and evidence-based, and that bar remains extremely high. In short, the ruling changed one definition for one clause. It didn’t legalise discrimination. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The Supreme court has made it very clear that a woman is a person born female. If there is individual spaces provided for females and males, the act supports this along with the Supreme court ruling. " That’s not what the Supreme Court said. It ruled that for one clause of the Gender Recognition Act, “sex” means biological sex. It did not redefine “woman” across all law, and it did not remove protections for trans people. The Equality Act still includes “gender reassignment” as a protected characteristic, and that protection still applies anywhere the Act applies — including single-sex services. Even after the ruling, any exclusion still has to meet the same test: a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That’s written into the Act itself and hasn’t changed. So yes, you can have male and female spaces. But if you exclude a trans woman just for being trans, you’re still breaking the law. The judgment narrowed one hinge. It didn’t move the door. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The Supreme court has made it very clear that a woman is a person born female. If there is individual spaces provided for females and males, the act supports this along with the Supreme court ruling. That’s not what the Supreme Court said. It ruled that for one clause of the Gender Recognition Act, “sex” means biological sex. It did not redefine “woman” across all law, and it did not remove protections for trans people. The Equality Act still includes “gender reassignment” as a protected characteristic, and that protection still applies anywhere the Act applies — including single-sex services. Even after the ruling, any exclusion still has to meet the same test: a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That’s written into the Act itself and hasn’t changed. So yes, you can have male and female spaces. But if you exclude a trans woman just for being trans, you’re still breaking the law. The judgment narrowed one hinge. It didn’t move the door." It didn't remove any rights that is correct, but it did clarify the definition of a woman, which would make the decision to provide female only spaces easier to defend. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It'll make it much more defensible. Single sex provision based on a revised definition of biological sex will allow a defense of refusal of provision on the basis it wasn't because of gender identity,but compliance with the sex based definition. In reality, it's smaller businesses without the funds or space to provide gender neutral facilities and many won't have the HR or legal resources to go against a well funded lobby who will be seeking to take action against businesses along the lines of the FWS case and many ongoing cases objecting to trans women on particular in single sex spaces." Exactly. The guidance has done nothing but open up businesses to legal challenges no matter what they do. Discrimination is still discrimination, but following the sex-based guidance can now be used against them too. Small businesses especially won’t have the legal or HR support to navigate that. It’s not protection or clarity — it’s confusion dressed as policy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It didn't remove any rights that is correct, but it did clarify the definition of a woman, which would make the decision to provide female only spaces easier to defend." It clarified one definition for one purpose — that’s all. But “easier to defend” doesn’t mean automatically defensible. The Equality Act still treats exclusion based on gender reassignment as discrimination unless it’s proven to be a proportionate and necessary measure. That legal test didn’t move an inch. So yes, the ruling might give lawyers a new sentence to quote, but it doesn’t make exclusion lawful by default. Every case still turns on justification, not semantics. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not the main implication though in terms of impact. What is, is the escalation of incidents it's going to cause as people feel more empowered to challenge rights of access and service and a lot of transgender people will avoid all those scenarios by withdrawing themself. It's also going to impact on employment. A lot of business just won't want the hassle. It's also primarily, as always, going to negatively afgect cis women." Exactly. That’s the real fallout. It won’t change much legally, but it will change how people act. When prejudice feels state-sanctioned, harassment always spikes — and like you said, it won’t just hit trans women. Any woman who doesn’t fit a narrow idea of femininity ends up in the firing line. It’s perceived social permission disguised as legal clarity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It didn't remove any rights that is correct, but it did clarify the definition of a woman, which would make the decision to provide female only spaces easier to defend. It clarified one definition for one purpose — that’s all. But “easier to defend” doesn’t mean automatically defensible. The Equality Act still treats exclusion based on gender reassignment as discrimination unless it’s proven to be a proportionate and necessary measure. That legal test didn’t move an inch. So yes, the ruling might give lawyers a new sentence to quote, but it doesn’t make exclusion lawful by default. Every case still turns on justification, not semantics." This is the same logic / argument that ended up with the Supreme Court having to clarify the definition of a woman, because groups tried to blur the lines. Let's be clear, having gender reassignment surgery is not going to change anything under the law. A woman is born female. That is the end of the confusion, if I'm. a business I have no obligation to make female spaces, shared. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is the same logic / argument that ended up with the Supreme Court having to clarify the definition of a woman, because groups tried to blur the lines. Let's be clear, having gender reassignment surgery is not going to change anything under the law. A woman is born female. That is the end of the confusion, if I'm. a business I have no obligation to make female spaces, shared. " That’s perception, not law. The Supreme Court didn’t redefine “woman” in general — it clarified how the word is used in one clause of the Gender Recognition Act. It didn’t rewrite the Equality Act, and it didn’t remove the gender reassignment protection. Trans people remain protected from discrimination. A business can create single-sex spaces, but it still has to justify any exclusion as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That bar is very high, and most blanket exclusions fail it. So until Parliament actually changes the Equality Act, the reality stands: trans women are still protected, and a “born female only” rule would almost certainly be unlawful discrimination. And that’s the whole point of this post — to show that the law isn’t actually changing the way a lot of gender-critical voices are claiming it is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But you would have an obligation to comply with gender reassignment protected characteristic,which has nothing to do with surgery, and that means providing a suitable space unless impossible which would be a high bar." Protection doesn’t force a business to make single sex spaces shared, it prevents unfair treatment. Providing separate male and female spaces that are consistent and proportionate is line with the Act and the Supreme Court ruling. There isn't a blurred line, recognising gender reassignment is a protected characteristic that is all that is required. As I mentioned earlier, this blurring of statements and what if's, is the same path people were taking with "what is a woman". We have that now, and following that ruling this is clear cut. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Protection doesn’t force a business to make single sex spaces shared, it prevents unfair treatment. Providing separate male and female spaces that are consistent and proportionate is line with the Act and the Supreme Court ruling. There isn't a blurred line, recognising gender reassignment is a protected characteristic that is all that is required. As I mentioned earlier, this blurring of statements and what if's, is the same path people were taking with "what is a woman". We have that now, and following that ruling this is clear cut. " Again, that’s the perception — not the law. The “clarity” people keep claiming just isn’t there in practice. The Supreme Court ruling didn’t rewrite the Equality Act, and it didn’t remove the duty to avoid discrimination under the gender reassignment protection. If a business excludes a trans woman from the women’s facilities, that’s still direct discrimination unless it can prove the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That’s a high legal bar, and history shows most cases fail it. So yes, a business can try to rely on the ruling, but it’s a risky bet — and they would very likely lose in court. This whole “the law is now clear” line is just GC propaganda | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Even after the Supreme Coirt ruling that defines men as biological men? Mrs x The Supreme Court ruling didn’t redefine everyone’s rights — it clarified one clause in relation to the Gender Recognition Act, not the whole Equality Act. Trans people are still protected under the “gender reassignment” characteristic. That protection applies regardless of whether someone has a Gender Recognition Certificate. So yes, the judgment said “sex” in one legal context refers to biological sex — but it didn’t erase existing protections or allow blanket exclusion. The Equality Act still requires any restriction to be proportionate and evidence-based, and that bar remains extremely high. In short, the ruling changed one definition for one clause. It didn’t legalise discrimination." I think you are misinterpreting the Supreme Court ruling. You are quite right in that it doesn't remove the rights for Trans people. Nothing has changed there but it has defined what sex means and that means companies are under a duty to provide single sex spaces and they must be used as per the Supreme Courts judgement. So thats one space for woman, one space for men. There's no discrimination because its not about gender just sex. Men are not allowed to use womans spaces and vice versa. A simple search using AI explains the current position very clearly. "The Supreme Court ruling you're referring to, which clarifies that "sex" in the context of the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex at birth (in the UK), has significant and debated impacts on the provision of single-sex spaces, including toilets, for transgender people. ?Here is a breakdown of the key implications and ongoing debate: ?Impact on Single-Sex Spaces ?Definition of Sex: The ruling establishes that for the purposes of the Equality Act, a person's sex is their biological sex. This means that a trans woman is considered male and a trans man is considered female under the Act, regardless of whether they hold a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). ?Exclusion from Single-Sex Spaces: The ruling means that organizations providing single-sex services and facilities (like women's toilets, changing rooms, or certain communal accommodations) are legally permitted to exclude transgender people whose biological sex does not align with that space. ?For example, a service provider could legally exclude a trans woman (biologically male) from a women-only space. Similarly, a trans man (biologically female) could be excluded from a men-only space. ?Guidance from Equalities Watchdog: The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been tasked with providing formal guidance to businesses and public bodies. Initial advice suggested that the ruling could mean transgender people should not be allowed to use toilets aligning with the gender they live as, leading to alarm from transgender groups. The final, formal guidance is being considered by ministers. ?Transgender Protections Still Exist: ?It's crucial to note that the Supreme Court and subsequent commentary stressed that the ruling does not remove the existing legal protections for transgender people under the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" in the Equality Act. ?Discrimination is Still Prohibited: Discrimination or harassment against a person on the basis of gender reassignment is still illegal. ?The Balancing Act: Service providers are now in a complex position where they MUST: ?Uphold the right to single-sex spaces based on biological sex. ?Ensure they do not unlawfully discriminate against transgender people based on gender reassignment." So hopefully this clarifies the current position. As a Trans woman you are legally a biological man and therefore you are not being discriminated by having to use men only facilities. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you are misinterpreting the Supreme Court ruling. You are quite right in that it doesn't remove the rights for Trans people. Nothing has changed there but it has defined what sex means and that means companies are under a duty to provide single sex spaces and they must be used as per the Supreme Courts judgement. So thats one space for woman, one space for men. There's no discrimination because its not about gender just sex. Men are not allowed to use womans spaces and vice versa. A simple search using AI explains the current position very clearly. "The Supreme Court ruling you're referring to, which clarifies that "sex" in the context of the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex at birth (in the UK), has significant and debated impacts on the provision of single-sex spaces, including toilets, for transgender people. ?Here is a breakdown of the key implications and ongoing debate: ?Impact on Single-Sex Spaces ?Definition of Sex: The ruling establishes that for the purposes of the Equality Act, a person's sex is their biological sex. This means that a trans woman is considered male and a trans man is considered female under the Act, regardless of whether they hold a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). ?Exclusion from Single-Sex Spaces: The ruling means that organizations providing single-sex services and facilities (like women's toilets, changing rooms, or certain communal accommodations) are legally permitted to exclude transgender people whose biological sex does not align with that space. ?For example, a service provider could legally exclude a trans woman (biologically male) from a women-only space. Similarly, a trans man (biologically female) could be excluded from a men-only space. ?Guidance from Equalities Watchdog: The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been tasked with providing formal guidance to businesses and public bodies. Initial advice suggested that the ruling could mean transgender people should not be allowed to use toilets aligning with the gender they live as, leading to alarm from transgender groups. The final, formal guidance is being considered by ministers. ?Transgender Protections Still Exist: ?It's crucial to note that the Supreme Court and subsequent commentary stressed that the ruling does not remove the existing legal protections for transgender people under the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" in the Equality Act. ?Discrimination is Still Prohibited: Discrimination or harassment against a person on the basis of gender reassignment is still illegal. ?The Balancing Act: Service providers are now in a complex position where they MUST: ?Uphold the right to single-sex spaces based on biological sex. ?Ensure they do not unlawfully discriminate against transgender people based on gender reassignment." So hopefully this clarifies the current position. As a Trans woman you are legally a biological man and therefore you are not being discriminated by having to use men only facilities. Mrs x" You’ve actually just repeated exactly what I’ve been saying — that the ruling clarified one clause, didn’t remove protections, and left the Equality Act unchanged. The only difference is the GC spin added at the end. The judgment doesn’t create a new duty to exclude anyone, and it doesn’t remove protection under gender reassignment. It just restates the same balance that’s always existed: any exclusion still has to be proportionate and legally justified. So the reality hasn’t changed — only the propaganda has. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think you are misinterpreting the Supreme Court ruling. You are quite right in that it doesn't remove the rights for Trans people. Nothing has changed there but it has defined what sex means and that means companies are under a duty to provide single sex spaces and they must be used as per the Supreme Courts judgement. So thats one space for woman, one space for men. There's no discrimination because its not about gender just sex. Men are not allowed to use womans spaces and vice versa. A simple search using AI explains the current position very clearly. "The Supreme Court ruling you're referring to, which clarifies that "sex" in the context of the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex at birth (in the UK), has significant and debated impacts on the provision of single-sex spaces, including toilets, for transgender people. ?Here is a breakdown of the key implications and ongoing debate: ?Impact on Single-Sex Spaces ?Definition of Sex: The ruling establishes that for the purposes of the Equality Act, a person's sex is their biological sex. This means that a trans woman is considered male and a trans man is considered female under the Act, regardless of whether they hold a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). ?Exclusion from Single-Sex Spaces: The ruling means that organizations providing single-sex services and facilities (like women's toilets, changing rooms, or certain communal accommodations) are legally permitted to exclude transgender people whose biological sex does not align with that space. ?For example, a service provider could legally exclude a trans woman (biologically male) from a women-only space. Similarly, a trans man (biologically female) could be excluded from a men-only space. ?Guidance from Equalities Watchdog: The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been tasked with providing formal guidance to businesses and public bodies. Initial advice suggested that the ruling could mean transgender people should not be allowed to use toilets aligning with the gender they live as, leading to alarm from transgender groups. The final, formal guidance is being considered by ministers. ?Transgender Protections Still Exist: ?It's crucial to note that the Supreme Court and subsequent commentary stressed that the ruling does not remove the existing legal protections for transgender people under the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" in the Equality Act. ?Discrimination is Still Prohibited: Discrimination or harassment against a person on the basis of gender reassignment is still illegal. ?The Balancing Act: Service providers are now in a complex position where they MUST: ?Uphold the right to single-sex spaces based on biological sex. ?Ensure they do not unlawfully discriminate against transgender people based on gender reassignment." So hopefully this clarifies the current position. As a Trans woman you are legally a biological man and therefore you are not being discriminated by having to use men only facilities. Mrs x You’ve actually just repeated exactly what I’ve been saying — that the ruling clarified one clause, didn’t remove protections, and left the Equality Act unchanged. The only difference is the GC spin added at the end. The judgment doesn’t create a new duty to exclude anyone, and it doesn’t remove protection under gender reassignment. It just restates the same balance that’s always existed: any exclusion still has to be proportionate and legally justified. So the reality hasn’t changed — only the propaganda has." I dont understand what you mean by 'GC' spin, what does that mean? And as for being propaganda and excluding anyone I find that very strange. It's a Supreme Court ruling, from judges that hold tr highest office in the land. Their judgements are 'the law'. Thats how a Common Law system operates its not propaganda, or is all 'judge made' law propaganda and can be ignored if you dont agree with ot personally. This is not me just saying this, its actually fact, its the highest court in the land with the most gravitas. As for excluding anyone, it doesn't. It's not discriminatory. It just means biological men have to use mens facilities and biological woman have to use womans. Everyone is included here but I can see how this may be upsetting for you as this goes against your life choices. But that aside, its the legal position as it stands today. Only a statute or a ruling from, this court, or a higher court can now change this position now. So say what you will thats the law right now. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont understand what you mean by 'GC' spin, what does that mean? And as for being propaganda and excluding anyone I find that very strange. It's a Supreme Court ruling, from judges that hold tr highest office in the land. Their judgements are 'the law'. Thats how a Common Law system operates its not propaganda, or is all 'judge made' law propaganda and can be ignored if you dont agree with ot personally. This is not me just saying this, its actually fact, its the highest court in the land with the most gravitas. As for excluding anyone, it doesn't. It's not discriminatory. It just means biological men have to use mens facilities and biological woman have to use womans. Everyone is included here but I can see how this may be upsetting for you as this goes against your life choices. But that aside, its the legal position as it stands today. Only a statute or a ruling from, this court, or a higher court can now change this position now. So say what you will thats the law right now. Mrs x" You’re misunderstanding which law the Supreme Court actually ruled on. It was interpreting how “sex” is read in one clause of the Gender Recognition Act, not rewriting the Equality Act. The ruling doesn’t dictate toilet use — that’s covered under the Equality Act’s service provisions, which still include “gender reassignment” as a protected characteristic. So yes, the Supreme Court’s word on that clause is binding. But it didn’t suddenly make trans women “legally male” for every purpose, and it didn’t remove their protection from discrimination. Those protections still apply anywhere the Equality Act applies — including public facilities. In short, the ruling clarified one definition in one law. The law that covers access to toilets hasn’t changed at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont understand what you mean by 'GC' spin, what does that mean? And as for being propaganda and excluding anyone I find that very strange. It's a Supreme Court ruling, from judges that hold tr highest office in the land. Their judgements are 'the law'. Thats how a Common Law system operates its not propaganda, or is all 'judge made' law propaganda and can be ignored if you dont agree with ot personally. This is not me just saying this, its actually fact, its the highest court in the land with the most gravitas. As for excluding anyone, it doesn't. It's not discriminatory. It just means biological men have to use mens facilities and biological woman have to use womans. Everyone is included here but I can see how this may be upsetting for you as this goes against your life choices. But that aside, its the legal position as it stands today. Only a statute or a ruling from, this court, or a higher court can now change this position now. So say what you will thats the law right now. Mrs x You’re misunderstanding which law the Supreme Court actually ruled on. It was interpreting how “sex” is read in one clause of the Gender Recognition Act, not rewriting the Equality Act. The ruling doesn’t dictate toilet use — that’s covered under the Equality Act’s service provisions, which still include “gender reassignment” as a protected characteristic. So yes, the Supreme Court’s word on that clause is binding. But it didn’t suddenly make trans women “legally male” for every purpose, and it didn’t remove their protection from discrimination. Those protections still apply anywhere the Equality Act applies — including public facilities. In short, the ruling clarified one definition in one law. The law that covers access to toilets hasn’t changed at all." The ruling clarified what sex means. Not gender, sex. It's ruling is not limited to one clause un one act. It's binding over the issue of sex in all UK laws. But its not about gender, trans people still have protections under this particular act when it comes to gender but as for sex you are mistaken. I did not give you the explanation, I posted what AI said. You obviously havent read it. The ruling about what sex is is not confined to this act. The legal definition of what a man is has now been legally defined as a biological man. This means that in other areas of the law, that deals with sex then this is the standard now for the definition of sex. So you are legally classed as a man because you are a biological man due to the circumstance of your birth. Don't argue with me, I didnt make this up and like you I cannot change it. Lobby parliament if you feel so strongly about it. This ruling has set a precedent and thats how our incremental, judge made law works. So until such time as a statute revoked this or its challenged on appeal it is what it is. I empathise with you but right now there's no escaping you are legally a man. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we’re talking about the actual legal route to exclusion, it’s pretty straightforward. A business can only justify restricting access if it provides a suitable, proportionate alternative — for example, single-occupancy, gender-neutral toilets with full lockable doors that aren’t the disabled facility. That setup satisfies privacy, dignity, and proportionality without breaching the Equality Act. That’s literally how you’d make exclusion lawful. Anything short of that — like forcing someone into the men’s or the disabled loo — would almost certainly count as discrimination under gender reassignment. So yes, there is a way to do it legally. It just isn’t the way most people shouting about “biological sex” think it is." Wrong, you are not being discriminated because you are not being excluded. In fact its the exact opposite, you are being include, just not into the group you want to be. But legally there is no exclusion, no discrimination because tge Supreme Court has ruled you are a man by the nature of your birth. This might change but not right now, thats the reality of the situation, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's ruling is not limited to one clause un one act. It's binding over the issue of sex in all UK laws. But its not about gender, trans people still have protections under this particular act when it comes to gender but as for sex you are mistaken. I did not give you the explanation, I posted what AI said. You obviously havent read it. The ruling about what sex is is not confined to this act. The legal definition of what a man is has now been legally defined as a biological man. This means that in other areas of the law, that deals with sex then this is the standard now for the definition of sex. So you are legally classed as a man because you are a biological man due to the circumstance of your birth. Don't argue with me, I didnt make this up and like you I cannot change it. Lobby parliament if you feel so strongly about it. This ruling has set a precedent and thats how our incremental, judge made law works. So until such time as a statute revoked this or its challenged on appeal it is what it is. I empathise with you but right now there's no escaping you are legally a man. Mrs x" No, that isn’t how precedent works. The Supreme Court clarified how “sex” is interpreted within the Gender Recognition Act when it interacts with the Equality Act. It didn’t redefine “sex” across all UK law — courts only decide on the legislation actually before them. That’s why the judgment itself explicitly limits its scope to that clause. The effect is narrow: it means someone with a GRC is recognised in their acquired gender for almost all purposes except where the Equality Act uses “sex” in a specific exemption. Outside that, the law still treats them as their acquired gender. And yes, trans people still have protection under gender reassignment — that’s written into the Equality Act and wasn’t touched by this ruling. So the idea that I’m now “legally a man” everywhere is just not accurate. The precedent is limited, not universal. Check it for yourself | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wrong, you are not being discriminated because you are not being excluded. In fact its the exact opposite, you are being include, just not into the group you want to be. But legally there is no exclusion, no discrimination because tge Supreme Court has ruled you are a man by the nature of your birth. This might change but not right now, thats the reality of the situation, Mrs x" That still isn’t what the ruling said. It didn’t make anyone “legally male” for every purpose, and it didn’t remove discrimination protections. Being forced to use facilities that don’t align with your gender identity is exclusion under the Equality Act — that’s why those cases keep succeeding. If the law worked the way you’re describing, there wouldn’t need to be any “proportionate means” test or case-by-case justification at all. But there is — and that’s exactly what proves my point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's ruling is not limited to one clause un one act. It's binding over the issue of sex in all UK laws. But its not about gender, trans people still have protections under this particular act when it comes to gender but as for sex you are mistaken. I did not give you the explanation, I posted what AI said. You obviously havent read it. The ruling about what sex is is not confined to this act. The legal definition of what a man is has now been legally defined as a biological man. This means that in other areas of the law, that deals with sex then this is the standard now for the definition of sex. So you are legally classed as a man because you are a biological man due to the circumstance of your birth. Don't argue with me, I didnt make this up and like you I cannot change it. Lobby parliament if you feel so strongly about it. This ruling has set a precedent and thats how our incremental, judge made law works. So until such time as a statute revoked this or its challenged on appeal it is what it is. I empathise with you but right now there's no escaping you are legally a man. Mrs x No, that isn’t how precedent works. The Supreme Court clarified how “sex” is interpreted within the Gender Recognition Act when it interacts with the Equality Act. It didn’t redefine “sex” across all UK law — courts only decide on the legislation actually before them. That’s why the judgment itself explicitly limits its scope to that clause. The effect is narrow: it means someone with a GRC is recognised in their acquired gender for almost all purposes except where the Equality Act uses “sex” in a specific exemption. Outside that, the law still treats them as their acquired gender. And yes, trans people still have protection under gender reassignment — that’s written into the Equality Act and wasn’t touched by this ruling. So the idea that I’m now “legally a man” everywhere is just not accurate. The precedent is limited, not universal. Check it for yourself" I know how precedent works, I'm not going to play legal top trumps but thats exactly how precedent works. A judge makes a decision which must then be followed by lower courts, binding precedent or at least considered by similar courts or Appelant courts, persuasive precedent. Courts do not only decide on the legislation before them. Judges can actually MAKE law, or modify law that already exists. This must be follow by any court below them. That's the whole premise of a Common Law system and its exactly how precedent works. Unfortunately for you this is a Supreme Court ruling so its extremely difficult for any other court to ignore. These judges are so powerful they can convict offenders for a crime that didn't exist when the accused actually committed it, RvR (1991) being the most famous case of this kind. Establishing that a husband could be guilty of r@ping his wife despite there being no offence in law at the actual time due to the long held fiction of 'irrevocably consent' a wife gave to intercourse due to marriage. This decision was not limited to just the defendant in this case and the law changed and applied to ALL interiors in ALL marriages. Even the most grievous crime of murder is defined by the judgement of Coke, so that it requires tge unlawful killing, of a reasonable being with malice aforethought. These judges are very powerful. As for precedent being limited and not universal, again thats incorrect. Precedent must be followed by all inferior courts, universally, thats how it works. So when the Supreme Court defined what sex means, that is now binding precedent and must be followed by all lower courts, in all instances looking at the issue of sex and how that's defined. As its the highest court in the land, this must be followed by all lower courts, unless the circumstances of the case are so materially different or that it may be harmful to someone. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wrong, you are not being discriminated because you are not being excluded. In fact its the exact opposite, you are being include, just not into the group you want to be. But legally there is no exclusion, no discrimination because tge Supreme Court has ruled you are a man by the nature of your birth. This might change but not right now, thats the reality of the situation, Mrs x That still isn’t what the ruling said. It didn’t make anyone “legally male” for every purpose, and it didn’t remove discrimination protections. Being forced to use facilities that don’t align with your gender identity is exclusion under the Equality Act — that’s why those cases keep succeeding. If the law worked the way you’re describing, there wouldn’t need to be any “proportionate means” test or case-by-case justification at all. But there is — and that’s exactly what proves my point." Good luck, but you are wrong this time. You are right, as I've said before in this thread, that it has nothing to do with gender or gender identity. It is purely about sex and what the definitions are for men and woman. You seem to forget that this case was brought to the court by a woman's group and the judgement was made to ensure the safety of woman as well as Trans people. I can see how it would be upsetting but just denying the reality of the situation is just not helping you. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Courts do not only decide on the legislation before them. Judges can actually MAKE law, or modify law that already exists. This must be follow by any court below them. That's the whole premise of a Common Law system and its exactly how precedent works. Unfortunately for you this is a Supreme Court ruling so its extremely difficult for any other court to ignore. These judges are so powerful they can convict offenders for a crime that didn't exist when the accused actually committed it, RvR (1991) being the most famous case of this kind. Establishing that a husband could be guilty of r@ping his wife despite there being no offence in law at the actual time due to the long held fiction of 'irrevocably consent' a wife gave to intercourse due to marriage. This decision was not limited to just the defendant in this case and the law changed and applied to ALL interiors in ALL marriages. Even the most grievous crime of murder is defined by the judgement of Coke, so that it requires tge unlawful killing, of a reasonable being with malice aforethought. These judges are very powerful. As for precedent being limited and not universal, again thats incorrect. Precedent must be followed by all inferior courts, universally, thats how it works. So when the Supreme Court defined what sex means, that is now binding precedent and must be followed by all lower courts, in all instances looking at the issue of sex and how that's defined. As its the highest court in the land, this must be followed by all lower courts, unless the circumstances of the case are so materially different or that it may be harmful to someone. Mrs x" That only applies to what the Supreme Court actually ruled on. They were very clear that their judgment covered the way the Gender Recognition Act interacts with the “sex” clause in the Equality Act — and nothing else. It didn’t rewrite the rest of the Equality Act, and it didn’t redefine “sex” across every law in the UK. So yes, lower courts have to follow that ruling, but only on that exact issue. That’s what binding precedent means — it’s binding on the point decided, not everything people want it to mean. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Courts do not only decide on the legislation before them. Judges can actually MAKE law, or modify law that already exists. This must be follow by any court below them. That's the whole premise of a Common Law system and its exactly how precedent works. Unfortunately for you this is a Supreme Court ruling so its extremely difficult for any other court to ignore. These judges are so powerful they can convict offenders for a crime that didn't exist when the accused actually committed it, RvR (1991) being the most famous case of this kind. Establishing that a husband could be guilty of r@ping his wife despite there being no offence in law at the actual time due to the long held fiction of 'irrevocably consent' a wife gave to intercourse due to marriage. This decision was not limited to just the defendant in this case and the law changed and applied to ALL interiors in ALL marriages. Even the most grievous crime of murder is defined by the judgement of Coke, so that it requires tge unlawful killing, of a reasonable being with malice aforethought. These judges are very powerful. As for precedent being limited and not universal, again thats incorrect. Precedent must be followed by all inferior courts, universally, thats how it works. So when the Supreme Court defined what sex means, that is now binding precedent and must be followed by all lower courts, in all instances looking at the issue of sex and how that's defined. As its the highest court in the land, this must be followed by all lower courts, unless the circumstances of the case are so materially different or that it may be harmful to someone. Mrs x That only applies to what the Supreme Court actually ruled on. They were very clear that their judgment covered the way the Gender Recognition Act interacts with the “sex” clause in the Equality Act — and nothing else. It didn’t rewrite the rest of the Equality Act, and it didn’t redefine “sex” across every law in the UK. So yes, lower courts have to follow that ruling, but only on that exact issue. That’s what binding precedent means — it’s binding on the point decided, not everything people want it to mean." Sorry but you are wrong thats not how precedent works. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry but you are wrong thats not how precedent works. Mrs x" Show me the section of the Equality Act that says a business can lawfully exclude trans women from the women’s toilets simply for being trans. You won’t find one. Because that’s the point — it doesn’t exist, and the Supreme Court ruling didn’t create it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ask your AI this, then: If the new EHRC guidance based on the Supreme Court ruling becomes statutory, would it be considered proportionate under the Equality Act to send trans women to the men’s or the disabled toilets in order to make a space “single sex”? Because that’s the real legal test — not slogans, not headlines. And every precedent so far says that kind of exclusion wouldn’t meet it." I dont have to go to AI to ask this because I've already answered this before numerous times in this thread. So last time, I've said this ruling can be changed by a decision of a higher court or by STATUTE. In that case proportionality will be defined by whats include in the Act. But as it stands the Supreme Court, whilst defining something confined within the Equality Act, as you say, has set precedent over lower courts and this issue of 'sex' will be highly influences by their decision. How this relates to certain issues and other laws may be binding or persuasive. Areas that would have binding precedent upon them would be things like Sex Discrimination case, single sex spaces, as ruled upon in the Equality Act. It would be persuasive precedent in other statutes. But it does not change the Gender Reassignment Act, as already stated Trans rights are not affected. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sorry but you are wrong thats not how precedent works. Mrs x Show me the section of the Equality Act that says a business can lawfully exclude trans women from the women’s toilets simply for being trans. You won’t find one. Because that’s the point — it doesn’t exist, and the Supreme Court ruling didn’t create it. " This is how: The Supreme Court's ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers enables the exclusion of a transgender person from a single-sex space by providing a definitive legal interpretation for the single-sex exceptions within the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). ?Here is the step-by-step mechanism by which the ruling clarifies this path to exclusion: ?1. Defining the Protected Group: Biological Sex ?The core of the ruling is the judicial confirmation that for the purposes of the EqA 2010: ?"Sex" = Biological Sex: The protected characteristic of "sex" means male or female based on biological sex at birth. ?GRC is Disapplied: A Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), which changes a person's legal sex for many other purposes, does not change their sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. ?Therefore, for the purposes of the EqA, a trans woman (a person who was registered male at birth) is legally considered male, and a trans man (a person who was registered female at birth) is legally considered female. ?2. Activating the Single-Sex Exception: ?The EqA 2010 already contains specific exceptions that allow service providers (like women's refuges, changing rooms, or gyms) to limit a service to one sex: ?Schedule 3, Paragraph 27 (Single-Sex Services): This exception permits a service provider to restrict a service to one sex if it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." ?Legitimate Aims can include: ensuring privacy, protecting safety, or promoting dignity. ?The Supreme Court ruling confirms that when a provider is relying on this exception to create a "women's only" space, the word "women" means biological women (i.e., people who are legally female under the Act). ?3. Applying the Exclusion: ?By clarifying the legal definition of sex, the ruling enables the exclusion mechanism as follows: Excluding a Trans Woman from a Female Single-Sex Space: The provider is limiting the service to "female sex". Because the Trans woman is legally classified as a male under the EqA, they are the opposite sex to the service enabling exclusion under the single sex exception (assuming the provider passes the proportionate means test). Excluding a Trans Man from a Male Single-Sex Space: The provider is limiting the service to "male sex". Because the Trans man is legally classified as a woman under the EqA, they are the opposite sex to the service. Crucially, the service provider still needs to show that the exclusion is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" on a case-by-case basis. However, the ruling has provided strong legal backing for defining the single-sex group by biology, making it easier for providers to meet that test. ?The Supreme Court noted that this interpretation does not remove all protection for trans people, who remain protected under the separate characteristic of "gender reassignment" (meaning they cannot be discriminated against simply for being trans, unless a lawful single-sex exception applies)." Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I dont have to go to AI to ask this because I've already answered this before numerous times in this thread. So last time, I've said this ruling can be changed by a decision of a higher court or by STATUTE. In that case proportionality will be defined by whats include in the Act. But as it stands the Supreme Court, whilst defining something confined within the Equality Act, as you say, has set precedent over lower courts and this issue of 'sex' will be highly influences by their decision. How this relates to certain issues and other laws may be binding or persuasive. Areas that would have binding precedent upon them would be things like Sex Discrimination case, single sex spaces, as ruled upon in the Equality Act. It would be persuasive precedent in other statutes. But it does not change the Gender Reassignment Act, as already stated Trans rights are not affected. Mrs x" You’ve basically just repeated what I’ve said from the start. The Supreme Court’s ruling was only about how the Gender Recognition Act interacts with the “sex” clause of the Equality Act — and nothing else. They even spelled out that it didn’t change how the Equality Act protects people under gender reassignment. That means the discrimination rules are identical before and after the judgment. If a business bans trans women from the ladies without providing a proper, separate gender-neutral alternative — full-door, single-occupancy, not the disabled toilet — it’s still discrimination under the Equality Act. That discrimination is based on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, not sex, and that protection hasn’t changed. The ruling didn’t touch that, and the EHRC guidance can’t rewrite it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is how: The Supreme Court's ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers enables the exclusion of a transgender person from a single-sex space by providing a definitive legal interpretation for the single-sex exceptions within the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). ?Here is the step-by-step mechanism by which the ruling clarifies this path to exclusion: ?1. Defining the Protected Group: Biological Sex ?The core of the ruling is the judicial confirmation that for the purposes of the EqA 2010: ?"Sex" = Biological Sex: The protected characteristic of "sex" means male or female based on biological sex at birth. ?GRC is Disapplied: A Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), which changes a person's legal sex for many other purposes, does not change their sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. ?Therefore, for the purposes of the EqA, a trans woman (a person who was registered male at birth) is legally considered male, and a trans man (a person who was registered female at birth) is legally considered female. ?2. Activating the Single-Sex Exception: ?The EqA 2010 already contains specific exceptions that allow service providers (like women's refuges, changing rooms, or gyms) to limit a service to one sex: ?Schedule 3, Paragraph 27 (Single-Sex Services): This exception permits a service provider to restrict a service to one sex if it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." ?Legitimate Aims can include: ensuring privacy, protecting safety, or promoting dignity. ?The Supreme Court ruling confirms that when a provider is relying on this exception to create a "women's only" space, the word "women" means biological women (i.e., people who are legally female under the Act). ?3. Applying the Exclusion: ?By clarifying the legal definition of sex, the ruling enables the exclusion mechanism as follows: Excluding a Trans Woman from a Female Single-Sex Space: The provider is limiting the service to "female sex". Because the Trans woman is legally classified as a male under the EqA, they are the opposite sex to the service enabling exclusion under the single sex exception (assuming the provider passes the proportionate means test). Excluding a Trans Man from a Male Single-Sex Space: The provider is limiting the service to "male sex". Because the Trans man is legally classified as a woman under the EqA, they are the opposite sex to the service. Crucially, the service provider still needs to show that the exclusion is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" on a case-by-case basis. However, the ruling has provided strong legal backing for defining the single-sex group by biology, making it easier for providers to meet that test. ?The Supreme Court noted that this interpretation does not remove all protection for trans people, who remain protected under the separate characteristic of "gender reassignment" (meaning they cannot be discriminated against simply for being trans, unless a lawful single-sex exception applies)." Mrs x" That’s not the question I asked. You’ve rewritten it to fit your argument instead of answering it. The question was whether it would be considered proportionate under the Equality Act to send trans women to the men’s or the disabled toilets in order to make a space “single sex.” Even in what you’ve just posted, you admit providers still have to pass the “proportionate means” test and that protection under gender reassignment hasn’t changed. That’s the whole point. If the protection hasn’t changed, then the discrimination test hasn’t changed either — which means that kind of exclusion would still be unlawful. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is how: The Supreme Court's ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers enables the exclusion of a transgender person from a single-sex space by providing a definitive legal interpretation for the single-sex exceptions within the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). ?Here is the step-by-step mechanism by which the ruling clarifies this path to exclusion: ?1. Defining the Protected Group: Biological Sex ?The core of the ruling is the judicial confirmation that for the purposes of the EqA 2010: ?"Sex" = Biological Sex: The protected characteristic of "sex" means male or female based on biological sex at birth. ?GRC is Disapplied: A Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), which changes a person's legal sex for many other purposes, does not change their sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. ?Therefore, for the purposes of the EqA, a trans woman (a person who was registered male at birth) is legally considered male, and a trans man (a person who was registered female at birth) is legally considered female. ?2. Activating the Single-Sex Exception: ?The EqA 2010 already contains specific exceptions that allow service providers (like women's refuges, changing rooms, or gyms) to limit a service to one sex: ?Schedule 3, Paragraph 27 (Single-Sex Services): This exception permits a service provider to restrict a service to one sex if it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." ?Legitimate Aims can include: ensuring privacy, protecting safety, or promoting dignity. ?The Supreme Court ruling confirms that when a provider is relying on this exception to create a "women's only" space, the word "women" means biological women (i.e., people who are legally female under the Act). ?3. Applying the Exclusion: ?By clarifying the legal definition of sex, the ruling enables the exclusion mechanism as follows: Excluding a Trans Woman from a Female Single-Sex Space: The provider is limiting the service to "female sex". Because the Trans woman is legally classified as a male under the EqA, they are the opposite sex to the service enabling exclusion under the single sex exception (assuming the provider passes the proportionate means test). Excluding a Trans Man from a Male Single-Sex Space: The provider is limiting the service to "male sex". Because the Trans man is legally classified as a woman under the EqA, they are the opposite sex to the service. Crucially, the service provider still needs to show that the exclusion is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" on a case-by-case basis. However, the ruling has provided strong legal backing for defining the single-sex group by biology, making it easier for providers to meet that test. ?The Supreme Court noted that this interpretation does not remove all protection for trans people, who remain protected under the separate characteristic of "gender reassignment" (meaning they cannot be discriminated against simply for being trans, unless a lawful single-sex exception applies)." Mrs x That’s not the question I asked. You’ve rewritten it to fit your argument instead of answering it. The question was whether it would be considered proportionate under the Equality Act to send trans women to the men’s or the disabled toilets in order to make a space “single sex.” Even in what you’ve just posted, you admit providers still have to pass the “proportionate means” test and that protection under gender reassignment hasn’t changed. That’s the whole point. If the protection hasn’t changed, then the discrimination test hasn’t changed either — which means that kind of exclusion would still be unlawful." You've deliberately missed out this part of what I wrote about the proportionate means test... "However, the ruling has provided strong legal backing for defining the single-sex group by biology, making it easier for providers to meet that test." Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You've deliberately missed out this part of what I wrote about the proportionate means test... "However, the ruling has provided strong legal backing for defining the single-sex group by biology, making it easier for providers to meet that test." Mrs x" That doesn’t change the outcome though. The proportionality test is still the same high bar it always was — evidence-based, case-by-case, and measured against the impact on the person excluded. The Supreme Court didn’t lower that threshold or make blanket exclusions lawful; it just clarified how “sex” is read for that clause. So even if someone argues it’s “easier” to meet the test, it’s still the same test. And if the protection under gender reassignment hasn’t changed — which you’ve agreed it hasn’t — then the same act that would have been discrimination before is still discrimination now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You've deliberately missed out this part of what I wrote about the proportionate means test... "However, the ruling has provided strong legal backing for defining the single-sex group by biology, making it easier for providers to meet that test." Mrs x That doesn’t change the outcome though. The proportionality test is still the same high bar it always was — evidence-based, case-by-case, and measured against the impact on the person excluded. The Supreme Court didn’t lower that threshold or make blanket exclusions lawful; it just clarified how “sex” is read for that clause. So even if someone argues it’s “easier” to meet the test, it’s still the same test. And if the protection under gender reassignment hasn’t changed — which you’ve agreed it hasn’t — then the same act that would have been discrimination before is still discrimination now." But its not though, ?Schedule 3, Paragraph 27 (Single-Sex Services): This exception permits a service provider to restrict a service to one sex if it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." ?Legitimate Aims can include: ensuring privacy, protecting safety, or promoting dignity. ?The Supreme Court ruling confirms that when a provider is relying on this exception to create a "women's only" space, the word "women" means biological women (i.e., people who are legally female under the Act). Thats not discrimination. It's protection for woman, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But its not though, ?Schedule 3, Paragraph 27 (Single-Sex Services): This exception permits a service provider to restrict a service to one sex if it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." ?Legitimate Aims can include: ensuring privacy, protecting safety, or promoting dignity. ?The Supreme Court ruling confirms that when a provider is relying on this exception to create a "women's only" space, the word "women" means biological women (i.e., people who are legally female under the Act). Thats not discrimination. It's protection for woman, Mrs x" That’s protection for women under the sex characteristic, yes — but that isn’t what we’re discussing. The question is about discrimination under gender reassignment, which is a completely separate protection. The single-sex exception only applies when it’s a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim — and the Supreme Court ruling didn’t change that test or lower the bar. It also didn’t make exclusion automatically proportionate just by calling a space “biological female only.” So, if a trans woman is excluded because she’s trans, and there’s no adequate alternative like a proper gender-neutral single-occupancy toilet, then it’s still discrimination under gender reassignment — exactly as it was before the ruling. The ruling changed who can bring a sex-based claim, not what counts as gender-reassignment discrimination. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Going slightly off topic. Is the right to protest protected by the ECHR? Are the unions protected by the ECHR? If we come out of the ECHR, will these both be null and void, until there are some policies in place to replace these" Yes — both are protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. The right to peaceful protest comes from Article 11, which also protects freedom of association — that’s the same article that underpins trade union rights. If the UK left the ECHR, those protections wouldn’t vanish overnight, because similar rights are written into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998 and other legislation. But without the ECHR framework, there’d be no external court to appeal to if the UK government weakened or ignored them. So technically, the rights could still exist — but their enforcement would depend entirely on what Parliament chose to keep. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But its not though, ?Schedule 3, Paragraph 27 (Single-Sex Services): This exception permits a service provider to restrict a service to one sex if it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." ?Legitimate Aims can include: ensuring privacy, protecting safety, or promoting dignity. ?The Supreme Court ruling confirms that when a provider is relying on this exception to create a "women's only" space, the word "women" means biological women (i.e., people who are legally female under the Act). Thats not discrimination. It's protection for woman, Mrs x That’s protection for women under the sex characteristic, yes — but that isn’t what we’re discussing. The question is about discrimination under gender reassignment, which is a completely separate protection. The single-sex exception only applies when it’s a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim — and the Supreme Court ruling didn’t change that test or lower the bar. It also didn’t make exclusion automatically proportionate just by calling a space “biological female only.” So, if a trans woman is excluded because she’s trans, and there’s no adequate alternative like a proper gender-neutral single-occupancy toilet, then it’s still discrimination under gender reassignment — exactly as it was before the ruling. The ruling changed who can bring a sex-based claim, not what counts as gender-reassignment discrimination." I can't understand why you can't get this. I'll try again. A trans woman is not being excluded because she is Trans, shes being excluded because shes a man. Thats it plain and simple. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can't understand why you can't get this. I'll try again. A trans woman is not being excluded because she is Trans, shes being excluded because shes a man. Thats it plain and simple. Mrs x" That’s not how the Equality Act works. If someone is treated differently because they are trans, that’s discrimination under gender reassignment, regardless of how you try to relabel it. You can say “because she’s a man,” but the reason she’s being treated that way is still because she’s transgender — and that’s exactly what the law protects against. Changing the label doesn’t change the cause. You may not agree with it. You may not like it. But that’s how the law stands. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course all of this may become academic if Dr. Victoria McCloud is successful with her action in the European Court of Human Rights, as she is challenging that the Supreme Court itself breached her and other trans peoples rights under Article 6, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The otherbig legal challenges currently is not directly against the For Women Scotland vs Scottish Ministers case but against the Equalities and Human Rights Commission for misrepresenting the Supreme Court judgment and directly violated trans and intersex peoples rights with its discriminatory interim guidance, which it withdrew. This is the guidance where most of the attempted overreach in application of the Supreme Court ruling came from." Exactly. The Supreme Court judgment itself was narrow, but the way parts of the EHRC and GC lobby tried to stretch it went far beyond both the ruling and their legal remit. That’s why the interim guidance had to be withdrawn — it simply wasn’t functional under UK law or consistent with the Equality Act. The McCloud case at the ECHR is the next real test, because it challenges whether that interpretation breaches Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention. Whatever happens there will have far more legal weight than the spin we keep seeing online. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course all of this may become academic if Dr. Victoria McCloud is successful with her action in the European Court of Human Rights, as she is challenging that the Supreme Court itself breached her and other trans peoples rights under Article 6, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The otherbig legal challenges currently is not directly against the For Women Scotland vs Scottish Ministers case but against the Equalities and Human Rights Commission for misrepresenting the Supreme Court judgment and directly violated trans and intersex peoples rights with its discriminatory interim guidance, which it withdrew. This is the guidance where most of the attempted overreach in application of the Supreme Court ruling came from." You are absolutely correct and this could be a game changer for this issue. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can't understand why you can't get this. I'll try again. A trans woman is not being excluded because she is Trans, shes being excluded because shes a man. Thats it plain and simple. Mrs x That’s not how the Equality Act works. If someone is treated differently because they are trans, that’s discrimination under gender reassignment, regardless of how you try to relabel it. You can say “because she’s a man,” but the reason she’s being treated that way is still because she’s transgender — and that’s exactly what the law protects against. Changing the label doesn’t change the cause. You may not agree with it. You may not like it. But that’s how the law stands." You are wrong. Thats exactly how the EqA currently works following the Supreme Court ruling. The proportionate test hasnt been lowered but the starting point has now been raised. "While the legal burden of proving proportionality has not been formally lowered, the Supreme Court provided a clear legal structure that supports biological-sex-based provision. ?By ruling that the characteristic of "sex" is biological, the Court has given providers a solid legal foundation to argue that excluding a person of the opposite biological sex (even if trans) is the most proportionate and only way to achieve the legitimate aims of safety, privacy, and dignity for the members of the designated biological sex. ?This has effectively lowered the practical barrier for service providers to lawfully implement single-sex policies based on biological sex. The "legitimate aim" component of the legal test is crucial, as it provides the justification for the service provider to restrict access. ?The Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) does not offer a fixed list but provides several statutory conditions (found in Schedule 3, Paragraph 27) that help establish a legitimate aim. ?Here are the most common specific legitimate aims cited in UK law for justifying single-sex services and, potentially, the exclusion of a person based on their biological sex: ?1. Ensuring Privacy and Decency. ?This is the most common and often-cited aim, especially for non-specialist services like changing rooms and public toilets. ?Goal: To maintain the privacy and dignity of individuals using the facilities, particularly where undressing or close proximity is involved. ?Legal Basis: Schedule 3, Paragraph 27(6) of the EqA covers circumstances where two or more people use a service at the same time and "a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex." ?Example: A provider of a women's communal changing room asserts that the legitimate aim is to ensure the bodily privacy of biological women, arguing that the presence of a biological male (a trans woman under the ruling) defeats that aim. ?2. Protecting Safety and Preventing Trauma. ?This aim is particularly critical for services that cater to vulnerable groups who have experienced specific forms of abuse, violence, or trauma. ?Goal: To safeguard users, particularly women, from harm, fear, or re-traumatisation by excluding individuals of the sex most commonly associated with violence against them. ?Example: A domestic violence refuge or r@pe crisis centre limits its service strictly to biological women. The legitimate aim is the safety, security, and emotional well-being of its clients, whose recovery often depends on being in a space free from any presence they might associate with their male abuser. ?3. Promoting Effective Service Provision. ?This aim applies when including the opposite sex would undermine the very effectiveness of the service being offered to the target group. ?Goal: To ensure the service is effective and fully utilised by the intended sex. ?Legal Basis: Schedule 3, Paragraph 27(4) allows a service to be separate if a joint service would be "less effective." ?Example: A support group or counselling service for women dealing with specific gender-related health issues or psychological trauma (e.g., from childbirth or miscarriage) where the presence of a man (a trans man under the ruling) would reasonably inhibit discussion or participation. ? The "Proportionate Means" Requirement. ?It's important to remember that achieving a "legitimate aim" is only half the test. The service provider must also prove the means are proportionate, meaning: ?Necessary: Is excluding the trans person necessary to achieve the legitimate aim? ?Least Intrusive: Are there no less discriminatory ways to achieve the same result (e.g., providing a separate private changing cubicle instead of total exclusion)? ?Balance: Does the benefit of achieving the legitimate aim outweigh the detriment (discrimination) caused to the trans person? ?The Supreme Court's ruling, by defining the excluded person as legally being of the "opposite sex" (for the purposes of the EqA), makes it legally more straightforward to argue that exclusion is a necessary and proportionate means to achieve aims related to sex-specific privacy or safety." This is how the Eqa works at the present time... it might change as per the other poster says but it might not. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thats exactly how the EqA currently works following the Supreme Court ruling. The proportionate test hasnt been lowered but the starting point has now been raised. "While the legal burden of proving proportionality has not been formally lowered, the Supreme Court provided a clear legal structure that supports biological-sex-based provision. ?By ruling that the characteristic of "sex" is biological, the Court has given providers a solid legal foundation to argue that excluding a person of the opposite biological sex (even if trans) is the most proportionate and only way to achieve the legitimate aims of safety, privacy, and dignity for the members of the designated biological sex. ?This has effectively lowered the practical barrier for service providers to lawfully implement single-sex policies based on biological sex. The "legitimate aim" component of the legal test is crucial, as it provides the justification for the service provider to restrict access. ?The Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) does not offer a fixed list but provides several statutory conditions (found in Schedule 3, Paragraph 27) that help establish a legitimate aim. ?Here are the most common specific legitimate aims cited in UK law for justifying single-sex services and, potentially, the exclusion of a person based on their biological sex: ?1. Ensuring Privacy and Decency. ?This is the most common and often-cited aim, especially for non-specialist services like changing rooms and public toilets. ?Goal: To maintain the privacy and dignity of individuals using the facilities, particularly where undressing or close proximity is involved. ?Legal Basis: Schedule 3, Paragraph 27(6) of the EqA covers circumstances where two or more people use a service at the same time and "a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex." ?Example: A provider of a women's communal changing room asserts that the legitimate aim is to ensure the bodily privacy of biological women, arguing that the presence of a biological male (a trans woman under the ruling) defeats that aim. ?2. Protecting Safety and Preventing Trauma. ?This aim is particularly critical for services that cater to vulnerable groups who have experienced specific forms of abuse, violence, or trauma. ?Goal: To safeguard users, particularly women, from harm, fear, or re-traumatisation by excluding individuals of the sex most commonly associated with violence against them. ?Example: A domestic violence refuge or r@pe crisis centre limits its service strictly to biological women. The legitimate aim is the safety, security, and emotional well-being of its clients, whose recovery often depends on being in a space free from any presence they might associate with their male abuser. ?3. Promoting Effective Service Provision. ?This aim applies when including the opposite sex would undermine the very effectiveness of the service being offered to the target group. ?Goal: To ensure the service is effective and fully utilised by the intended sex. ?Legal Basis: Schedule 3, Paragraph 27(4) allows a service to be separate if a joint service would be "less effective." ?Example: A support group or counselling service for women dealing with specific gender-related health issues or psychological trauma (e.g., from childbirth or miscarriage) where the presence of a man (a trans man under the ruling) would reasonably inhibit discussion or participation. ? The "Proportionate Means" Requirement. ?It's important to remember that achieving a "legitimate aim" is only half the test. The service provider must also prove the means are proportionate, meaning: ?Necessary: Is excluding the trans person necessary to achieve the legitimate aim? ?Least Intrusive: Are there no less discriminatory ways to achieve the same result (e.g., providing a separate private changing cubicle instead of total exclusion)? ?Balance: Does the benefit of achieving the legitimate aim outweigh the detriment (discrimination) caused to the trans person? ?The Supreme Court's ruling, by defining the excluded person as legally being of the "opposite sex" (for the purposes of the EqA), makes it legally more straightforward to argue that exclusion is a necessary and proportionate means to achieve aims related to sex-specific privacy or safety." This is how the Eqa works at the present time... it might change as per the other poster says but it might not. Mrs x" You’ve literally just quoted the part that proves what I’ve been saying all along. “Least intrusive” means they must look for a less discriminatory alternative — for example, a private gender-neutral single-occupancy toilet. If they don’t have that option, then exclusion isn’t proportionate, and the space can’t legally be treated as single-sex under the Equality Act. That hasn’t changed. The Supreme Court didn’t lower the proportionality bar or remove gender-reassignment protection. So if a trans woman is excluded without that adequate alternative, it’s still discrimination under gender reassignment — exactly the same now as before the ruling. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Thats exactly how the EqA currently works following the Supreme Court ruling. The proportionate test hasnt been lowered but the starting point has now been raised. "While the legal burden of proving proportionality has not been formally lowered, the Supreme Court provided a clear legal structure that supports biological-sex-based provision. ?By ruling that the characteristic of "sex" is biological, the Court has given providers a solid legal foundation to argue that excluding a person of the opposite biological sex (even if trans) is the most proportionate and only way to achieve the legitimate aims of safety, privacy, and dignity for the members of the designated biological sex. ?This has effectively lowered the practical barrier for service providers to lawfully implement single-sex policies based on biological sex. The "legitimate aim" component of the legal test is crucial, as it provides the justification for the service provider to restrict access. ?The Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) does not offer a fixed list but provides several statutory conditions (found in Schedule 3, Paragraph 27) that help establish a legitimate aim. ?Here are the most common specific legitimate aims cited in UK law for justifying single-sex services and, potentially, the exclusion of a person based on their biological sex: ?1. Ensuring Privacy and Decency. ?This is the most common and often-cited aim, especially for non-specialist services like changing rooms and public toilets. ?Goal: To maintain the privacy and dignity of individuals using the facilities, particularly where undressing or close proximity is involved. ?Legal Basis: Schedule 3, Paragraph 27(6) of the EqA covers circumstances where two or more people use a service at the same time and "a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex." ?Example: A provider of a women's communal changing room asserts that the legitimate aim is to ensure the bodily privacy of biological women, arguing that the presence of a biological male (a trans woman under the ruling) defeats that aim. ?2. Protecting Safety and Preventing Trauma. ?This aim is particularly critical for services that cater to vulnerable groups who have experienced specific forms of abuse, violence, or trauma. ?Goal: To safeguard users, particularly women, from harm, fear, or re-traumatisation by excluding individuals of the sex most commonly associated with violence against them. ?Example: A domestic violence refuge or r@pe crisis centre limits its service strictly to biological women. The legitimate aim is the safety, security, and emotional well-being of its clients, whose recovery often depends on being in a space free from any presence they might associate with their male abuser. ?3. Promoting Effective Service Provision. ?This aim applies when including the opposite sex would undermine the very effectiveness of the service being offered to the target group. ?Goal: To ensure the service is effective and fully utilised by the intended sex. ?Legal Basis: Schedule 3, Paragraph 27(4) allows a service to be separate if a joint service would be "less effective." ?Example: A support group or counselling service for women dealing with specific gender-related health issues or psychological trauma (e.g., from childbirth or miscarriage) where the presence of a man (a trans man under the ruling) would reasonably inhibit discussion or participation. ? The "Proportionate Means" Requirement. ?It's important to remember that achieving a "legitimate aim" is only half the test. The service provider must also prove the means are proportionate, meaning: ?Necessary: Is excluding the trans person necessary to achieve the legitimate aim? ?Least Intrusive: Are there no less discriminatory ways to achieve the same result (e.g., providing a separate private changing cubicle instead of total exclusion)? ?Balance: Does the benefit of achieving the legitimate aim outweigh the detriment (discrimination) caused to the trans person? ?The Supreme Court's ruling, by defining the excluded person as legally being of the "opposite sex" (for the purposes of the EqA), makes it legally more straightforward to argue that exclusion is a necessary and proportionate means to achieve aims related to sex-specific privacy or safety." This is how the Eqa works at the present time... it might change as per the other poster says but it might not. Mrs x You’ve literally just quoted the part that proves what I’ve been saying all along. “Least intrusive” means they must look for a less discriminatory alternative — for example, a private gender-neutral single-occupancy toilet. If they don’t have that option, then exclusion isn’t proportionate, and the space can’t legally be treated as single-sex under the Equality Act. That hasn’t changed. The Supreme Court didn’t lower the proportionality bar or remove gender-reassignment protection. So if a trans woman is excluded without that adequate alternative, it’s still discrimination under gender reassignment — exactly the same now as before the ruling." I've literally said the bars not been lowered and not rights have been removed. But you are mistaken if you believe its exactly the same now as it was before the ruling. If that's the case why are you bothered? Why start this thread? I've given examples as to why its not the same. Before the ruling Yrans woman with a certificate could argue that exclusion was discriminatory because they were a woman legally. Now a Trans woman is defined as a biological man, thus making exclusion far easier. It's this distinction that appears contentious, makes meeting the proportionate means test so much easier and provides justification for the Legitimate Aims part of this test. I'm not saying that this is my opinion, I'm just stating whats the current, as of today, right at this minute, situation. You can ignore this but that doesn't make it any less true. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've literally said the bars not been lowered and not rights have been removed. But you are mistaken if you believe its exactly the same now as it was before the ruling. If that's the case why are you bothered? Why start this thread? I've given examples as to why its not the same. Before the ruling Yrans woman with a certificate could argue that exclusion was discriminatory because they were a woman legally. Now a Trans woman is defined as a biological man, thus making exclusion far easier. It's this distinction that appears contentious, makes meeting the proportionate means test so much easier and provides justification for the Legitimate Aims part of this test. I'm not saying that this is my opinion, I'm just stating whats the current, as of today, right at this minute, situation. You can ignore this but that doesn't make it any less true. Mrs x" The reason I started this thread is exactly what you’ve just shown: most people don’t understand what actually changed. Yes, trans women with a GRC can no longer claim sex-based discrimination as women—that’s the only part the Supreme Court ruling affected. But gender-reassignment discrimination is entirely separate, and that part of the Equality Act hasn’t changed at all. So when exclusion happens without an adequate, less-discriminatory alternative—like a proper gender-neutral single-occupancy option—it’s still discrimination under gender reassignment. That’s why it matters: the misunderstanding of this point is what’s fuelling confusion, harassment, and bad policy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bottom line is really this simple: Single sex spaces are lawful." Single-sex spaces have always been lawful. That was true before the Supreme Court ruling and it’s still true now. What isn’t lawful is using “single-sex” as an excuse to discriminate against someone protected under gender reassignment. You can’t call a space “single sex” if the way it’s run is discriminatory — that defeats the definition in law. The Equality Act allows both protections to exist — that’s the balance the law actually strikes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ai says In the UK, the rules surrounding trans individuals' access to public toilets vary depending on the location and specific policies in place. Here's a breakdown ¹ ² ³: - *UK Parliament*: Trans women are advised to use toilets corresponding to their biological sex or gender-neutral facilities. Visitors are subject to the provision of services elements of the Equality Act, which requires them to use toilet facilities that match their biological sex or use one of the gender-neutral or accessible facilities available. - *Holyrood Parliament*: Trans women are banned from using female toilets, and facilities designated as male or female-only are interpreted as meaning biological sex. However, there are plans to install new gender-neutral toilets. - *Other public spaces*: The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has issued guidance stating that trans women should not be allowed to use women's facilities in workplaces and services open to the public, as this would compromise single-sex facilities. Instead, mixed-sex lavatories or changing rooms should be provided where possible. - *Supreme Court ruling*: The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the term "woman" in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, not gender identity. This ruling has implications for single-sex spaces and services, including toilets. It's essential to note that policies and laws are subject to change, and different institutions and locations may have varying rules and guidelines. If you're unsure about a specific location's policy, it's best to check with the venue directly or look for signs indicating their toilet policies." The EHRC guidance doesn’t create law and isn’t binding — it has to fit within existing law to have any validity. If it contradicts the Equality Act or fails the proportionality test, it won’t stand up in court. And this thread isn’t about Westminster or Holyrood toilet policies. It’s about a simple, real-world scenario: a pub with just a “Ladies” and a “Gents.” As the law stands, they can’t call those genuinely single-sex spaces if excluding trans women means breaching gender reassignment protections. Without an adequate alternative — a gender-neutral, single-occupancy option — that exclusion would still be discriminatory, just as it was before the Supreme Court ruling. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ai says In the UK, the rules surrounding trans individuals' access to public toilets vary depending on the location and specific policies in place. Here's a breakdown ¹ ² ³: - *UK Parliament*: Trans women are advised to use toilets corresponding to their biological sex or gender-neutral facilities. Visitors are subject to the provision of services elements of the Equality Act, which requires them to use toilet facilities that match their biological sex or use one of the gender-neutral or accessible facilities available. - *Holyrood Parliament*: Trans women are banned from using female toilets, and facilities designated as male or female-only are interpreted as meaning biological sex. However, there are plans to install new gender-neutral toilets. - *Other public spaces*: The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has issued guidance stating that trans women should not be allowed to use women's facilities in workplaces and services open to the public, as this would compromise single-sex facilities. Instead, mixed-sex lavatories or changing rooms should be provided where possible. - *Supreme Court ruling*: The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the term "woman" in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, not gender identity. This ruling has implications for single-sex spaces and services, including toilets. It's essential to note that policies and laws are subject to change, and different institutions and locations may have varying rules and guidelines. If you're unsure about a specific location's policy, it's best to check with the venue directly or look for signs indicating their toilet policies." I would note that since the EHRC has withdrawn that interim guidance, probably to lessen the adverse effect it could have on them when the Good Law Project case against them goes to court next month, the above text is incorrect. That interim guidance is no longer in place reverting the current guidance back to the 2011 Statutory Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bottom line is really this simple: Single sex spaces are lawful. Single-sex spaces have always been lawful. That was true before the Supreme Court ruling and it’s still true now. What isn’t lawful is using “single-sex” as an excuse to discriminate against someone protected under gender reassignment. You can’t call a space “single sex” if the way it’s run is discriminatory — that defeats the definition in law. The Equality Act allows both protections to exist — that’s the balance the law actually strikes." Single sex space isn’t discrimination it is 100% lawful under the Equality Act when it’s there to achieve privacy, dignity, or safety. If you are not of the sex the space is designated for, it is not your space to ne in. Respect goes both ways. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Single sex space isn’t discrimination it is 100% lawful under the Equality Act when it’s there to achieve privacy, dignity, or safety. If you are not of the sex the space is designated for, it is not your space to ne in. Respect goes both ways." You’re repeating what I’ve already said — if a space is legally classed as single sex, then yes, the owners can ask someone of another sex to leave. But for it to be legally classed as single sex in the first place, the venue has to meet specific requirements under the Equality Act. In the example I’ve given — a pub with only a “Ladies” and a “Gents” and no adequate gender-neutral alternative — those requirements aren’t met. That means in the eyes of the law, it isn’t a genuine single-sex space, and refusing entry to a trans woman would still count as discrimination under gender reassignment. That’s not about “respect.” It’s about how the law actually works. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Single sex space isn’t discrimination it is 100% lawful under the Equality Act when it’s there to achieve privacy, dignity, or safety. If you are not of the sex the space is designated for, it is not your space to ne in. Respect goes both ways. You’re repeating what I’ve already said — if a space is legally classed as single sex, then yes, the owners can ask someone of another sex to leave. But for it to be legally classed as single sex in the first place, the venue has to meet specific requirements under the Equality Act. In the example I’ve given — a pub with only a “Ladies” and a “Gents” and no adequate gender-neutral alternative — those requirements aren’t met. That means in the eyes of the law, it isn’t a genuine single-sex space, and refusing entry to a trans woman would still count as discrimination under gender reassignment. That’s not about “respect.” It’s about how the law actually works." There is no requirement for gender neutral spaces... The Equality act supports male and female toilets as single sex spaces, there is no requirement to provide the third neutral option. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There is no requirement for gender neutral spaces... The Equality act supports male and female toilets as single sex spaces, there is no requirement to provide the third neutral option." You’re absolutely right — there’s no legal requirement for a venue to provide gender-neutral toilets. That part of the law is crystal clear. But if they choose not to, they open themselves up to a likely successful discrimination claim if they then exclude a trans woman from the ladies. That’s their choice — they can decide not to provide gender-neutral options, and they can decide to exclude trans women. They just have to accept the consequences when that decision fails under gender reassignment discrimination law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There is no requirement for gender neutral spaces... The Equality act supports male and female toilets as single sex spaces, there is no requirement to provide the third neutral option. You’re absolutely right — there’s no legal requirement for a venue to provide gender-neutral toilets. That part of the law is crystal clear. But if they choose not to, they open themselves up to a likely successful discrimination claim if they then exclude a trans woman from the ladies. That’s their choice — they can decide not to provide gender-neutral options, and they can decide to exclude trans women. They just have to accept the consequences when that decision fails under gender reassignment discrimination law." there are no consequences | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bottom line is really this simple: Single sex spaces are lawful. Single-sex spaces have always been lawful. That was true before the Supreme Court ruling and it’s still true now. What isn’t lawful is using “single-sex” as an excuse to discriminate against someone protected under gender reassignment. You can’t call a space “single sex” if the way it’s run is discriminatory — that defeats the definition in law. The Equality Act allows both protections to exist — that’s the balance the law actually strikes." But its not discriminatory. You'll normally find one space for men, one for woman. How is that discriminatory? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bottom line is really this simple: Single sex spaces are lawful. Single-sex spaces have always been lawful. That was true before the Supreme Court ruling and it’s still true now. What isn’t lawful is using “single-sex” as an excuse to discriminate against someone protected under gender reassignment. You can’t call a space “single sex” if the way it’s run is discriminatory — that defeats the definition in law. The Equality Act allows both protections to exist — that’s the balance the law actually strikes. Single sex space isn’t discrimination it is 100% lawful under the Equality Act when it’s there to achieve privacy, dignity, or safety. If you are not of the sex the space is designated for, it is not your space to ne in. Respect goes both ways." Exactly right, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" there are no consequences " Then you don’t understand how the Equality Act actually functions. If a trans woman is excluded because she’s trans, and the venue can’t show that exclusion was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, that is discrimination under gender reassignment. The consequence is legal liability — compensation, reputational damage, and, in clear cases, enforcement action from the EHRC. I also notice you’ve provided no evidence, citations, or sources to back up what you’re saying. Is this all from your degree at the University of TrustMeBro? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" There is no requirement for gender neutral spaces... The Equality act supports male and female toilets as single sex spaces, there is no requirement to provide the third neutral option. You’re absolutely right — there’s no legal requirement for a venue to provide gender-neutral toilets. That part of the law is crystal clear. But if they choose not to, they open themselves up to a likely successful discrimination claim if they then exclude a trans woman from the ladies. That’s their choice — they can decide not to provide gender-neutral options, and they can decide to exclude trans women. They just have to accept the consequences when that decision fails under gender reassignment discrimination law." But currently they wont face anything, trans woman are men, thats the whole issue about the Supreme Court ruling. So as long as their is a 'Gents', there's no discrimination. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But its not discriminatory. You'll normally find one space for men, one for woman. How is that discriminatory? Mrs x" The Equality Act protects trans people from discrimination and harassment under gender reassignment. So outside of a lawfully established single-sex exemption, treating or referring to a trans woman as a man because she’s trans would count as discrimination under that protection. Having a men’s and a women’s toilet isn’t discriminatory by itself — the discrimination happens when someone protected under gender reassignment is treated less favourably because of it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But currently they wont face anything, trans woman are men, thats the whole issue about the Supreme Court ruling. So as long as their is a 'Gents', there's no discrimination. Mrs x" That’s simply not true. Forcing a trans woman to use the men’s has repeatedly been found to be discriminatory under the gender reassignment protection in the Equality Act. The Supreme Court ruling changed one thing only — who can claim discrimination based on sex. It didn’t touch discrimination based on gender reassignment, which still applies exactly as before. So unless a venue meets the very high bar for a lawful single-sex exemption, excluding or redirecting a trans woman remains unlawful discrimination. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But currently they wont face anything, trans woman are men, thats the whole issue about the Supreme Court ruling. So as long as their is a 'Gents', there's no discrimination. Mrs x That’s simply not true. Forcing a trans woman to use the men’s has repeatedly been found to be discriminatory under the gender reassignment protection in the Equality Act. The Supreme Court ruling changed one thing only — who can claim discrimination based on sex. It didn’t touch discrimination based on gender reassignment, which still applies exactly as before. So unless a venue meets the very high bar for a lawful single-sex exemption, excluding or redirecting a trans woman remains unlawful discrimination." It may have done prior to the ruling but not know. Trans woman are men, thats the legal position. And whilst the bar is still high for the tests, this decision has raised up those it applies to and makes it easier to reach the standard required for exclusion. Thats the contentious bit, the classification and clarification of sex into that of your birth. This renders a GRC redundant, in that previously the test was very high and having a GRC invested legality upon your sex. So a Trans woman was a woman legally because they possessed a GRC. This meant that it would be extremely difficult to exclude them from woman only spaces because they were legally a woman. This has know changed and Trans woman are now legally classed as MEN because sex is determined through biology after the Supreme Court ruling. This subsequently means its so much easier to exclude them from single sex spaces because they no longer align with the same sex as the space. This is why its now so much easier. They are essentially just banning men from womans spaces and vice versa. Thats why the didnt need to alter any of tge EqA, this one small statutory interpretation allows this quite easily not. Thats the current legal position. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It may have done prior to the ruling but not know. Trans woman are men, thats the legal position. And whilst the bar is still high for the tests, this decision has raised up those it applies to and makes it easier to reach the standard required for exclusion. Thats the contentious bit, the classification and clarification of sex into that of your birth. This renders a GRC redundant, in that previously the test was very high and having a GRC invested legality upon your sex. So a Trans woman was a woman legally because they possessed a GRC. This meant that it would be extremely difficult to exclude them from woman only spaces because they were legally a woman. This has know changed and Trans woman are now legally classed as MEN because sex is determined through biology after the Supreme Court ruling. This subsequently means its so much easier to exclude them from single sex spaces because they no longer align with the same sex as the space. This is why its now so much easier. They are essentially just banning men from womans spaces and vice versa. Thats why the didnt need to alter any of tge EqA, this one small statutory interpretation allows this quite easily not. Thats the current legal position. Mrs x" Unfortunately, this is exactly what I mean. You’re describing what gender-critical commentators claim the law now says, not what the law itself actually says. The Supreme Court clarified how “sex” is read for one clause — it didn’t rewrite the Equality Act or abolish protection under gender reassignment. That protection applies whether or not someone has a GRC, and that hasn’t changed. Repeating “trans women are men” doesn’t make it legally true — it just shows how far interpretation has drifted from the statute and the judgment itself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm with NerdyFemby. Gender identity and biologic sex are completely different. Look up the genderbread infogram. Also, which facilities should an intersex person use? Sex is not as binary as people think. " The Supreme Court has confirmed that when the law refers to “sex,” it means biological sex, not gender identity or a persons self perception. It really is that simple, there is no middle ground or room for misinterpretation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm with NerdyFemby. Gender identity and biologic sex are completely different. Look up the genderbread infogram. Also, which facilities should an intersex person use? Sex is not as binary as people think. The Supreme Court has confirmed that when the law refers to “sex,” it means biological sex, not gender identity or a persons self perception. It really is that simple, there is no middle ground or room for misinterpretation. " That’s not what the Supreme Court said. It confirmed that “sex” in one clause of the Gender Recognition Act means biological sex — nothing more. It didn’t redefine “sex” across all law, and it didn’t erase the gender reassignment protection in the Equality Act, which still applies exactly as before. Claiming otherwise isn’t “simple,” it’s just wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm with NerdyFemby. Gender identity and biologic sex are completely different. Look up the genderbread infogram. Also, which facilities should an intersex person use? Sex is not as binary as people think. The Supreme Court has confirmed that when the law refers to “sex,” it means biological sex, not gender identity or a persons self perception. It really is that simple, there is no middle ground or room for misinterpretation. " And for an intersex person? Which facilities should they use? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm with NerdyFemby. Gender identity and biologic sex are completely different. Look up the genderbread infogram. Also, which facilities should an intersex person use? Sex is not as binary as people think. The Supreme Court has confirmed that when the law refers to “sex,” it means biological sex, not gender identity or a persons self perception. It really is that simple, there is no middle ground or room for misinterpretation. And for an intersex person? Which facilities should they use? " That’s a different question, intersex conditions are medical, not the same as transgender identification. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm with NerdyFemby. Gender identity and biologic sex are completely different. Look up the genderbread infogram. Also, which facilities should an intersex person use? Sex is not as binary as people think. The Supreme Court has confirmed that when the law refers to “sex,” it means biological sex, not gender identity or a persons self perception. It really is that simple, there is no middle ground or room for misinterpretation. And for an intersex person? Which facilities should they use? That’s a different question, intersex conditions are medical, not the same as transgender identification. " But for intersex people, some choose to present as one gender rather than another, so it has relevance to the topic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm with NerdyFemby. Gender identity and biologic sex are completely different. Look up the genderbread infogram. Also, which facilities should an intersex person use? Sex is not as binary as people think. The Supreme Court has confirmed that when the law refers to “sex,” it means biological sex, not gender identity or a persons self perception. It really is that simple, there is no middle ground or room for misinterpretation. And for an intersex person? Which facilities should they use? That’s a different question, intersex conditions are medical, not the same as transgender identification. But for intersex people, some choose to present as one gender rather than another, so it has relevance to the topic. " Intersex is a biological condition, not an identity. Are you saying it’s the same? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Transitioning is a medical process not a condition. There's very little evidence for why transgender people exist, as there's not been a lot of research. What we can say, like with other parts of the LGBT+ demographic is that's it's documented throughout human History worldwide, and part of human diversity. Gender dysphoria is a medical condition. " Some eminent neurobiologists would disagree. My understanding is that the body of neurobiological evidence based on structural, functional, and genetic studies, consistently points toward intrinsic, pre-treatment differences in the brains of transgender people. These differences are generally interpreted as being closer to the structure or function typical of their identified gender than their sex assigned at birth, though they often present as a unique transgender phenotype that is not an exact match for either cisgender group. Most informative of these studies are performed on trans identifying individuals before commencing hormone treatment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Transitioning is a medical process not a condition. There's very little evidence for why transgender people exist, as there's not been a lot of research. What we can say, like with other parts of the LGBT+ demographic is that's it's documented throughout human History worldwide, and part of human diversity. Gender dysphoria is a medical condition. Some eminent neurobiologists would disagree. My understanding is that the body of neurobiological evidence based on structural, functional, and genetic studies, consistently points toward intrinsic, pre-treatment differences in the brains of transgender people. These differences are generally interpreted as being closer to the structure or function typical of their identified gender than their sex assigned at birth, though they often present as a unique transgender phenotype that is not an exact match for either cisgender group. Most informative of these studies are performed on trans identifying individuals before commencing hormone treatment. " What part of that is relevant to me saying it's not a condition? I said it's part of human diversity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Transitioning is a medical process not a condition. There's very little evidence for why transgender people exist, as there's not been a lot of research. What we can say, like with other parts of the LGBT+ demographic is that's it's documented throughout human History worldwide, and part of human diversity. Gender dysphoria is a medical condition. Some eminent neurobiologists would disagree. My understanding is that the body of neurobiological evidence based on structural, functional, and genetic studies, consistently points toward intrinsic, pre-treatment differences in the brains of transgender people. These differences are generally interpreted as being closer to the structure or function typical of their identified gender than their sex assigned at birth, though they often present as a unique transgender phenotype that is not an exact match for either cisgender group. Most informative of these studies are performed on trans identifying individuals before commencing hormone treatment. What part of that is relevant to me saying it's not a condition? I said it's part of human diversity. " Sorry I should have been clearer, it was the bit about there not having been a lot of research. Actually, quietly in the background some people are busy looking into this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Absolutely not. By the same token, are you saying transitioning is not a medical condition? Because there is a huge medical process to go through before surgery takes place. " Transitioning can involve medical procedures, but that doesn’t make it a medical condition, it is a personal decision. Intersex is physical and present at birth, transgender is an identity, they are different things. We are drifting away from the topic slightly. The Supreme court has removed all doubt in terms of the legal definition of a woman, that definition supports singe sex spaces under the Equality act. The legal position is no longer blurred. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Transitioning can involve medical procedures, but that doesn’t make it a medical condition, it is a personal decision. Intersex is physical and present at birth, transgender is an identity, they are different things. We are drifting away from the topic slightly. The Supreme court has removed all doubt in terms of the legal definition of a woman, that definition supports singe sex spaces under the Equality act. The legal position is no longer blurred. " Only if you ignore about 96% of what the Supreme Court actually said. The judgment didn’t “remove all doubt” — it clarified one interaction between the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act. It also explicitly stated that its interpretation shouldn’t cause wider discrimination. That means the law on gender reassignment protection, and the proportionality test for single-sex spaces, remains exactly the same as before. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Transitioning can involve medical procedures, but that doesn’t make it a medical condition, it is a personal decision. Intersex is physical and present at birth, transgender is an identity, they are different things. We are drifting away from the topic slightly. The Supreme court has removed all doubt in terms of the legal definition of a woman, that definition supports singe sex spaces under the Equality act. The legal position is no longer blurred. Only if you ignore about 96% of what the Supreme Court actually said. The judgment didn’t “remove all doubt” — it clarified one interaction between the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act. It also explicitly stated that its interpretation shouldn’t cause wider discrimination. That means the law on gender reassignment protection, and the proportionality test for single-sex spaces, remains exactly the same as before." The Supreme court provided the legal definition of a woman. Wherever you see "woman" or "female", it refers to a person who was born female. That definition is law, which supports the equality act and single sex spaces. Saying only one thing was changed, doesn't capture the importance of that one change and its effect. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The Supreme court provided the legal definition of a woman. Wherever you see "woman" or "female", it refers to a person who was born female. That definition is law, which supports the equality act and single sex spaces. Saying only one thing was changed, doesn't capture the importance of that one change and its effect. " You’re missing the crucial part. The Supreme Court was very clear that its interpretation of “woman” applied only to the specific statutory context before it — the interaction between the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act. It didn’t redefine “woman” across all UK law, and it explicitly noted that nothing in the judgment should create wider discrimination. So yes, the ruling has significance — but its legal effect is confined to that one clause, not a wholesale rewrite of how “woman” is defined everywhere else. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The Supreme court provided the legal definition of a woman. Wherever you see "woman" or "female", it refers to a person who was born female. That definition is law, which supports the equality act and single sex spaces. Saying only one thing was changed, doesn't capture the importance of that one change and its effect. You’re missing the crucial part. The Supreme Court was very clear that its interpretation of “woman” applied only to the specific statutory context before it — the interaction between the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act. It didn’t redefine “woman” across all UK law, and it explicitly noted that nothing in the judgment should create wider discrimination. So yes, the ruling has significance — but its legal effect is confined to that one clause, not a wholesale rewrite of how “woman” is defined everywhere else." The Court confirmed that, for the purpose of the Equality Act, “sex” means biological sex. The interpretation guides every future case using the same wording, any case that references “woman” or “man,” either under the equality act or elsewhere, will use that definition. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I started this thread to show that the new EHRC guidance based on the Supreme Court decision isn’t what most people seem to think it is. We’re now closing in on a hundred posts, and the discussion itself has proven the point — a lot of people genuinely believe the ruling changed far more than it actually did. The reality hasn’t shifted: the ruling only affected how the Gender Recognition Act interacts with the Equality Act, and it didn’t touch gender reassignment protections or lower the proportionality bar for exclusion. Everything else you’ve seen argued here is exactly why this thread needed to exist in the first place." The discussion has proven something else, that many people underestimate the reach of the Supreme Court definition, which is now referenced for “sex,” “woman,” and “man”. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The discussion has proven something else, that many people underestimate the reach of the Supreme Court definition, which is now referenced for “sex,” “woman,” and “man”." You’ve just proven my point. The Supreme Court explicitly said their role was not to redefine “woman” or “sex” beyond the Equality Act. In their own words: “It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy.” That’s straight from the judgment. Their task was limited to interpreting how the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act fit together — nothing more. Anyone claiming it changed every law in the UK either hasn’t read the ruling or is hoping everyone else hasn’t. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sex has legally been determined by the highest court in the land to mean biological sex. Given your pub example you would either use the disabled or staff toilet. The venue must not discriminate in ita ability to provide toilet services, but you are not entitled to use a women's only space." First, there has never been — and still isn’t — any law that says I can’t use the ladies. The Supreme Court ruling didn’t create one, and the Equality Act doesn’t either. Second, forcing a trans woman to use the disabled or staff toilet has already been found in case law to be disproportionate and therefore discriminatory under gender reassignment. That means it doesn’t meet the “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” test in the Equality Act. So yes — venues must provide toilet services fairly. But “use the disabled loo” is not, and never has been, a lawful solution. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"which toilet are female to male trans people supposed to use? their birth sex is female so perhaps the female toilet but if they look male (the few I have met certainly do) this may upset the other users & find themselves challenged . Its a mess! " You’ve actually just pointed out one of the biggest flaws in the whole “biological sex only” argument. The idea sounds simple until you try to apply it in real life. Take trans men — under the same legal definition the Supreme Court used for trans women, trans men are treated as “female.” But the EHRC’s own interim guidance effectively prevents them from using either toilet: they’re barred from the men’s because of their legal sex, and the women’s because of their appearance. That leaves them with nowhere to go. And it doesn’t stop there. These rules don’t just hit trans people — they’d end up policing all women. Butch lesbians, women with PCOS, women of colour, or anyone who doesn’t fit some narrow, outdated idea of “femininity” would be at risk of being challenged too. That’s the real problem here. It’s not about safety — it’s about enforcing conformity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"which toilet are female to male trans people supposed to use? their birth sex is female so perhaps the female toilet but if they look male (the few I have met certainly do) this may upset the other users & find themselves challenged . Its a mess! You’ve actually just pointed out one of the biggest flaws in the whole “biological sex only” argument. The idea sounds simple until you try to apply it in real life. Take trans men — under the same legal definition the Supreme Court used for trans women, trans men are treated as “female.” But the EHRC’s own interim guidance effectively prevents them from using either toilet: they’re barred from the men’s because of their legal sex, and the women’s because of their appearance. That leaves them with nowhere to go. And it doesn’t stop there. These rules don’t just hit trans people — they’d end up policing all women. Butch lesbians, women with PCOS, women of colour, or anyone who doesn’t fit some narrow, outdated idea of “femininity” would be at risk of being challenged too. That’s the real problem here. It’s not about safety — it’s about enforcing conformity." I understand the guidance has been removed, so what is the relevance? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I understand the guidance has been removed, so what is the relevance? " You’re right that the interim guidance was withdrawn from the ehrc website — but that doesn’t mean the problem’s gone. The final version has already been submitted to Parliament, and according to multiple leaks, it’s just as bad, if not worse. So yes, technically the interim wording is gone. But if Parliament signs off on what’s been drafted, we’ll be right back where we started — only this time it’ll carry statutory weight. That’s why it’s relevant. The danger hasn’t passed; it’s just waiting for approval. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I understand the guidance has been removed, so what is the relevance? You’re right that the interim guidance was withdrawn from the ehrc website — but that doesn’t mean the problem’s gone. The final version has already been submitted to Parliament, and according to multiple leaks, it’s just as bad, if not worse. So yes, technically the interim wording is gone. But if Parliament signs off on what’s been drafted, we’ll be right back where we started — only this time it’ll carry statutory weight. That’s why it’s relevant. The danger hasn’t passed; it’s just waiting for approval." Is the core issue the new guidance will probably take into account the supreme courts definitions? Which I'm guessing is going to support the need for sex single spaces, such as female only? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Is the core issue the new guidance will probably take into account the supreme courts definitions? Which I'm guessing is going to support the need for sex single spaces, such as female only? " No — the core issue is that the EHRC guidance doesn’t actually reflect what the Supreme Court ruled. The Court was very clear: its interpretation of “sex” applied only to how the Gender Recognition Act interacts with the Equality Act, and nowhere else. It didn’t redefine “sex” across all UK law, and it didn’t say trans people lose their protections under gender reassignment. So when the EHRC drafts guidance as if “biological sex” now governs everything, it’s going far beyond what the Court decided. That’s not following precedent — that’s rewriting it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I started this thread to show that the new EHRC guidance based on the Supreme Court decision isn’t what most people seem to think it is. We’re now closing in on a hundred posts, and the discussion itself has proven the point — a lot of people genuinely believe the ruling changed far more than it actually did. The reality hasn’t shifted: the ruling only affected how the Gender Recognition Act interacts with the Equality Act, and it didn’t touch gender reassignment protections or lower the proportionality bar for exclusion. Everything else you’ve seen argued here is exactly why this thread needed to exist in the first place." It's not others understanding of the EHRCs guidance, it appears to be your lack of understanding how judgements from superior courts affect decisions of lower courts. In your opening post you claim you are not a lawyer and that this thread is not legal advice. You finish your opening post by saying... "Happy to be corrected by anyone with solid legal sources". Yet you dont appear to be "Happy", when someone offers sensible advice. You just say its confined to one very small area of one particular Act, which definitely the remit of the Supreme Court in this case but you then go on to ignore the fundamental principle of precedent within our Common Law system. Anything that you disagree with is automatically Gender Critical theory propaganda, rather than just factual legal statements. Precedent means that the judgement in this issue, will not only be binding in other case, and must be followed, to being highly persuasive in others and will be likely to be followed. You are under a false understanding that because this judgement looks at one definition in one case ot cannot be extended to other cases. However it can and does. If you look at cases of murder, this is a Common Law offence. Lord Chief Justice Coke defined this in the early 1600's as being... " Where a person unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought". This laid out the circumstances for murder. But its not just confined to killings in this manner, those that the public would objectively see as murder. This decision allows binds other cases involving the death of someone by another. For example abortion. It's undeniable that abortion results in the death of a "creature", in the same way that a man stabbed to death by attacker would. The difference here though is that a foetus is not considered, legally,as a "reasonable creature in 'rerum natura'", 'rerum natura' translates as being alive. So, legally, a foetus is not alive until the umbilical cord is cut and the baby is breathing independently. This judgement regarding death, actually sets a precedent when actual life begins, despite not being asked to do so. It's why clinical abortion, I'm not referring to back street abortions, is not illegal in the UK. It's know as the "Born Alive Rule". Coke's definition and the "born alive rule" have historically served as a point of precedent in discussions related to abortion: ?Abortion is Not Murder: Under Coke's common law definition, the killing of a fetus in utero (before birth) was not considered murder because the fetus was not yet a "reasonable creature in being" or an individual with a separate existence from the mother. Coke classified such an act (especially after "quickening") as a "great misprision" (a serious misdemeanor), but explicitly "no murder." ?The 'Born Alive' Distinction: The common law rule was that if an injury was inflicted in utero (e.g., a beating or poisoning) and the child was born alive but subsequently died as a result of that prenatal injury, the act could constitute murder or manslaughter. The key was the requirement of being born alive first. ?Precedent in Abortion Debates: This historical common law distinction is foundational. It provides the legal backdrop against which modern abortion laws (like the UK's Abortion Act 1967) and laws dealing with fatal offenses against unborn children (like the UK's Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and the law of manslaughter for prenatal injury) were created. These modern laws effectively legislate exceptions to, or expand upon, the traditional common law rule. So you can see that although cases look at specific issues within specific case, here death and the guilt of someone causing death, it can also be used to decide other matters, such as life and when that begins, legally, seen in abortion. This is exactly how precedent works. I hope you look at this and think about it. I've tried to give an example that you cannot spin as being Gender Critical. If you want we could discuss why the Supreme Court can up with the definition they did. We could look at legal positivism v natural law or the possible bias from things like homophobia and transportation. I could cite cases for you to look at. But please stop saying that precedent will not apply and the definition will only apply to one small section in one Act. It wont, that is unless the whole legal system, tge Common Law system, has changed since I graduated law school. It was a while ago in 2000 but I dont think it has in 25 years. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But please stop saying that precedent will not apply and the definition will only apply to one small section in one Act. It wont, that is unless the whole legal system, tge Common Law system, has changed since I graduated law school. It was a while ago in 2000 but I dont think it has in 25 years. Mrs x" When the Supreme Court says: “It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the Equality Act 2010… The principal question… is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010… Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004.” —they are explicitly stating that their ruling is not precedent for other law. Once more: the ruling is not that sex equals biological sex across all law. It is that, for the interaction between the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act, “sex” refers to biological sex. That’s it. There is no wider precedent, because the Court itself narrowed its scope to that single point. Any attempt to stretch it beyond that is not law — it’s interpretation. And when people start replacing the Court’s words with their own version of events, that’s not legal reasoning. It’s propaganda. I’m not asking anyone to take my word for it. I’m saying: read the judgment itself. The justices went out of their way to make it narrow, deliberate, and not to be expanded upon. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But please stop saying that precedent will not apply and the definition will only apply to one small section in one Act. It wont, that is unless the whole legal system, tge Common Law system, has changed since I graduated law school. It was a while ago in 2000 but I dont think it has in 25 years. Mrs x When the Supreme Court says: “It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the Equality Act 2010… The principal question… is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010… Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004.” —they are explicitly stating that their ruling is not precedent for other law. Once more: the ruling is not that sex equals biological sex across all law. It is that, for the interaction between the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act, “sex” refers to biological sex. That’s it. There is no wider precedent, because the Court itself narrowed its scope to that single point. Any attempt to stretch it beyond that is not law — it’s interpretation. And when people start replacing the Court’s words with their own version of events, that’s not legal reasoning. It’s propaganda. I’m not asking anyone to take my word for it. I’m saying: read the judgment itself. The justices went out of their way to make it narrow, deliberate, and not to be expanded upon." Come on you seem a bright guy. So do you know what explicit means because if you do can you back up your claim that the court explicitly stated its ruling is not precedent. Go on show us in the ruling where it states that. You can't, go on I dare you to try. I know it didn't but just to help you out I utilised an AI search, just to save me typing and knackering my new nails, asking if the Supreme Court did EXPLICITLY rule out their findings as precedent and here it is "NO...." Just going to stop it there, at the first word and give you the opportunity to recent your bogus claim, no? Ok here we go.. 'the UK Supreme Court did not explicitly state that its findings on the meaning of "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) could not be used as precedent. ?In fact, the ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers establishes a BINDING PRECEDENT for the interpretation of the terms "sex," "man," and "woman" within the context of the Equality Act 2010. ?1. The Precedent It Set ?The Court's decision sets a clear legal precedent that, for the purposes of the EA 2010: ?The term "sex" refers to biological sex (the sex a person was registered as at birth). ?The terms "man" and "woman" refer to a biological man and a biological woman, respectively. ?Acquiring a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 DOES NOT change a person's "sex" for the purposes of the EA 2010. ?This interpretation is now the binding legal position for all courts in England, Wales, and Scotland when interpreting these terms under the Equality Act. ?2. What the Court Did Caution Against ?While the ruling is a precedent for the EA 2010, the Court did issue a caution regarding the interpretation of sex and gender terms in other legislation. ?The Court stated that when interpreting references to "man" and "woman" in other statutes (legislation other than the EA 2010, particularly those enacted before or after the Gender Recognition Act 2004), a careful case-by-case analysis would be necessary. This analysis would consider the specific wording, context, and policy of that particular statute to determine whether Parliament intended a biological or "certificated" (GRC-based) definition to apply. ?In summary, the Supreme Court established a precedent for the EA 2010 but advised against automatically applying that interpretation to all other UK legislation without first scrutinising the context of that specific law." So, in your own words, ... "when people start replacing the Court’s words with their own version of events, that’s not legal reasoning. It’s propaganda." Someone's guilty of that but its not me and yes it is propaganda but once again its not mine. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, in your own words, ... "when people start replacing the Court’s words with their own version of events, that’s not legal reasoning. It’s propaganda." Someone's guilty of that but its not me and yes it is propaganda but once again its not mine. " I’ll ignore the casual “guy” — I doubt it was meant maliciously, but yes, it’s gendered, and I’d prefer you didn’t use it for me. This isn’t a demand, it’s a request — adult to adult. Now, back to substance. You’ve actually just proven my point without realising it. You quoted your AI source saying: “While the ruling is a precedent for the EA 2010, the Court did issue a caution regarding the interpretation of sex and gender terms in other legislation… a careful case-by-case analysis would be necessary.” That is the limitation I’m referring to. The Supreme Court confined its judgment to how “sex” operates within the Equality Act, not across all law. That’s not semantics — that’s jurisdiction. And yes, that paragraph you keep skipping over from the judgment spells it out clearly: “It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the Equality Act 2010.” Those are the Court’s own words. That’s the explicit limitation. The ruling defines “woman” only when used in the Equality Act, not beyond it. So no — it’s not propaganda, and it’s not semantics. It’s the difference between reading a judgment and rewriting one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So, in your own words, ... "when people start replacing the Court’s words with their own version of events, that’s not legal reasoning. It’s propaganda." Someone's guilty of that but its not me and yes it is propaganda but once again its not mine. I’ll ignore the casual “guy” — I doubt it was meant maliciously, but yes, it’s gendered, and I’d prefer you didn’t use it for me. This isn’t a demand, it’s a request — adult to adult. Now, back to substance. You’ve actually just proven my point without realising it. You quoted your AI source saying: “While the ruling is a precedent for the EA 2010, the Court did issue a caution regarding the interpretation of sex and gender terms in other legislation… a careful case-by-case analysis would be necessary.” That is the limitation I’m referring to. The Supreme Court confined its judgment to how “sex” operates within the Equality Act, not across all law. That’s not semantics — that’s jurisdiction. And yes, that paragraph you keep skipping over from the judgment spells it out clearly: “It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the Equality Act 2010.” Those are the Court’s own words. That’s the explicit limitation. The ruling defines “woman” only when used in the Equality Act, not beyond it. So no — it’s not propaganda, and it’s not semantics. It’s the difference between reading a judgment and rewriting one." You are misreading this. It's actually an EXPLICIT admission by the Supreme Court that they acknowledge it will be binding in other cases. They did this when warning of the limitations you are so happy to keep quoting. They did this when saying this should be limited and that... "...the Court did issue a caution regarding the interpretation of sex and gender terms in other legislation... a careful case-by-case analysis would be necessary.” This is explicit. It's not even unique, precedent is used on a case by case basis. It's how our advesarial court system works. One side citing judgements from certain cases, whilst the other side cites cases they believe support their position. So the Supreme Court have EXPLICITLY stated its precedent and have stated how it can be used. Surely you can see this and whats written. You still haven't shown anything that supports your position, no statement that explicitly states it cannot be precedent. If I'm wrong I'd love to see it, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's actually an EXPLICIT admission by the Supreme Court that they acknowledge it will be binding in other cases. They did this when warning of the limitations you are so happy to keep quoting. They did this when saying this should be limited and that... "...the Court did issue a caution regarding the interpretation of sex and gender terms in other legislation... a careful case-by-case analysis would be necessary.” This is explicit. It's not even unique, precedent is used on a case by case basis. It's how our advesarial court system works. One side citing judgements from certain cases, whilst the other side cites cases they believe support their position. So the Supreme Court have EXPLICITLY stated its precedent and have stated how it can be used. Surely you can see this and whats written. You still haven't shown anything that supports your position, no statement that explicitly states it cannot be precedent. If I'm wrong I'd love to see it, Mrs x" I think we might actually be talking about the same thing from opposite sides of the lens. I’m not saying the ruling can never be cited again or that other courts can’t consider it. Of course they can — that’s how persuasive authority works. What I’m saying is that the Supreme Court explicitly limited its intended scope to the interaction between the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act. That means it isn’t binding beyond that context — other courts may refer to it, but they’re not required to apply it elsewhere. Your reading treats it as if it’s a required precedent across all law. Mine reflects what the judgment itself says — that it only defines “woman” within the Equality Act, and that any wider application must be decided case by case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1. This appeal is concerned with establishing the correct interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 (“the EA 2010”) which seeks to give statutory protection to people who are at risk of suffering from unlawful discrimination. The questions raised by this appeal directly affect women and members of the trans community. On the one hand, women have historically suffered from discrimination in our society and since 1975 have been given statutory protection against discrimination on the ground of sex. On the other hand, the trans community is both historically and currently a vulnerable community which Parliament has more recently sought to protect by statutory provision. 2. It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”)." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people search for supremecourt sc_2024_0042 they'll find the judgement in full. It's 87 pages and quite a complex judgement but the first two paragraphs make it clear how limited in scope it is and that it is not defining the meaning of the word woman other than in relation to the Equality Act 2010. 1. This appeal is concerned with establishing the correct interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 (“the EA 2010”) which seeks to give statutory protection to people who are at risk of suffering from unlawful discrimination. The questions raised by this appeal directly affect women and members of the trans community. On the one hand, women have historically suffered from discrimination in our society and since 1975 have been given statutory protection against discrimination on the ground of sex. On the other hand, the trans community is both historically and currently a vulnerable community which Parliament has more recently sought to protect by statutory provision. 2. It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”)." You are correct in that you've just cut and pasted parts of the report. You seem to be implying that this cannot be used by others when considering issues of definition. Is that what you are getting at? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Irrespective of that, courts are bound to follow the precedent set by higher courts in similar cases. That's how judicial consistency works or courts would be more down by constantly relitigating the same principles." I don’t disagree at all — when a lower court is dealing with a case that involves the same issue (the interaction between the GRA and the Equality Act), it’s bound by that ruling. But that’s the key point: it’s binding only on cases that share that context. Outside that narrow intersection, the judgment can still be cited as persuasive, but it isn’t automatically binding. That’s how precedent works — specific issue, binding; different issue, persuasive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Irrespective of that, courts are bound to follow the precedent set by higher courts in similar cases. That's how judicial consistency works or courts would be more down by constantly relitigating the same principles." You are spot on, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Irrespective of that, courts are bound to follow the precedent set by higher courts in similar cases. That's how judicial consistency works or courts would be more down by constantly relitigating the same principles. I don’t disagree at all — when a lower court is dealing with a case that involves the same issue (the interaction between the GRA and the Equality Act), it’s bound by that ruling. But that’s the key point: it’s binding only on cases that share that context. Outside that narrow intersection, the judgment can still be cited as persuasive, but it isn’t automatically binding. That’s how precedent works — specific issue, binding; different issue, persuasive." It's absolutely binding in cases of Sex Discrimination and also cases involving single sex spaces, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's absolutely binding in cases of Sex Discrimination and also cases involving single sex spaces, Mrs x" You’re partly right, but that’s exactly my point. I haven’t been arguing about sex discrimination at all — I’ve been talking about gender reassignment discrimination, which is a separate protected characteristic under the Equality Act. The Supreme Court ruling affects how “sex” is read within that Act, but it doesn’t rewrite or weaken the protections for gender reassignment. And yes, single-sex spaces are lawful — but only if the provider meets a very high bar of justification. In the example I gave, that bar isn’t met, which means it wouldn’t qualify as a legally single-sex space. So yes, the ruling is binding in sex discrimination cases involving the GRA and the Equality Act. But when we’re talking about discrimination under gender reassignment, or whether a specific space actually meets the legal test to be “single sex,” the situation is different — and that’s exactly where your argument stops applying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's absolutely binding in cases of Sex Discrimination and also cases involving single sex spaces, Mrs x You’re partly right, but that’s exactly my point. I haven’t been arguing about sex discrimination at all — I’ve been talking about gender reassignment discrimination, which is a separate protected characteristic under the Equality Act. The Supreme Court ruling affects how “sex” is read within that Act, but it doesn’t rewrite or weaken the protections for gender reassignment. And yes, single-sex spaces are lawful — but only if the provider meets a very high bar of justification. In the example I gave, that bar isn’t met, which means it wouldn’t qualify as a legally single-sex space. So yes, the ruling is binding in sex discrimination cases involving the GRA and the Equality Act. But when we’re talking about discrimination under gender reassignment, or whether a specific space actually meets the legal test to be “single sex,” the situation is different — and that’s exactly where your argument stops applying. " No I'm not. The court wasn't even asked about, they even explicitly stated that trans rights are still protected. THE Single spaces issue is not discriminatory. It's use is now defined by biological sex, something everyone has. Do I agree with this, I'm unsure but its absolutely not discriminatory, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It really doesn’t matter which protected characteristic we’re talking about — sex, gender reassignment, race, religion, or sexual orientation — the principle is the same. Under Section 13(1) of the Equality Act 2010, treating someone less favourably because of a protected characteristic is direct discrimination. Certain exceptions exist — for example, the single-sex provisions in Schedule 3, Part 7 — but those are only lawful if they meet the proportionality test described in Section 13(2): “A person does not discriminate... if the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.” The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations confirms this in paragraphs 13.59–13.60: “Where a service provider provides separate or different services for each sex, or a single-sex service, the provider must be able to show that this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. If this cannot be shown, the service will be unlawful discrimination.” So regardless of which clause or characteristic is in question, the rule is the same: if the proportionality requirement isn’t met, the action is unlawful discrimination — even if it was intended to fall under an exception." But the judgement makes it much easier to satisfy both elements of the test. You are either biologically male or biologically female, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No I'm not. The court wasn't even asked about, they even explicitly stated that trans rights are still protected. THE Single spaces issue is not discriminatory. It's use is now defined by biological sex, something everyone has. Do I agree with this, I'm unsure but its absolutely not discriminatory, Mrs x" That’s where your logic breaks down. The Equality Act protects characteristics, not biological traits. Everyone has a skin colour — that doesn’t make racial discrimination lawful. Everyone has a sex — but if someone is excluded because they’re trans, or even perceived to be trans, that’s discrimination under gender reassignment, exactly as the Act defines it. And for the record, that protection applies to anyone who is treated differently because they’re thought to be trans — including cis women. Over the past few years, we’ve seen more and more cis women with short hair, deep voices, or androgynous looks being challenged or harassed in toilets and changing rooms. It’s happened even more often since the Supreme Court ruling, because people have been misled into thinking it gave them permission to police who “looks female enough.” The Court didn’t do that. It explicitly said trans rights remain protected and that its ruling didn’t remove or weaken those protections. So no, single-sex spaces aren’t discriminatory by default — but when exclusion fails the proportionality test, it stops being about sex and becomes discrimination under gender reassignment. That’s the law as it stands. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But the judgement makes it much easier to satisfy both elements of the test. You are either biologically male or biologically female, Mrs x" The Supreme Court ruling may have raised the starting point for arguing exclusion, but that isn’t enough on its own. The Equality Act doesn’t hand out automatic wins just for saying “biological sex.” The test still has two parts: a legitimate aim and a proportionate means of achieving it. So even if the argument for exclusion starts a little higher, the establishment still has to make up the distance — and without providing a genuinely non-discriminatory alternative, they won’t. It’s as you said yourself: trans people’s rights haven’t changed. They are still legally entitled to access services in a way that isn’t discriminatory, and that includes something as basic as a safe, non-discriminatory place to pee. If a venue wants to exclude someone from the ladies or the gents, it must offer an adequate alternative that meets the proportionality test. If it doesn’t, then the exclusion remains unlawful — it’s still discrimination based on gender reassignment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are correct in that you've just cut and pasted parts of the report. You seem to be implying that this cannot be used by others when considering issues of definition. Is that what you are getting at? Mrs x" I provided the reference so that people who might not have had the opportunity to read the judgement had an easy way to access it to check whether various people's opinions about it match what it actually says. Some seem to be arguning that the judgement defines the meaning of the word woman in general while the judgement says explicitly that this is not the case and that it only applies to the interpretation of EA 2010. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" No I'm not. The court wasn't even asked about, they even explicitly stated that trans rights are still protected. THE Single spaces issue is not discriminatory. It's use is now defined by biological sex, something everyone has. Do I agree with this, I'm unsure but its absolutely not discriminatory, Mrs x That’s where your logic breaks down. The Equality Act protects characteristics, not biological traits. Everyone has a skin colour — that doesn’t make racial discrimination lawful. Everyone has a sex — but if someone is excluded because they’re trans, or even perceived to be trans, that’s discrimination under gender reassignment, exactly as the Act defines it. And for the record, that protection applies to anyone who is treated differently because they’re thought to be trans — including cis women. Over the past few years, we’ve seen more and more cis women with short hair, deep voices, or androgynous looks being challenged or harassed in toilets and changing rooms. It’s happened even more often since the Supreme Court ruling, because people have been misled into thinking it gave them permission to police who “looks female enough.” The Court didn’t do that. It explicitly said trans rights remain protected and that its ruling didn’t remove or weaken those protections. So no, single-sex spaces aren’t discriminatory by default — but when exclusion fails the proportionality test, it stops being about sex and becomes discrimination under gender reassignment. That’s the law as it stands." I think I've spotted what your issue is. I think you believe the EqA is being looked at here. So you keep going on about the protection it contains. Which I have already said still exists in its entirety. This was stated by the Court. You keep stating that the court minimised the scope of its decision and that combined with you thinking the EqA is whats being judged when it isn't. You should minimise what you are looking at in relation to what the Woman asked the court to do. They never asked to look at the EqA but rather the acts definition of the terms of man and woman. They asked this in relation to the GRA and whether a certificate actually conferred the sex onto an individual that it said it did. At no time did was the Court asked about changing parts of the EqA or the GRA. They were just asked about their opinion on the definition of men and woman. So they looked and decided sex means biological sex, and this impacts on the GRA and subsequent certificates. It was a minimum question, looking at a minimum issue and thats all the court said, when the stated the scope of their decision. It's not discrimination because like it or not, everyone is born with a biological sex. So thats why its easier to establish exclusion, even when using the tests you describe. Men are biological men, woman are biological woman. Arguing about Trans rights is irrelevant here, legally, because they havent changed. What as changed is that, in this case Womans rights have been strengthened, otherwise Woman could claim discrimination if they had to share single spaces who did not have the same biological sex as them. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You are correct in that you've just cut and pasted parts of the report. You seem to be implying that this cannot be used by others when considering issues of definition. Is that what you are getting at? Mrs x I provided the reference so that people who might not have had the opportunity to read the judgement had an easy way to access it to check whether various people's opinions about it match what it actually says. Some seem to be arguning that the judgement defines the meaning of the word woman in general while the judgement says explicitly that this is not the case and that it only applies to the interpretation of EA 2010." You've not read the whole 87 pages then. You know that page and paragraph were the Dupreme Court states that when using this definition in other statutes that it should be done carefully and on a case by case basis. You missed that bit then? Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Arguing about Trans rights is irrelevant here, legally, because they havent changed. What as changed is that, in this case Womans rights have been strengthened, otherwise Woman could claim discrimination if they had to share single spaces who did not have the same biological sex as them. Mrs x" If trans rights haven’t changed and the gender-reassignment protections haven’t changed, then what was discrimination before is discrimination now. And if trans people don’t have a non-discriminatory place to pee, they are being discriminated against. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But the judgement makes it much easier to satisfy both elements of the test. You are either biologically male or biologically female, Mrs x The Supreme Court ruling may have raised the starting point for arguing exclusion, but that isn’t enough on its own. The Equality Act doesn’t hand out automatic wins just for saying “biological sex.” The test still has two parts: a legitimate aim and a proportionate means of achieving it. So even if the argument for exclusion starts a little higher, the establishment still has to make up the distance — and without providing a genuinely non-discriminatory alternative, they won’t. It’s as you said yourself: trans people’s rights haven’t changed. They are still legally entitled to access services in a way that isn’t discriminatory, and that includes something as basic as a safe, non-discriminatory place to pee. If a venue wants to exclude someone from the ladies or the gents, it must offer an adequate alternative that meets the proportionality test. If it doesn’t, then the exclusion remains unlawful — it’s still discrimination based on gender reassignment." As a trans woman you will either have access to a female or male toilet, based on the policy of the establishment. If the owner / supplier of the service deems that single sex spaces is the policy and if challenged can prove that they have been consistent in their approach in line with the equality act, it is up to you whether you use that establishment or not. The same rules apply to everyone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As a trans woman you will either have access to a female or male toilet, based on the policy of the establishment. If the owner / supplier of the service deems that single sex spaces is the policy and if challenged can prove that they have been consistent in their approach in line with the equality act, it is up to you whether you use that establishment or not. The same rules apply to everyone." You’re 100% correct — it does have to be in line with the Equality Act. And that means it also has to meet the proportionality requirement. To be proportionate, there has to be a genuinely non-discriminatory option for trans people. Without that, it fails the test — and if it fails the test, it isn’t in line with the Equality Act. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Arguing about Trans rights is irrelevant here, legally, because they havent changed. What as changed is that, in this case Womans rights have been strengthened, otherwise Woman could claim discrimination if they had to share single spaces who did not have the same biological sex as them. Mrs x If trans rights haven’t changed and the gender-reassignment protections haven’t changed, then what was discrimination before is discrimination now. And if trans people don’t have a non-discriminatory place to pee, they are being discriminated against." Why are they being discriminated against? What about woman being discriminated by not having a safe space, a private place? Also the issue of Transgenderism is large and complex. A person gains protection under the Equality Act when they initially start the process to transition. So my hubby, a big hairy bloke could enter a female only space, without medical or surgical assistance by claiming they want to transition. Thats surely got to be discriminatory against woman. So surely woman should be entitled to woman only places, the same for men. The court actually based part on their decision on the practicalities of this. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But the judgement makes it much easier to satisfy both elements of the test. You are either biologically male or biologically female, Mrs x The Supreme Court ruling may have raised the starting point for arguing exclusion, but that isn’t enough on its own. The Equality Act doesn’t hand out automatic wins just for saying “biological sex.” The test still has two parts: a legitimate aim and a proportionate means of achieving it. So even if the argument for exclusion starts a little higher, the establishment still has to make up the distance — and without providing a genuinely non-discriminatory alternative, they won’t. It’s as you said yourself: trans people’s rights haven’t changed. They are still legally entitled to access services in a way that isn’t discriminatory, and that includes something as basic as a safe, non-discriminatory place to pee. If a venue wants to exclude someone from the ladies or the gents, it must offer an adequate alternative that meets the proportionality test. If it doesn’t, then the exclusion remains unlawful — it’s still discrimination based on gender reassignment. As a trans woman you will either have access to a female or male toilet, based on the policy of the establishment. If the owner / supplier of the service deems that single sex spaces is the policy and if challenged can prove that they have been consistent in their approach in line with the equality act, it is up to you whether you use that establishment or not. The same rules apply to everyone." Exactly, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are they being discriminated against? What about woman being discriminated by not having a safe space, a private place? Also the issue of Transgenderism is large and complex. A person gains protection under the Equality Act when they initially start the process to transition. So my hubby, a big hairy bloke could enter a female only space, without medical or surgical assistance by claiming they want to transition. Thats surely got to be discriminatory against woman. So surely woman should be entitled to woman only places, the same for men. The court actually based part on their decision on the practicalities of this. Mrs x " That’s exactly why proportionality exists — to balance competing rights without erasing either group. Women are absolutely entitled to privacy and safety. So are trans women — which is why denying them that protection is discrimination. The law doesn’t let one protection cancel out another; it requires a proportionate solution that respects both. That’s why venues are expected to provide suitable alternatives — like gender-neutral single-occupancy facilities — rather than excluding an entire group. As for your example, the Equality Act already deals with that. Protection under gender reassignment isn’t a free pass; it applies where someone is genuinely transitioning, not just claiming to for convenience. The courts have consistently treated bad-faith claims as fraud, not as protected status. So yes, everyone deserves safety — but that includes trans people too. And denying them a safe place to pee isn’t protecting anyone. It’s just discrimination under another name. And speaking from personal experience — every trans person I know who’s begun transitioning kept using the same toilets they always had until it started to feel unsafe to do so. There’s zero conclusive evidence that banning trans people makes anyone safer. What is clear is that it increases the risk for those being excluded. If safety is truly the goal, exclusion isn’t the answer — proportionality is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why are they being discriminated against? What about woman being discriminated by not having a safe space, a private place? Also the issue of Transgenderism is large and complex. A person gains protection under the Equality Act when they initially start the process to transition. So my hubby, a big hairy bloke could enter a female only space, without medical or surgical assistance by claiming they want to transition. Thats surely got to be discriminatory against woman. So surely woman should be entitled to woman only places, the same for men. The court actually based part on their decision on the practicalities of this. Mrs x That’s exactly why proportionality exists — to balance competing rights without erasing either group. Women are absolutely entitled to privacy and safety. So are trans women — which is why denying them that protection is discrimination. The law doesn’t let one protection cancel out another; it requires a proportionate solution that respects both. That’s why venues are expected to provide suitable alternatives — like gender-neutral single-occupancy facilities — rather than excluding an entire group. As for your example, the Equality Act already deals with that. Protection under gender reassignment isn’t a free pass; it applies where someone is genuinely transitioning, not just claiming to for convenience. The courts have consistently treated bad-faith claims as fraud, not as protected status. So yes, everyone deserves safety — but that includes trans people too. And denying them a safe place to pee isn’t protecting anyone. It’s just discrimination under another name. And speaking from personal experience — every trans person I know who’s begun transitioning kept using the same toilets they always had until it started to feel unsafe to do so. There’s zero conclusive evidence that banning trans people makes anyone safer. What is clear is that it increases the risk for those being excluded. If safety is truly the goal, exclusion isn’t the answer — proportionality is." It's not just safety its also an issue of privacy. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As a trans woman you will either have access to a female or male toilet, based on the policy of the establishment. If the owner / supplier of the service deems that single sex spaces is the policy and if challenged can prove that they have been consistent in their approach in line with the equality act, it is up to you whether you use that establishment or not. The same rules apply to everyone. You’re 100% correct — it does have to be in line with the Equality Act. And that means it also has to meet the proportionality requirement. To be proportionate, there has to be a genuinely non-discriminatory option for trans people. Without that, it fails the test — and if it fails the test, it isn’t in line with the Equality Act." Unfortunately due to this case, there are only men and woman, thats why it is so much easier to meet all the tests. I know that doesn't help Trans people but its just the case legally, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not just safety its also an issue of privacy. Mrs x" Exactly — and privacy cuts both ways. That’s why the proportionality test in the Equality Act includes privacy and dignity for everyone involved. Trans women also have a right to privacy; forcing them to use facilities where they’ll face hostility or danger destroys that. The law doesn’t let one group’s privacy automatically override another’s — it requires a balance that treats both as valid. And that’s the key point: if a venue excludes trans women in the name of “privacy” but doesn’t provide a non-discriminatory alternative, it hasn’t balanced anything — it’s just shifted the harm from one group to another. That’s not proportionate, and therefore not lawful. So yes, privacy matters. For everyone. And the law’s job is to stop one group’s privacy from being bought at another group’s expense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Unfortunately due to this case, there are only men and woman, thats why it is so much easier to meet all the tests. I know that doesn't help Trans people but its just the case legally, Mrs x" Now that’s a stretch — you’ve just argued my point again, then pretended it proves yours. The whole reason the proportionality test exists is because there are more legal categories than just ‘men’ and ‘women.’ Gender reassignment is one of them, and it hasn’t changed. So no, the case didn’t magically erase that protection — it’s still discrimination if trans people are left without a lawful option. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You've not read the whole 87 pages then. You know that page and paragraph were the Dupreme Court states that when using this definition in other statutes that it should be done carefully and on a case by case basis. You missed that bit then? Mrs x" I did read it when it first came out and posted comments about it being a complex judgement. I'm not going to read it again for this thread because my point here is simply about the narrowness of its scope - despite some saying that it defines what the word women means in general, it explicitly says that it doesn't... "It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All that means is the judgment of the court is specific to the EA not the definition of woman man or sex in general. It does however establish a legal precedent that will be used on other similar cases outside of the scope of the equality act, and that will be tested by a very determined and well focused lobby against a group of people who are almost diametrically opposite on terms of recourse to finding, with the added hindrance of general apathy and lack of widespread support. " You may well be right. But there are already multiple legal challenges to the ruling in motion, and I wouldn’t be surprised if one of them eventually succeeds. Honestly, I don’t think this whole culture war against trans people exists because we’re a real problem — it’s because certain politicians need a scapegoat. Stir up fear, get people angry, and it becomes easier to justify leaving the ECHR. That’s the endgame, not toilets. And when they do, everyone’s rights get less protection. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm wondering what the reaction of people would be if it became relatively common to see hairy muscular trans men going into the ladies toilets. According to the 2021 census of England and Wales 48,000 people identified as trans men although many people didn't answer the write-in question so this will be an underestimation. How did we get to this point, no respect for straight people, politicians that put people and business at odds with each other? " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The mess that is this thread perfectly highlights the inherently paradoxical and contradictory nature of the whole “sex and gender are completely different” thing. It would seem that, when needed, sex and gender are completely different. Until that becomes inconvenient or problematic, when suddenly sex and gender once more become inextricably linked and overlapped, if not outright interchangeable. "The supposed “paradox” only exists if you flatten sex and gender into the same concept and then complain they don’t align. Sex is biological. Gender is social and psychological. They interact constantly, but they aren’t identical. Saying they’re “completely different” doesn’t mean they’re unrelated; it means they describe different kinds of reality — one anatomical, one sociocultural. Think of it this way: your hardware (sex) and your operating system (gender) can influence each other without being the same thing. You can upgrade one without changing the other. That’s not paradoxical; that’s complexity. The only people calling it contradictory are the ones demanding that biology explain identity — which is like demanding that plumbing explain poetry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The supposed “paradox” only exists if you flatten sex and gender into the same concept and then complain they don’t align." Maybe people should stop doing that, then. "Sex is biological. Gender is social and psychological. They interact constantly, but they aren’t identical. Saying they’re “completely different” doesn’t mean they’re unrelated; it means they describe different kinds of reality — one anatomical, one sociocultural." And yet, depending on the situation/convenience, sex and gender are to be regarded as unrelated/completely separate... or intrisically linked/tied together. As is clearly on display throughout this thread. Thus the paradox. "Think of it this way: your hardware (sex) and your operating system (gender) can influence each other without being the same thing. You can upgrade one without changing the other. That’s not paradoxical; that’s complexity." It becomes paradoxical when, in order to "upgrade" ones software, one must "install" or otherwise replace ones hardware to then "run" the aforementioned software. Either sex is biology and nothing to do with gender, in which case being denied biological alterations to ones sex characteristics, or told to use facilities that are sexed, and not gendered, shouldn't be an issue. OR... those things are an issue because, as it happens, sex isn't completely separate and actually does have something to do with gender. It either matters or it doesn't. You can't have your cake and eat it, too, after all. "The only people calling it contradictory are the ones demanding that biology explain identity — which is like demanding that plumbing explain poetry." Nope. I'm calling it contradictory because it is. That's just plain, simple fact. As demonstrated in this thread. If toilets are sexed and not gendered, why is it an issue or discriminatory for transGENDER people? Could it be that, in actuality, sex and gender are in fact linked in some important way? And not, as we're told, "nothing to do with one another" in these kinds of debates? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nope. I'm calling it contradictory because it is. That's just plain, simple fact. As demonstrated in this thread. If toilets are sexed and not gendered, why is it an issue or discriminatory for transGENDER people? Could it be that, in actuality, sex and gender are in fact linked in some important way? And not, as we're told, "nothing to do with one another" in these kinds of debates?" It isn’t discrimination to have single-sex spaces. It’s discrimination to exclude trans people from them without providing an adequate alternative. That’s the point the Equality Act actually makes. The rest of your ‘paradox’ disappears once you stop treating sex and gender as mutually exclusive absolutes. They’re distinct but interdependent — biology informs social reality, and social reality shapes how biology is experienced. You don’t ‘install new hardware’ to change gender; you change how your body and identity align so you can live without distress. Denying access based on anatomy while refusing to provide alternatives isn’t upholding logic or safety — it’s just codifying cruelty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sex has legally been determined by the highest court in the land to mean biological sex. Given your pub example you would either use the disabled or staff toilet. The venue must not discriminate in ita ability to provide toilet services, but you are not entitled to use a women's only space. First, there has never been — and still isn’t — any law that says I can’t use the ladies. The Supreme Court ruling didn’t create one, and the Equality Act doesn’t either. Second, forcing a trans woman to use the disabled or staff toilet has already been found in case law to be disproportionate and therefore discriminatory under gender reassignment. That means it doesn’t meet the “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” test in the Equality Act. So yes — venues must provide toilet services fairly. But “use the disabled loo” is not, and never has been, a lawful solution." You're delusional. Use women's toilets but don't come crying when women complain to their husbands. A man isn't going to stand there while someone spouts nonsense to justify why they upset their wife. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You're delusional. Use women's toilets but don't come crying when women complain to their husbands. A man isn't going to stand there while someone spouts nonsense to justify why they upset their wife." You’ve moved from law to intimidation, which says a lot. The Equality Act doesn’t vanish because someone’s uncomfortable. The courts have already ruled that ‘use the disabled toilet’ isn’t proportionate, and that harassment based on gender reassignment is itself unlawful. The idea that a woman’s husband gets to ‘defend’ her from a trans person existing isn’t chivalry — it’s vigilantism dressed up as manners. And if anyone acted on that impulse, they wouldn’t be proving a point — they’d be committing a hate crime. The likely outcome isn’t vindication; it’s prison. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You're delusional. Use women's toilets but don't come crying when women complain to their husbands. A man isn't going to stand there while someone spouts nonsense to justify why they upset their wife. You’ve moved from law to intimidation, which says a lot. The Equality Act doesn’t vanish because someone’s uncomfortable. The courts have already ruled that ‘use the disabled toilet’ isn’t proportionate, and that harassment based on gender reassignment is itself unlawful. The idea that a woman’s husband gets to ‘defend’ her from a trans person existing isn’t chivalry — it’s vigilantism dressed up as manners. And if anyone acted on that impulse, they wouldn’t be proving a point — they’d be committing a hate crime. The likely outcome isn’t vindication; it’s prison." How do you stop women feeling uncomfortable when penis-havers enter their bathroom space? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You're delusional. Use women's toilets but don't come crying when women complain to their husbands. A man isn't going to stand there while someone spouts nonsense to justify why they upset their wife. You’ve moved from law to intimidation, which says a lot. The Equality Act doesn’t vanish because someone’s uncomfortable. The courts have already ruled that ‘use the disabled toilet’ isn’t proportionate, and that harassment based on gender reassignment is itself unlawful. The idea that a woman’s husband gets to ‘defend’ her from a trans person existing isn’t chivalry — it’s vigilantism dressed up as manners. And if anyone acted on that impulse, they wouldn’t be proving a point — they’d be committing a hate crime. The likely outcome isn’t vindication; it’s prison." Intimidation? Think you need to step away from the Internet and speak to some real people in a public setting for a while. You're only here to agitate and throw your weight about and funnily enough, folk don't take kindly to that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How do you stop women feeling uncomfortable when penis-havers enter their bathroom space?" You don’t ‘stop’ people feeling something — you stop them acting on it in discriminatory ways. Discomfort isn’t the legal test; proportionality is. The law balances everyone’s privacy, not just one group’s preferences, which is why cubicles have doors and harassment is illegal. Trans women have been using the ladies since public women’s toilets first appeared in the Victorian era. The only thing that’s changed is people being told to panic about it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Intimidation? Think you need to step away from the Internet and speak to some real people in a public setting for a while. You're only here to agitate and throw your weight about and funnily enough, folk don't take kindly to that." You accused me of ‘throwing my weight about’ in the same breath you defended men threatening violence over who uses a toilet. Hello, pot — meet kettle. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It isn’t discrimination to have single-sex spaces. It’s discrimination to exclude trans people from them without providing an adequate alternative." By apparent definition (and your own assertions several times within this thread) single-SEX spaces do not exclude any GENDER at all, including transGENDER. Because, remember, sex is merely biology, and nothing to do with ones gender/expression... which is socio-cultural and/or psychological. The toilet facilities which are SEXED, and not GENDERED, shouldn't come into play at all. Unless... "The rest of your ‘paradox’ disappears once you stop treating sex and gender as mutually exclusive absolutes. They’re distinct but interdependent" No it doesn't. It disappears when we're stopped being told in one breath that "sex doesn't matter to your gender, one is set biology and the other is merely a social construct", and then in the next breath told that "I need to have hormones and surgery to change my SEX characteristics, and to be allowed into single-SEX spaces in order to have my GENDER affirmed". This is, quite clearly, a massive contradiction. "biology informs social reality, and social reality shapes how biology is experienced." Ergo; they do matter to one another and aren't completely separate. You see? You need to pick a lane... "You don’t ‘install new hardware’ to change gender;" So why do transgender people seek sex-reassignment via hormone therapy and surgical procedures, often citing that not doing so would be life-threatening? "Denying access based on anatomy while refusing to provide alternatives isn’t upholding logic or safety — it’s just codifying cruelty." Style points for alliteration, but I'm afraid I have to deduct them all again for attempting the well-known tactic of appealing to emotion and usage of highly emotive language to try and shut down/dismiss challenges to your radical ideology. In these situations I like to remind people of two sayings; 1) "killing with kindness", 2) "sometimes one has to be cruel to be kind". If me caring about the safety of women and girls - that is to say human females - by not wanting men/males in their toilets, changing rooms, prisons and sports makes me "cruel", then so be it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How do you stop women feeling uncomfortable when penis-havers enter their bathroom space? You don’t ‘stop’ people feeling something — you stop them acting on it in discriminatory ways. " This makes the penis-haver happy, but the women remain unhappy. It's a one-sided solution. " Discomfort isn’t the legal test..." No, it isn't. But it's a valid question: how do you stop women feeling uncomfortable? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Style points for alliteration, but I'm afraid I have to deduct them all again for attempting the well-known tactic of appealing to emotion and usage of highly emotive language to try and shut down/dismiss challenges to your radical ideology. In these situations I like to remind people of two sayings; 1) "killing with kindness", 2) "sometimes one has to be cruel to be kind". If me caring about the safety of women and girls - that is to say human females - by not wanting men/males in their toilets, changing rooms, prisons and sports makes me "cruel", then so be it." You’re framing this as a black-and-white choice — either sex and gender are identical, or they’re totally separate. That’s a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy. No one’s ever said sex and gender are completely unrelated; what we’ve said is that they describe different layers of human reality that interact. Gender dysphoria exists precisely because biology and identity don’t always align — which is why medical transition exists: not to ‘change gender,’ but to help the body and mind match. The need for access to toilets or changing rooms isn’t about ideology or emotion; it’s about practical safety and dignity under the law. Calling that ‘cruelty’ to shut down discussion doesn’t make it an emotional argument — it makes it a human one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, it isn't. But it's a valid question: how do you stop women feeling uncomfortable?" Then ask the same in reverse — why should trans women be forced through the discomfort of being excluded from the toilets they’ve always used? Everyone’s comfort matters, but comfort alone can’t override equality law. The solution isn’t to make one group unsafe so another can feel unchallenged; it’s to design spaces that respect everyone’s dignity — single-occupancy cubicles, privacy panels, clear policies against harassment. The Equality Act doesn’t pick favourites; it requires proportionality. That means balancing rights, not cancelling one side’s existence to soothe another’s discomfort. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How do you stop women feeling uncomfortable when penis-havers enter their bathroom space?" Unless indecent exposure is involved how would they know? On the other hand, how do you stop women feeling uncomfortable when hairy muscular trans men enter their bathroom space? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You’re framing this as a black-and-white choice — either sex and gender are identical, or they’re totally separate." I'm not framing it as anything. I certainly never said or argued that sex and gender are identical. I'm simply pointing out the clear contradiction of statements we always hear in these debates, including throughout this thread. If sex and gender are related but can act independently from one another, and one is set biology while the other is merely a construct, then how and why is a SEXED facility excluding any GENDER? It literally can't, if that were true. How and why are transitioning one's SEX characteristics at the core of one's GENDER-affirmation? It literally wouldn't be, if that were true. "No one’s ever said sex and gender are completely unrelated;" Except that it's the first thing we get told whenever we raise the issue. I read/hear it all. The. Time. Almost without exception. Including by you. In this thread. "Gender dysphoria exists precisely because biology and identity don’t always align — which is why medical transition exists: not to ‘change gender,’ but to help the body and mind match." Gender dysphoria exists because its a subset of body dismorphia. Which is rooted in biology. Its looking in the mirror and feeling distress/discomfort with what they see, and wanting to change that. Nothing to do with "social construct"... and everything to do with seeing the physical body of a male/female and wishing it were the opposite. We don't (and shouldn't) blindly affirm an anorexic person who sees a fat version of themselves in the mirror, but giving them drugs and surgery to make them "thin". We don't (and shouldn't) affirm transabled people who see a dismembered/disfigured person in the mirror by chopping off a limb in order to help the body and mind "match". If the ideology were true, and did its job properly, there shouldn't or wouldn't be any distress or discomfort with the sex in the mirror, because gender is just a construct, right? Therefore, in theory, any gender can exist in any body. Again, unless... "The need for access to toilets or changing rooms isn’t about ideology or emotion; it’s about practical safety and dignity under the law." This applies to women and girls, too. Choosing to protect them over the feelings of a very small number of males is, I feel, the least "cruel" thing to do overall/in the long run. But that's me. "Calling that ‘cruelty’ to shut down discussion doesn’t make it an emotional argument" Of course it does. It's the oldest trick in the book and is extremely manipulative. "I don't agree with your statement/ideology" - response; "You're a 'phobe/'ist/bigot/ are cruel/where's your compassion?" etc, etc... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Then ask the same in reverse — why should trans women be forced through the discomfort of being excluded from the toilets they’ve always used?" How can a transGENDER be excluded from a single-SEX space in the first place? Maybe they should comfort themselves with the knowledge that sex is biological, whereas gender is merely a social construct? Unless... "Unless indecent exposure is involved how would they know?" Let's not be this naive. 99 times out of 100, a woman does not need to see a man's penis on show in order to deduce that they are male and not female. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course it does. It's the oldest trick in the book and is extremely manipulative. "I don't agree with your statement/ideology" - response; "You're a 'phobe/'ist/bigot/ are cruel/where's your compassion?" etc, etc..." Yeah, nothing in what you just wrote shows even a trace of good-faith engagement. It’s straight out of the gender-critical playbook. But before you accuse me of a fallacy, let’s actually answer what you said. I’ve never said sex and gender are completely unrelated — nor do any serious pro-trans voices. We say they are not the same thing, which is very different from saying they’re unrelated. Gender dysphoria isn’t just ‘body dysmorphia with a twist.’ It’s a recognised medical condition because it’s about the misalignment between sex characteristics and gender identity, not a distorted self-image. The treatments exist precisely because helping the body and mind align saves lives — and unlike your anorexia comparison, gender-affirming care actually reduces distress, depression, and suicide risk. You can keep insisting it’s contradiction, but what you’re describing is nuance — biology and identity interacting, not cancelling each other out. And safety cuts both ways. The ‘protect women and girls’ line rings hollow when it’s used to strip other women of dignity and safety. Trans women are women. They face far more risk in men’s spaces than anyone faces from them in women’s. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Unless indecent exposure is involved how would they know? Let's not be this naive. 99 times out of 100, a woman does not need to see a man's penis on show in order to deduce that they are male and not female." Well, it isn’t a single-sex space unless it meets the legal requirements to be one. I’ve only said that about twenty times now. It’s funny how often my argument gets misrepresented. I’ve never said trans people must be allowed in the ladies — I’ve said you can’t exclude us unless you meet the legal standard for doing so. That’s a crucial difference. The Equality Act doesn’t outlaw single-sex spaces, but it makes them lawful only if the exclusion is proportionate and a non-discriminatory alternative exists. If that bar isn’t met, it’s not about feelings — it’s about discrimination. And again, you’re slipping between sex and gender like they’re interchangeable when it suits your argument. The Equality Act doesn’t give anyone the right to declare a space ‘single-sex’ just because they’ve decided it should be. It sets conditions — proportionality, necessity, and non-discrimination. If a venue can’t meet those, it’s not legally a single-sex space, and excluding trans women from it is discrimination under gender reassignment. As for the rest — no, most women can’t magically tell someone’s chromosomes on sight, and studies have shown that cis people are actually very bad at identifying who’s trans at all. Reducing women to ‘spot the trans person’ games in toilets is insulting to everyone, cis and trans alike. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve never said sex and gender are completely unrelated — nor do any serious pro-trans voices. We say they are not the same thing, which is very different from saying they’re unrelated." You used the "sex is biology; whereas gender is a social construct" card several times throughout this thread, whilst also trying to insist that SEXED toilet facilites exclude/discriminate against GENDER. This is a contradiction. Either sex matters when it comes to gender expression/identity/affirmation... or it doesn't. You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. "Gender dysphoria isn’t just ‘body dysmorphia with a twist.’ It’s a recognised medical condition because it’s about the misalignment between sex characteristics and gender identity, not a distorted self-image." So you have to commit to them being intrisically and inextricably linked to one another, and drop the "sex is biology, gender is social construct" responses, then. You can't have this both ways when it's convient/pleases you. "The treatments exist precisely because helping the body and mind align saves lives, gender-affirming care actually reduces distress, depression, and suicide risk." This is false. What little data there is shows no noticable or significant reduction in distress, depression, or suicide rates amongst trans people. The pro-trans/gender-affirming care literature actually contradicts itself, first citing that "long-term study" sees improvements then on another page citing that there "is no/not enough long term studies availble yet". "And safety cuts both ways. The ‘protect women and girls’ line rings hollow when it’s used to strip other women of dignity and safety." Go and ask all the women and girls who have been attacked, assaulted, r@ped, r0bbed of medals/sporting opportunities by opportunistic and predatory men/males how "hollow" my stance rings. "Trans women are women." Another falsehood. Trans women are trans women. Women are women. There's a very, very important distinction between the two. Males are male and females are female. They always have been, and they always will be. No amount of pills or surgery can change that. I'm sorry, I sympathise with anyone suffering with dysphoria, I really do, it must be horrible, but that's simply the truth/fact of the matter. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Another falsehood. Trans women are trans women. Women are women. There's a very, very important distinction between the two. Males are male and females are female. They always have been, and they always will be. No amount of pills or surgery can change that. I'm sorry, I sympathise with anyone suffering with dysphoria, I really do, it must be horrible, but that's simply the truth/fact of the matter." Trans is an adjective — you actually got that part right. Which means “trans woman” literally describes a type of woman. The grammar reflects the reality: women who are transgender are still women. Roses are red, violets are blue — yet no one says they have nothing in common. Sex and gender work the same way: distinct but connected. Biology influences gender; gender shapes how biology is lived. That’s not “having it both ways,” it’s exactly how the NHS, the Gender Recognition Act, and the World Health Organization treat it. They recognise gender identity as both biological and social reality. Gender dysphoria isn’t body dysmorphia — that’s not an opinion, it’s the clinical definition in the NHS and DSM-5. Dysphoria is the distress caused by incongruence between someone’s sex characteristics and their gender identity, not a delusional body image. And yes, gender-affirming care reduces suicide risk — the 2023 BMJ meta-analysis and several longitudinal studies confirm it. You asked about sport. Name a single trans athlete dominating their field. You can’t, because there isn’t one. No trans woman holds an Olympic gold medal. None are “taking over” professional leagues. The narrative exists only in headlines, not in data. And the “safety” argument still collapses under evidence. There’s no data showing trans women are a risk in women’s spaces — but there’s plenty showing trans women are far more likely to be harassed or attacked in them. Protecting one group’s comfort by sacrificing another group’s safety isn’t safeguarding. It’s hypocrisy dressed as virtue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And again, you’re slipping between sex and gender like they’re interchangeable when it suits your argument." The irony. Maybe because those are exactly the rules/conditions set by the radical gender ideologues in the first place? If you want to dance a different dance, maybe you should change the tune. "As for the rest — no, most women can’t magically tell someone’s chromosomes on sight, and studies have shown that cis people are actually very bad at identifying who’s trans at all." Bullshit. Millions of years of evolutionary biology have, for safety reasons, no less, equipped women with insticts and affinities for being able to read their surroundings and quickly and accurately (not perfectly, of course) deduce threats. This includes males. I'll happily defer the the imput of the ladies of Fab on this. They can confirm or deny, I'm sure, whether or not they know, 9/10, males and females without seeing their junk. "the focus seems to be entirely on imagined problems with trans women" Yes... "imagined"... that's not insulting or offensive to all those who have suffered attacks or losses in sport because of males gaming the symstem... AT ALL. Jesus Christ. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes... "imagined"... that's not insulting or offensive to all those who have suffered attacks or losses in sport because of males gaming the symstem... AT ALL. Jesus Christ." You’ve cherry-picked fragments from multiple posts to build straw men instead of engaging with what’s actually been said. My position hasn’t changed: the Equality Act protects trans people under gender reassignment, and exclusion is only lawful if it meets the proportionality test — that’s not ideology, that’s the law. And instincts aren’t evidence. “I can just tell” has never held up in science or in court. Studies show that cis people misidentify trans people all the time — especially trans men, who are often read as cis men. If your argument relies on gut feeling instead of data, you’re not defending biology, you’re defending bias. And again, if trans women are really such a problem in sport, name one who’s dominating their field. You can’t, because there isn’t one. Every major sporting body’s data shows trans participation is tiny and performance differences largely vanish after transition. The outrage exists mainly in headlines, not on the scoreboards. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Which means “trans woman” literally describes a type of woman. The grammar reflects the reality: women who are transgender are still women." Define the word: woman. Avoid using the word 'woman' in the definition, if you can. "They recognise gender identity as both biological and social reality." So do I... "Dysphoria is the distress caused by incongruence between someone’s sex characteristics and their gender identity" Someone's sex characteristics... what, you mean their BODY? Great. So you agree with me that gender dysphoria falls under the wider umbrella of body dismorphia. Not an opinion, as you said. "And yes, gender-affirming care reduces suicide risk" No, no it doesn't. The report simultaneously claims that longterm study data shows reduced risk AND that there is no longterm study data yet. Hmm, strange. What the data actually shows is that suicide rates do not noticably or significantly come down post transition, but remain roughly the same. "No trans woman holds an Olympic gold medal. None are “taking over” professional leagues." Not yet, but that's where all this leads in the end. Lia Thomas is the thin end of the wedge on that one. Anyone who claims that males have "little/no advantage" over females in sport is delusional, plain and simple. If that were the case, why were female-only categories created in the first place, again? Hmm, strange. "Protecting one group’s comfort by sacrificing another group’s safety isn’t safeguarding. It’s hypocrisy dressed as virtue." Boy, you said it! That's something else we can agree on, at last. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And instincts aren’t evidence. “I can just tell” has never held up in science or in court. Studies show that cis people misidentify trans people all the time — especially trans men, who are often read as cis men. If your argument relies on gut feeling instead of data, you’re not defending biology, you’re defending bias." None of that has anything to do with the point I was addressing. I wasn't talking about science, court, law, trans men, etc. Again, I'm happy to defer/be corrected by the ladies of Fab on this one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And for the record, I am one of the ladies on Fab — whether you like that or not doesn’t change the truth of it." I think we both know and understand that when I say "ladies" I'm talking about the female variety, which doesn't include, has never included, and will never include, men/males. Whether you like that or not doesn't change the truth of it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think we both know and understand that when I say "ladies" I'm talking about the female variety, which doesn't include, has never included, and will never include, men/males. Whether you like that or not doesn't change the truth of it." And that right there is the circular reasoning at the heart of your argument — you’re defining “woman” as “the people I think count as women.” The law doesn’t work that way, and neither does reality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And that right there is the circular reasoning at the heart of your argument — you’re defining “woman” as “the people I think count as women.” The law doesn’t work that way, and neither does reality." Let's see which of us is relying on circular reasoning. Define the word woman. Avoid using the word woman within the definion. If you can. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's see which of us is relying on circular reasoning. Define the word woman. Avoid using the word woman within the definion. If you can." Easy! A woman is the gender usually, but not exclusively, associated with females. What is a Female you ask? A female is the sex category usually, but not exclusively, associated with two X chromosomes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Easy! A woman is the gender usually, but not exclusively, associated with females. What is a Female you ask? A female is the sex category usually, but not exclusively, associated with two X chromosomes." So, not a man/male. Thank you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Go ahead, reply with the last word if it makes you feel better. When someone has to twist a clear point just to claim a win, it’s pretty obvious who actually lost the argument." All I did was read through the thread and then point out the very clear, very simple paradox/contradiction at the core of radical gender ideology. One that simultaneously claims that "sex and gender are completely different / don't have anything to do with each other" but also insists that changing ones sex characteristics and being allowed access to single-sex spaces are what defines/determines their gender affirmation...  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
