The toilets at my church are just labelled "Toilet", with in a couple of cases "Toilet with urinal". There doesn't seem to need to be any further information on the door than that.
The toilets at my church are just labelled "Toilet", with in a couple of cases "Toilet with urinal". There doesn't seem to need to be any further information on the door than that.
There's a BBC report today about the EHRC guidance. I'm not sure how to link but apparently the only "acceptable" kinds of toilets are those with entirely enclosed rooms where only one person can use them at a time.
It doesn't sound like unisex rooms with cubicles and shared sinks would be acceptable.
I guess this only applies to public buildings, but I'm not sure.
Intentionally or unintentionally this feeds into eugenics in my opinion. I know this is a wider conversation but it is the same thing. In Europe (Germany, Austria, Hungary and elsewhere) the far-right is growing in power and part of the ideology is the "reversion" to the norm. That those with "abnormalities" can and should be excluded and ultimately removed from the country even if they are citizens. In the USA and elsewhere there's an attack on the idea of nationality and the rights attached to that.
And it sickens me to see the UK going in the same direction. It's eugenics, pandering to those who loudly want to tell other people what the limits of rights should be based on prejudice.
And as several people have pointed out, requiring everyone to use the toilets provided for their biological sex means trans men have to use the women's. Which gives predatory cis men carte blanche to barge into the women's as well - who can tell the difference, just by looking? Apart from TERFs, it seems. Which has the effect of making single-sex toilets less safe.
Any father of young kids will have some experience of women’s toilets. In 2025, dads are still forced — with deadening regularity — to knock on the door of a female toilet and say, apologetically, that their child needs the facilities.
This is because, even here in London, one of the most modern and accessible cities on the planet, thousands of cafes, pubs, restaurants, and cinemas still put baby change or child-accessible toilet facilities exclusively in the women’s loos
...
With 8,000 holders of gender recognition certificates now unsure if they’re barred from peeing once they leave the house, some have argued that the provision of millions of unisex toilets might be the answer. Considering these would be the same unisex toilets they never got round to building for Britain’s 4m pre-school age kids — and their awkward dads — we can dismiss this stalling tactic with the contempt it deserves
What conceivable application of this ruling, you might ask, could possibly result in less distress and harassment, even for the cis women it purports to protect?
Let us speak as adults. Despite being around 0.5% of the population, trans people have spent the past decade being attacked in one of the most flagrant moral panics ever perpetrated on the British public.
Spread in the name of a “feminism” centred on a small, committed group of active transphobes backed by the entire might of British politics and media, including every misogynist you can name; either because they share this gut-level hatred of trans folks, or simply because it serves their political interests to heap sadism on a vulnerable minority, instead of addressing the multiple overlapping crises that face the British public, and in which they are directly complicit.
The only way any of the absurdities of this ruling make sense, is if its aims are exactly what they appear to be: A punitive attack on the rights and dignity of trans people divorced from any real-world concern about safety or women’s rights, designed to demoralise and punish them simply for the crime of existing.
What conceivable application of this ruling, you might ask, could possibly result in less distress and harassment, even for the cis women it purports to protect?
Let us speak as adults. Despite being around 0.5% of the population, trans people have spent the past decade being attacked in one of the most flagrant moral panics ever perpetrated on the British public.
Spread in the name of a “feminism” centred on a small, committed group of active transphobes backed by the entire might of British politics and media, including every misogynist you can name; either because they share this gut-level hatred of trans folks, or simply because it serves their political interests to heap sadism on a vulnerable minority, instead of addressing the multiple overlapping crises that face the British public, and in which they are directly complicit.
The only way any of the absurdities of this ruling make sense, is if its aims are exactly what they appear to be: A punitive attack on the rights and dignity of trans people divorced from any real-world concern about safety or women’s rights, designed to demoralise and punish them simply for the crime of existing.
Yes. Our daughter is with us over this weekend. A design to punish them simply for the crime of existing? That is what it feels like.
That those interim guidelines are being published by an organisation entitled the Equality and Human Rights Commission is despicable and disgraceful.
Could the signs/rules say “Women (biological and trans)” or “Women (cis and trans)”? Could that work? That way “Women” is still the main descriptor. (And the same for men of course.)
I suspect that many would read the guidelines as saying that you could have toilets so labelled, but you would need to also provide women's only spaces (that exclude trans-women).
Probably we'll have clarity once someone takes Wetherspoons* to court and that case has gone through higher courts.
* It's been a long time since I've had a good thing to say about the management of the Wetherspoons chain, but their statement that they'll adhere to the law in the 2004 GRA and maintain women's toilets as for the use of all women, including trans-women, rather than the EHRC guidelines is a good move.
On behalf of all old gits everywhere, I won't hear a bad word about 'Spoons. I've been in there loads of times at 11am wondering what I'm going to do for the rest of the day, and I fully believe that they have zero interest in policing who uses which toilet.
Zero interest by management? I’m sure that’s true. With very rare exceptions the previous guidelines were innocuous.
But under the new guidelines they cannot prevent transphobes doing their own bit of policing and complaining.
Re Wetherspoons I suspect the company lawyers have had a good look at the EHRC transphobic nonsense and se it as going far beyond the Supreme Court ruling.
[tangent - if anyone wants a further discussion of 'Spoons I'll gladly contribute to a new thread]
My objections to Wetherspoons, and Tim Martin in particular, are many. Cheap and uninspiring food and beer is a matter of taste, and I must admit the absence of loud music preventing any form of conversation is a good thing. But, support for Brexit and pro-Brexit literature in the pubs is something I can't agree with, and the sacking of staff who objected to their place of work being a front for the Leave campaign totally unacceptable. Tim Martin then whining about how Brexit has (predictably) negatively impacted his business is pathetic. The treatment of staff during lockdown, not paying them through that period and suggesting they get jobs at supermarkets, is unforgivable.
The public statement that the only barriers to using whatever toilets are appropriate to the gender identities of customers are the excessive number of stairs is very welcome.
I haven't posted in a while, but in a 'stand up and be counted' type of way: I am transgender. Thank you, everyone , for the support for the trans community that I'm seeing in this thread.
The interim guidance from the EHRC, following on from the SC judgement is devastating for us, and is basically a 'urinary leash' excluding us from everyday life.
I should add that I have been using the Ladies loos since I transitioned in the 1980s. I will not be allowed to spend a penny if I need to when I'm at the Botanic Gardens I'm visiting later this morning.
There are some misapprehensions here about the judgment. The first is that it's about "bathrooms". It's not. It's about the representation of women on public boards in Scotland, , and whether the Scottish Parliament was entitled to pass legislation that defined it more broadly than the Equalities Act 2010 (answer: it wasn't). I note that the definition of "woman" in the Scottish legislation (Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018) did refer to s 7 of the Equality Act 2010 (UK) but defined what that meant in terms that were clearly more relaxed than that section, which I find curious.
An appeal judgment can have wider ramifications, but this case is not fundamentally about bathrooms, toilets, changing rooms etc.
The second is the role of an appeal court when interpreting legislation. It isn't to fix social problems. It is to interpret what Parliament meant. As, legally speaking, Parliament speaks through legislation, this is done through looking at the wording of the Act, together with common law doctrines used in interpreting legislation. It rarely involves taking into consideration what some civil servants or any other individual intended it to mean. Any senior civil servant should know this very, very well. For them to say they meant something else is necessarily an admission that they didn't do their job very well in framing and drafting the legislation that Parliament passed.
It doesn't involve hearing from members of the public who may be affected by the interpretation one way or the other. This is not a government consultation or public inquiry, it's not even a trial. It is an appeal on a point of law, and what will decide the case one way or the other is legal analysis and the content of the law and the arguments put before the court, not whether the person who makes the arguments is a member of any particular social community and thus morally entitled to speak for them. The Supreme Court applied standard legal analysis in arriving at its judgment. In UK-derived legal systems it is Parliament's job to change the law to reflect societal change. It is not the role of a Platonic philosopher-ruler in judge's robes. In fact, Parliament did change the law in 2010. It just wasn't done in the way that certain activists subsequently wanted. Those activists have led a lot of people right up the garden path; they've messed up the lives of people on both sides of the debate, and those in the crossfire, and I hope they are taking a very long, hard look at themselves now, though I expect they are not.
No one who makes Trumpesque remarks about the Supreme Court being captured by some sort of anti-woke 'blob' deserves to be taken seriously. The legal analysis applied was completely orthodox. Some criticism that I've noticed on this thread:
First, Judges relying on the false idea that sex is binary. Once again, the court's role is to acertain what Parliament meant, not what is scientifically true. Whether or not sex is binary or a spectrum is a matter for scientists to discuss. If the law is unclear as a result, Parliament can change it. It isn't the court's role to conduct a scientific symposium.
Second, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 argument. This is the argument that a person with a GRC, in law, acquires a sex (male or female) for all legal purposes. It's an established rule that where legislation conflicts, the later or more specific Act prevails. The judgment addresses this explicitly as the two Acts do in fact conflict. But there are other arguments it didn't mention and could have. For example, the fact that gender is (under s 7) a separate protected characteristic to sex in the Equality Act 2010 already. And that acquiring a GRC requires considerably less than acquiring the characteristics required by s 7 of the Equality Act 2010, bypassing the requirements of that section.
Another point I will make is that the Scottish courts tried to get around certain problems by defining 'woman' one way for the purposes of some sections in the Equality Act 2010 and other way for others, even though it wasn't at all clear that's what Parliament intended. A result like that suggests poor legal analysis that has been wrenched every which way to achieve the desired result.
I mostly agree with Brojames' post on 23 April. But whether the situation could have been avoided by 'more careful' lawmaking depends on what parliamentarians intended to achieve. In my view, the confusion is not because of the state of the law but because of wilful misintepretation of the Act over the course of years by certain advocacy groups. Whether it is the result that society wants is another matter. If it isn't, Parliament can correct the situation. And I don't find Melanie Field's comments germaine, except to the extent that they show what Parliament meant and what a civil servant wanted it to mean may (with the greatest respect) differ. I also don't think comments by celebrity barristers with an axe to grind and a business to promote are very germaine either.
There is one comment in the judgment that I think could be questioned. That's the comment that trans people are still protected under the Act. Well, those who have, are having, or plan to have gender reassignment surgery are- under s 7. But not people who simply self-ID as trans or non-binary and intend to leave things at that. They aren't at all protected by the Act that I can see. But that was a well-meaning comment the the court, knowing the public interest in the case and the likely reaction, and it didn't concern what the court had to decide.
Thanks Bene Gesserit. I sincerely hope it doesn't take as long to remove the urinary leash this time round.
The ideology regarding the separation of sexes in public toilet provision started in the Victorian era as manifested in the provision of urinals and public toilets for men and not for women (Ramster et al., 2018). The lack of potty parity signified male dominance in public spaces which remained unchallenged for a long time. Municipal public toilets for women were scarce in British urban spaces during the nineteenth century (Greed, C., 2007).
...
The 1850s saw the emergence of women rights groups (Law et al., 1999; Greed, C.H., 1996) fighting for sanitation and the provision of public toilets for women as minimum conditions for women to participate a full social life without being subjected to the “loo leash”. The campaign was difficult facing opposition from men who felt threatened by the inclusion of women in public spaces or “their spaces”.
...
In the UK the increase in public toilets was associated with the success of the flush toilet and the Great London Exhibition of 1851 (Jaglarz, 2014). Originally the Great London Exhibition only provided public toilets for men, women’s toilets were added later. Throughout the 19th century potty parity imbalances continued, a good example is the 1900 Leicester square public toilets which were built with 40 cubicles/urinals for men and only 10 for women (Loobery, 2009).
And thanks CamryOfTheApocalypse. I guess Parliamentary civil servants are there to do what Parliament asks them to do. (Unlike celebrity barristers.)
My understanding is that gender reassignment doesn't necessarily involve surgery or any changes at all to physiological attributes of sex, but that it is a process which is undertaken under medical supervision. Either way, it (and section 7 of the Equality Act 2010) wouldn't seem apply to people who self-ID, as you say.
I don't think it's helpful to say that The Supreme Court ruling was not about bathrooms, when the EHRC have certainly taken it as such. That's a much more restrictive effect on people's lives than spaces on boards. I doubt it's very helpful for the EHRC to then add that organisations should provide toilet spaces that trans people can use in addition. I suppose most public spaces should have unisex accessible toilets, but that's not an ideal solution and some spaces don't have room to add unisex toilets.
If the Supreme Court ruling is irrelevant to bathroom spaces then how can that be established?
It sounds like kiddology to me, that trans toilets should be provided. It won't happen, so the Equalities whatnot are really saying fuck off, in the nicest possible way. Hey, a great idea let's keep trans people out of public life altogether.
The problem is that there are more TERFs than there are trans people. Therefore, the feefees of TERFs get more attention than the right of trans people to exist and function in public.
Or, to put it another way, the EHRC is playing political games to which they were invited by the Supreme Court. They are, of course, entirely betraying their function, which is to ensure that minorities whose voice would otherwise go unheard have a voice. Well, that's what I've always assumed is its function. It seems now to be to tell some minorities to fuck off because they are inconvenient. I feel somehow like I've heard that somewhere before.
Carla Denyer of the Green Party did an excellent demolition job on the EHRC guidelines in an interview with Laura K.
Of course the judgment by the UK Supreme Court was on a narrow point of law. I still think its flaw is over the use of the term biological sex. The law is out of date in its language and precedents. And of course it is the prerogative of parliament to put that right. Meanwhile, in the real world ….
Trans people are modern Jews. It was OK in times past to be anti-semitic, today, its OK to be anti-trans. The fact that EHRC are joining in, is not surprising. It's how British spite and hate has been transmitted, in a veiled and deniable way.
Last time round, as it were, it was gay men. Always been more outrageous than lesbians for some reason. In fact, I have a very nasty feeling on that front...
I think that's right. In the US, the right wing are on the hunt, trans people are just a taster. Gays, women, black people, etc. Would it be different here? Of course, Starmer is performing the usual Labour trick, to the right, to the right, quick march!
Last time round, as it were, it was gay men. Always been more outrageous than lesbians for some reason. In fact, I have a very nasty feeling on that front...
Don’t blame you. There is no reason to believe the “counter-revolution” will stop there.
There are some misapprehensions here about the judgment. The first is that it's about "bathrooms". It's not. It's about the representation of women on public boards in Scotland, <snip>
An appeal judgment can have wider ramifications, but this case is not fundamentally about bathrooms, toilets, changing rooms etc. <snip>
<snip> In fact, Parliament did change the law in 2010. It just wasn't done in the way that certain activists subsequently wanted. Those activists have led a lot of people right up the garden path; they've messed up the lives of people on both sides of the debate, and those in the crossfire, and I hope they are taking a very long, hard look at themselves now, though I expect they are not.
<snip>
Second, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 argument. This is the argument that a person with a GRC, in law, acquires a sex (male or female) for all legal purposes. It's an established rule that where legislation conflicts, the later or more specific Act prevails. The judgment addresses this explicitly as the two Acts do in fact conflict. But there are other arguments it didn't mention and could have. For example, the fact that gender is (under s 7) a separate protected characteristic to sex in the Equality Act 2010 already. And that acquiring a GRC requires considerably less than acquiring the characteristics required by s 7 of the Equality Act 2010, bypassing the requirements of that section.
<snip>
I mostly agree with Brojames' post on 23 April. But whether the situation could have been avoided by 'more careful' lawmaking depends on what parliamentarians intended to achieve. In my view, the confusion is not because of the state of the law but because of wilful misintepretation of the Act over the course of years by certain advocacy groups. Whether it is the result that society wants is another matter. If it isn't, Parliament can correct the situation. And I don't find Melanie Field's comments germaine, except to the extent that they show what Parliament meant and what a civil servant wanted it to mean may (with the greatest respect) differ. I also don't think comments by celebrity barristers with an axe to grind and a business to promote are very germaine either.
<snip>
While it is fair to say that the case brought was not about bathrooms, toilets, changing facilities etc., this is likely to be an area where the day-to-day impact of the judgement is going to be most sharply felt by most people.
Secondly, it is important to note that it is not “gender” which is a separate protected characteristic under s. 7 of the Equality Act, but “gender reassignment“, and it is fairly obvious why there might be separate discrimination against someone who has changed sex, different from discrimination on account of their sex whether “biological“ or reassigned.
The Equality Act 2010 was primarily (but not exclusively) a consolidating statute, bringing together a raft of previous legislation; and, significantly, doing some “tidying up“ and adding one or two provisions. For the most part it didn’t intend to make new law.
I strongly suspect that Melanie Field‘s post is accurate in describing the situation as one in which it was assumed that the meaning of “sex“, “man“, and “woman“ had been decided by the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
It is interesting to reflect on how the decision of the Supreme Court might have differed if the Equality Act 2010 had not existed, and the most recent legislative comment on those terms had been in the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The previous equalities legislation would then have to have been read in light of the Gender Recognition Act.
I am sure that if it had been considered that the answer to the question of the meaning of those words was other than that set out in the Gender Recognition Act, there would have been much more of a push to make express what was being assumed. It might not have passed, but it would have been much more debated. A scan of Hansard suggests that it wasn’t debated at all, although there was complaint about the shortness of time for debate.
The fact that the Equality Act differs from the Gender Recognition Act without explicitly referring to it is, I think, a significant indication that the thinking about these two Acts was not joined up.
I wonder too, if the Equality Act 2010 had not had an internal incoherence about the use of that terminology in light of the Gender Recognition Act whether the Supreme Court‘s decision would have been the same.
I think it is unfair to characterise trans people and their allies as
activists [who] have led a lot of people right up the garden path; [and have] messed up the lives of people on both sides of the debate, and those in the crossfire
or their activities as
wilful misintepretation of the Act over the course of years by certain advocacy groups.
. I think it was entirely reasonable to regard the Equality Act 2010 as little more than a consolidating statute, and not having overturned (silently!) the provisions of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
If the situation had been clear-cut the case would never have got as far as the Supreme Court. I think the expectations and activities of trans people and their allies flowed from a very widely held understanding of the implications of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010.
It would, in my view, be at least equally true to say that Parliament has “led a lot of people right up the garden path; [and has] messed up the lives of people on both sides of the debate, and those in the crossfire.”
The Supreme Court has decided that the Equality Act 2010 has, in effect, overridden aspects of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 without explicitly referring to them. This is generally regarded as poor legislative practice. If this was, in fact, the legislative intent, it was a very ham-fisted way of doing it.
More careful law-making would either have expressly dealt with the Gender Recognition Act 2004, or would have been careful not to be incoherent in relation to it.
There is a reason why the EHRC, politicians and as far as I can tell the SC itself was talking about toilets. And I'm 100% sure it isn't because there are "misapprehensions here about the judgement" or by implication people here are talking about stuff which is commonly understood to be out of purview of the SC judgement. On the contrary, just today there have been government ministers talking about the SC the EHRC guidance and toilets.
I don't know about the law and whether or not the SC judgement was "completely orthodox" but I'm damn sure that the conversation has become one of toilets independent of anything I've written here.
I can guarantee that the vast majority of people who are thrown out of the women's toilets will be cisgender women who do not look sufficiently female to satisfy the paranoia of the transphobes. I know (at least) two trans women and they are both better at conforming to the gender stereotype than I am. And there are far more cisgender women than trans women.
I see that The Good Law Project is working on challenging the Supreme Court decision on the basis that the ruling puts the UK in breach of the Human Rights Act. They have a crowdfunder which includes more information on the case they will be making, and at this point in time has already raised almost £200k towards the costs of bringing this challenge.
I see that The Good Law Project is working on challenging the Supreme Court decision on the basis that the ruling puts the UK in breach of the Human Rights Act. They have a crowdfunder which includes more information on the case they will be making, and at this point in time has already raised almost £200k towards the costs of bringing this challenge.
I kind of wonder whether those making the case on behalf of the Scottish Government missed something somewhere along the line - it seems like this is one of a number of issues not properly addressed by the judgement. Is it possible that, after 2 wins in the Scottish courts, it was assumed the case was watertight and didn't need shoring up?
As I have already stated, my understanding is that blaming the Supreme Court is misplaced. They would have been very much overreaching to have found otherwise. Supreme Court overreach is a very bad thing.
As I have already stated, my understanding is that blaming the Supreme Court is misplaced. They would have been very much overreaching to have found otherwise. Supreme Court overreach is a very bad thing.
It was passed in the last months of Brown's government. It does seem to have been badly drafted.
However, I was stunned to see how much it has been amended in only 15 years. I wonder if the real mess lies herein?
AFZ
Amendments to legislation to take account of changes to other laws or parts of government are incredibly common, particularly when they're as big as the EA (if you want a dull couple of days, try tracing all the amendments to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980). I don't think the amendments to the EA since its passage alter much of the substance of the act.
I see that The Good Law Project is working on challenging the Supreme Court decision on the basis that the ruling puts the UK in breach of the Human Rights Act. They have a crowdfunder which includes more information on the case they will be making, and at this point in time has already raised almost £200k towards the costs of bringing this challenge.
Without meaning to breech usual SoF rules, I’ve contributed. It’s pretty hard to argue that the ruling isn’t a breech of the Human Rights Act but I’ve no doubt there is a defence.
As a 70 year supporter of the Labour Party I believe Keir Starmer has backed the wrong horse. At the heart of the Labour Party is a very strong belief in support of vulnerable minorities. It’s underpinned by a central value of fairness. Leaders of the Labour Party ignore that at their peril. However politically attractive it may appear to be in the short term.
As I have already stated, my understanding is that blaming the Supreme Court is misplaced. They would have been very much overreaching to have found otherwise. Supreme Court overreach is a very bad thing.
It was passed in the last months of Brown's government. It does seem to have been badly drafted.
However, I was stunned to see how much it has been amended in only 15 years. I wonder if the real mess lies herein?
AFZ
I'm going to poke my head in here quickly having just read the UKSC decision. It seems fairly obvious that the Equality Act was not drafted to deal with the complexities that arise when gender identity is at variance with (other) aspects of physiological sex. But that said the language used by the UKSC is extremely throughgoing in its denalism of the reality of gender identity in a way that makes this decision look like more than a narrow exercise in statutory interpretation.
A great deal of the obvious bullshit involved - boils down to ignoring the fact cubicles exist.
I'm not sure this is fair. Cubicles exist, but are not ubiquitous, and modesty norms are as much to do with not seeing other people naked as they are to do with other people not seeing you naked. "Cubicles exist" is only really an argument if private cubicles are the only changing facility provided, and whilst there are some facilities like that, they are not the majority.
I seem to remember her saying not only that they ran through as fast as possible, but that the PE teacher was also observing to ensure that everyone did in fact shower...
When I was at school, our PE teacher used to sit in the corner of the changing room with a stopwatch. He carried the standard grade book that all the teachers had, but whereas other teachers wrote down marks for tests and homeworks, he wrote down the time it took each child to shower, dress, and present themselves to him.
I can guarantee that the vast majority of people who are thrown out of the women's toilets will be cisgender women who do not look sufficiently female to satisfy the paranoia of the transphobes. I know (at least) two trans women and they are both better at conforming to the gender stereotype than I am. And there are far more cisgender women than trans women.
It was fully expected - among the trans community - that a judgement about the meaning of the word 'woman' in the context the SC were defining it would mushroom into bathroom bans, hospital bans, etc. We were expecting there to be guidance issued before the Summer Recess; the interim guidance is about bathrooms and is as subtle as a smack around the face with a rounders bat and came far sooner than we had expected. And it was issued late on a Friday evening.
A good friend of mine, a transgender man, has had to use the Ladies today and therefore had to out himself to his cycle club to explain why he was having to do so. He is a lovely chap, with a very neat and very distinguished beard.
Several other trans friends are terrified that this guidance, if enacted as Legislation, will effective remove them from their social lives and possibly end their careers.
I was at a gig last night, and I very quietly enquired what gender neutral facilities they have before leaving home. The gig was in a city I couldn't have got home from, so I stayed over; I visited one of my favourite places there this morning before travelling home. I did not make the same enquiry.
I should perhaps add that I'm all of 5'5" tall and that I transitioned in the 1980s, with my surgery a few years later. I pass as a woman, and my voice passes. I outed myself to a colleague the other day, talking about the effect the SC judgement is having, and he had not twigged even though we have known each other for years.
My office has gender neutral facilities but many of our offices around the country do not. Am I now to out myself every time I visit one of them? If trans people are no longer allowed to be treated on the wards of our affirmed sex, how many of us will avoid hospitals altogether? With what effect on their health and mortality? There are only so many single-bed rooms in the NHS portfolio.
Changing rooms - no-one (pre-operative and) with gender dysphoris would want anyone knowing if they still had the bits they were born with, let along let anyone see them! They would be mortified! Equally, they wouldn't want to see anyone else's bits, no matter what the press or anti-trans campaigners say. I'm not going to comment on a certain NHS case that's been in the press recently. I will call for decent-sized, private, cubicles!!
Will the anti-trans campaigners go after the amended gender markers on out passports, driving licences etc next? Will we be forced to out ourselves every time we cross a national border in future? This isn't scaremongering, btw, it's already happening in the USA and you can bet that that has been noticed on this side of the pond.
These are only some of the potential repercussions of future transphobic legislation. Our fear is that this interpretation of the judgement opens the door for it. We are being removed from society.
As I have already stated, my understanding is that blaming the Supreme Court is misplaced. They would have been very much overreaching to have found otherwise. Supreme Court overreach is a very bad thing.
It was passed in the last months of Brown's government. It does seem to have been badly drafted.
However, I was stunned to see how much it has been amended in only 15 years. I wonder if the real mess lies herein?
AFZ
I'm going to poke my head in here quickly having just read the UKSC decision. It seems fairly obvious that the Equality Act was not drafted to deal with the complexities that arise when gender identity is at variance with (other) aspects of physiological sex. But that said the language used by the UKSC is extremely throughgoing in its denalism of the reality of gender identity in a way that makes this decision look like more than a narrow exercise in statutory interpretation.
I don’t think the Supreme Court itself has made any decision about gender identity. It is however clearly the court’s view that the Equality Act 2010 does not recognise complex gender identity.
A great deal of the obvious bullshit involved - boils down to ignoring the fact cubicles exist.
I'm not sure this is fair. Cubicles exist, but are not ubiquitous, and modesty norms are as much to do with not seeing other people naked as they are to do with other people not seeing you naked. "Cubicles exist" is only really an argument if private cubicles are the only changing facility provided, and whilst there are some facilities like that, they are not the majority.
Clearly mileage varies, but I cannot recall in all my adult life any changing room, public bog or indeed any facility at all where I have had to disrobe in front of strangers or have them do so in my presence. Cubicles have certainly been ubiquitous in my experience.
I seem to remember her saying not only that they ran through as fast as possible, but that the PE teacher was also observing to ensure that everyone did in fact shower...
When I was at school, our PE teacher used to sit in the corner of the changing room with a stopwatch. He carried the standard grade book that all the teachers had, but whereas other teachers wrote down marks for tests and homeworks, he wrote down the time it took each child to shower, dress, and present themselves to him.
Have you checked for his name in the sex offenders' register?
As I have already stated, my understanding is that blaming the Supreme Court is misplaced. They would have been very much overreaching to have found otherwise. Supreme Court overreach is a very bad thing.
It was passed in the last months of Brown's government. It does seem to have been badly drafted.
However, I was stunned to see how much it has been amended in only 15 years. I wonder if the real mess lies herein?
AFZ
I'm going to poke my head in here quickly having just read the UKSC decision. It seems fairly obvious that the Equality Act was not drafted to deal with the complexities that arise when gender identity is at variance with (other) aspects of physiological sex. But that said the language used by the UKSC is extremely throughgoing in its denalism of the reality of gender identity in a way that makes this decision look like more than a narrow exercise in statutory interpretation.
I don’t think the Supreme Court itself has made any decision about gender identity. It is however clearly the court’s view that the Equality Act 2010 does not recognise complex gender identity.
I take your point, and obviously I have no idea what was going on in anyone’s head. But I can think of many ways in which this decision could have been drafted more carefully assuming the intention was narrow and interpretive.
On another topic, what is the status of the EHRC document on the implications of this decision? Is it just guidance or does it have force of law?
A great deal of the obvious bullshit involved - boils down to ignoring the fact cubicles exist.
I'm not sure this is fair. Cubicles exist, but are not ubiquitous, and modesty norms are as much to do with not seeing other people naked as they are to do with other people not seeing you naked. "Cubicles exist" is only really an argument if private cubicles are the only changing facility provided, and whilst there are some facilities like that, they are not the majority.
Clearly mileage varies, but I cannot recall in all my adult life any changing room, public bog or indeed any facility at all where I have had to disrobe in front of strangers or have them do so in my presence. Cubicles have certainly been ubiquitous in my experience.
I seem to remember her saying not only that they ran through as fast as possible, but that the PE teacher was also observing to ensure that everyone did in fact shower...
When I was at school, our PE teacher used to sit in the corner of the changing room with a stopwatch. He carried the standard grade book that all the teachers had, but whereas other teachers wrote down marks for tests and homeworks, he wrote down the time it took each child to shower, dress, and present themselves to him.
Have you checked for his name in the sex offenders' register?
Speaking again for the old gits, this is probably related to the kinds of places you go. We old gits tend to go to hotel spas, golf clubs and tennis clubs where the norm is an open changing room. In fact the norm is that old gits frequent these places entirely nude in an effort to make younger men feel uncomfortable.
It is true that in more enlightened council-run leisure facilities there are more cubicles although thinking of one that I went to recently there was a single cubicle for a large changing room. The old gits were still parading around naked there.
I think the real problem “they” have is self-id. It seems to me that all the (for want of a better word) “mainstream” anti-trans stuff only really started when self-id became a thing. I mean, there was an incredibly popular trans character on Coronation Street back in the last millennium, and barring the usual fuckwits I don’t remember anyone minding.
I’m convinced that self-id, rather than the existence of trans people itself, is the problem.
Which is based on a massive misunderstanding of how sex offending works in real life.
Politicians will not turn round and say - stop panicking about stranger danger, the people most likely to hurt you are those you know, most often in your own home. Stop looking for monsters under the bed, or in the toilet, serious offenders tend to be like vampires - they are the people you invited in. Because no one wants to hear that, they want to hear evil is out there, living in people and places that are different, not like us and if we do everything right we’ll never be victimised - that bad things don’t happen to good people and life is fair and we can trust the people close to us.
In fact the norm is that old gits frequent these places entirely nude in an effort to make younger men feel uncomfortable.
Using your nudity to intentionally make someone, of any sex or gender, feel uncomfortable is sexual harassment. I am guessing it doesn’t get reported though.
In fact the norm is that old gits frequent these places entirely nude in an effort to make younger men feel uncomfortable.
Using your nudity to intentionally make someone, of any sex or gender, feel uncomfortable is sexual harassment. I am guessing it doesn’t get reported though.
I'm not sure how one would prove it. It's a strange dynamic.
I think the real problem “they” have is self-id. It seems to me that all the (for want of a better word) “mainstream” anti-trans stuff only really started when self-id became a thing. I mean, there was an incredibly popular trans character on Coronation Street back in the last millennium, and barring the usual fuckwits I don’t remember anyone minding.
I’m convinced that self-id, rather than the existence of trans people itself, is the problem.
Abusive people exist, I'm not sure this is news to anyone.
The fact that an abuser has in the past found to be a teacher doesn't make all teachers abusers.
I think the real problem “they” have is self-id. It seems to me that all the (for want of a better word) “mainstream” anti-trans stuff only really started when self-id became a thing. I mean, there was an incredibly popular trans character on Coronation Street back in the last millennium, and barring the usual fuckwits I don’t remember anyone minding.
I’m convinced that self-id, rather than the existence of trans people itself, is the problem.
You're assuming that the "problem" is a spontaneous reaction, rather than a moral panic deliberately provoked by right wing media and well-funded US fascist organisations. If it were about self-ID this judgement would not have been sought as it's specifically about those with GRCs, who have been through extensive and intrusive assessment.
Comments
There's a BBC report today about the EHRC guidance. I'm not sure how to link but apparently the only "acceptable" kinds of toilets are those with entirely enclosed rooms where only one person can use them at a time.
It doesn't sound like unisex rooms with cubicles and shared sinks would be acceptable.
I guess this only applies to public buildings, but I'm not sure.
And it sickens me to see the UK going in the same direction. It's eugenics, pandering to those who loudly want to tell other people what the limits of rights should be based on prejudice.
Not that they ever really were.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle-columnists/arid-41620408.htmlTrans people have spent a decade being attacked in a moral panic
Yes. Our daughter is with us over this weekend. A design to punish them simply for the crime of existing? That is what it feels like.
That those interim guidelines are being published by an organisation entitled the Equality and Human Rights Commission is despicable and disgraceful.
Probably we'll have clarity once someone takes Wetherspoons* to court and that case has gone through higher courts.
* It's been a long time since I've had a good thing to say about the management of the Wetherspoons chain, but their statement that they'll adhere to the law in the 2004 GRA and maintain women's toilets as for the use of all women, including trans-women, rather than the EHRC guidelines is a good move.
But under the new guidelines they cannot prevent transphobes doing their own bit of policing and complaining.
Re Wetherspoons I suspect the company lawyers have had a good look at the EHRC transphobic nonsense and se it as going far beyond the Supreme Court ruling.
My objections to Wetherspoons, and Tim Martin in particular, are many. Cheap and uninspiring food and beer is a matter of taste, and I must admit the absence of loud music preventing any form of conversation is a good thing. But, support for Brexit and pro-Brexit literature in the pubs is something I can't agree with, and the sacking of staff who objected to their place of work being a front for the Leave campaign totally unacceptable. Tim Martin then whining about how Brexit has (predictably) negatively impacted his business is pathetic. The treatment of staff during lockdown, not paying them through that period and suggesting they get jobs at supermarkets, is unforgivable.
The public statement that the only barriers to using whatever toilets are appropriate to the gender identities of customers are the excessive number of stairs is very welcome.
The interim guidance from the EHRC, following on from the SC judgement is devastating for us, and is basically a 'urinary leash' excluding us from everyday life.
I should add that I have been using the Ladies loos since I transitioned in the 1980s. I will not be allowed to spend a penny if I need to when I'm at the Botanic Gardens I'm visiting later this morning.
An appeal judgment can have wider ramifications, but this case is not fundamentally about bathrooms, toilets, changing rooms etc.
The second is the role of an appeal court when interpreting legislation. It isn't to fix social problems. It is to interpret what Parliament meant. As, legally speaking, Parliament speaks through legislation, this is done through looking at the wording of the Act, together with common law doctrines used in interpreting legislation. It rarely involves taking into consideration what some civil servants or any other individual intended it to mean. Any senior civil servant should know this very, very well. For them to say they meant something else is necessarily an admission that they didn't do their job very well in framing and drafting the legislation that Parliament passed.
It doesn't involve hearing from members of the public who may be affected by the interpretation one way or the other. This is not a government consultation or public inquiry, it's not even a trial. It is an appeal on a point of law, and what will decide the case one way or the other is legal analysis and the content of the law and the arguments put before the court, not whether the person who makes the arguments is a member of any particular social community and thus morally entitled to speak for them. The Supreme Court applied standard legal analysis in arriving at its judgment. In UK-derived legal systems it is Parliament's job to change the law to reflect societal change. It is not the role of a Platonic philosopher-ruler in judge's robes. In fact, Parliament did change the law in 2010. It just wasn't done in the way that certain activists subsequently wanted. Those activists have led a lot of people right up the garden path; they've messed up the lives of people on both sides of the debate, and those in the crossfire, and I hope they are taking a very long, hard look at themselves now, though I expect they are not.
No one who makes Trumpesque remarks about the Supreme Court being captured by some sort of anti-woke 'blob' deserves to be taken seriously. The legal analysis applied was completely orthodox. Some criticism that I've noticed on this thread:
First, Judges relying on the false idea that sex is binary. Once again, the court's role is to acertain what Parliament meant, not what is scientifically true. Whether or not sex is binary or a spectrum is a matter for scientists to discuss. If the law is unclear as a result, Parliament can change it. It isn't the court's role to conduct a scientific symposium.
Second, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 argument. This is the argument that a person with a GRC, in law, acquires a sex (male or female) for all legal purposes. It's an established rule that where legislation conflicts, the later or more specific Act prevails. The judgment addresses this explicitly as the two Acts do in fact conflict. But there are other arguments it didn't mention and could have. For example, the fact that gender is (under s 7) a separate protected characteristic to sex in the Equality Act 2010 already. And that acquiring a GRC requires considerably less than acquiring the characteristics required by s 7 of the Equality Act 2010, bypassing the requirements of that section.
Another point I will make is that the Scottish courts tried to get around certain problems by defining 'woman' one way for the purposes of some sections in the Equality Act 2010 and other way for others, even though it wasn't at all clear that's what Parliament intended. A result like that suggests poor legal analysis that has been wrenched every which way to achieve the desired result.
I mostly agree with Brojames' post on 23 April. But whether the situation could have been avoided by 'more careful' lawmaking depends on what parliamentarians intended to achieve. In my view, the confusion is not because of the state of the law but because of wilful misintepretation of the Act over the course of years by certain advocacy groups. Whether it is the result that society wants is another matter. If it isn't, Parliament can correct the situation. And I don't find Melanie Field's comments germaine, except to the extent that they show what Parliament meant and what a civil servant wanted it to mean may (with the greatest respect) differ. I also don't think comments by celebrity barristers with an axe to grind and a business to promote are very germaine either.
There is one comment in the judgment that I think could be questioned. That's the comment that trans people are still protected under the Act. Well, those who have, are having, or plan to have gender reassignment surgery are- under s 7. But not people who simply self-ID as trans or non-binary and intend to leave things at that. They aren't at all protected by the Act that I can see. But that was a well-meaning comment the the court, knowing the public interest in the case and the likely reaction, and it didn't concern what the court had to decide.
And thanks CamryOfTheApocalypse. I guess Parliamentary civil servants are there to do what Parliament asks them to do. (Unlike celebrity barristers.)
My understanding is that gender reassignment doesn't necessarily involve surgery or any changes at all to physiological attributes of sex, but that it is a process which is undertaken under medical supervision. Either way, it (and section 7 of the Equality Act 2010) wouldn't seem apply to people who self-ID, as you say.
If the Supreme Court ruling is irrelevant to bathroom spaces then how can that be established?
Or, to put it another way, the EHRC is playing political games to which they were invited by the Supreme Court. They are, of course, entirely betraying their function, which is to ensure that minorities whose voice would otherwise go unheard have a voice. Well, that's what I've always assumed is its function. It seems now to be to tell some minorities to fuck off because they are inconvenient. I feel somehow like I've heard that somewhere before.
Of course the judgment by the UK Supreme Court was on a narrow point of law. I still think its flaw is over the use of the term biological sex. The law is out of date in its language and precedents. And of course it is the prerogative of parliament to put that right. Meanwhile, in the real world ….
I think Dafyd is spot on.
Don’t blame you. There is no reason to believe the “counter-revolution” will stop there.
“They came for the trans …”
Secondly, it is important to note that it is not “gender” which is a separate protected characteristic under s. 7 of the Equality Act, but “gender reassignment“, and it is fairly obvious why there might be separate discrimination against someone who has changed sex, different from discrimination on account of their sex whether “biological“ or reassigned.
The Equality Act 2010 was primarily (but not exclusively) a consolidating statute, bringing together a raft of previous legislation; and, significantly, doing some “tidying up“ and adding one or two provisions. For the most part it didn’t intend to make new law.
I strongly suspect that Melanie Field‘s post is accurate in describing the situation as one in which it was assumed that the meaning of “sex“, “man“, and “woman“ had been decided by the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
It is interesting to reflect on how the decision of the Supreme Court might have differed if the Equality Act 2010 had not existed, and the most recent legislative comment on those terms had been in the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The previous equalities legislation would then have to have been read in light of the Gender Recognition Act.
I am sure that if it had been considered that the answer to the question of the meaning of those words was other than that set out in the Gender Recognition Act, there would have been much more of a push to make express what was being assumed. It might not have passed, but it would have been much more debated. A scan of Hansard suggests that it wasn’t debated at all, although there was complaint about the shortness of time for debate.
The fact that the Equality Act differs from the Gender Recognition Act without explicitly referring to it is, I think, a significant indication that the thinking about these two Acts was not joined up.
I wonder too, if the Equality Act 2010 had not had an internal incoherence about the use of that terminology in light of the Gender Recognition Act whether the Supreme Court‘s decision would have been the same.
I think it is unfair to characterise trans people and their allies as or their activities as . I think it was entirely reasonable to regard the Equality Act 2010 as little more than a consolidating statute, and not having overturned (silently!) the provisions of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
If the situation had been clear-cut the case would never have got as far as the Supreme Court. I think the expectations and activities of trans people and their allies flowed from a very widely held understanding of the implications of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010.
It would, in my view, be at least equally true to say that Parliament has “led a lot of people right up the garden path; [and has] messed up the lives of people on both sides of the debate, and those in the crossfire.”
The Supreme Court has decided that the Equality Act 2010 has, in effect, overridden aspects of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 without explicitly referring to them. This is generally regarded as poor legislative practice. If this was, in fact, the legislative intent, it was a very ham-fisted way of doing it.
More careful law-making would either have expressly dealt with the Gender Recognition Act 2004, or would have been careful not to be incoherent in relation to it.
I don't know about the law and whether or not the SC judgement was "completely orthodox" but I'm damn sure that the conversation has become one of toilets independent of anything I've written here.
I kind of wonder whether those making the case on behalf of the Scottish Government missed something somewhere along the line - it seems like this is one of a number of issues not properly addressed by the judgement. Is it possible that, after 2 wins in the Scottish courts, it was assumed the case was watertight and didn't need shoring up?
I looked at the Act on Wiki:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010
It was passed in the last months of Brown's government. It does seem to have been badly drafted.
However, I was stunned to see how much it has been amended in only 15 years. I wonder if the real mess lies herein?
AFZ
To me, that is the real scandal.
Bizarre but not surprising. Those with a culture-war agenda are very much behaving in ways entirely predictable based on past actions.
This is the problem.
AFZ
Amendments to legislation to take account of changes to other laws or parts of government are incredibly common, particularly when they're as big as the EA (if you want a dull couple of days, try tracing all the amendments to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980). I don't think the amendments to the EA since its passage alter much of the substance of the act.
As a 70 year supporter of the Labour Party I believe Keir Starmer has backed the wrong horse. At the heart of the Labour Party is a very strong belief in support of vulnerable minorities. It’s underpinned by a central value of fairness. Leaders of the Labour Party ignore that at their peril. However politically attractive it may appear to be in the short term.
He’ll rue the day.
I'm going to poke my head in here quickly having just read the UKSC decision. It seems fairly obvious that the Equality Act was not drafted to deal with the complexities that arise when gender identity is at variance with (other) aspects of physiological sex. But that said the language used by the UKSC is extremely throughgoing in its denalism of the reality of gender identity in a way that makes this decision look like more than a narrow exercise in statutory interpretation.
I'm not sure this is fair. Cubicles exist, but are not ubiquitous, and modesty norms are as much to do with not seeing other people naked as they are to do with other people not seeing you naked. "Cubicles exist" is only really an argument if private cubicles are the only changing facility provided, and whilst there are some facilities like that, they are not the majority.
When I was at school, our PE teacher used to sit in the corner of the changing room with a stopwatch. He carried the standard grade book that all the teachers had, but whereas other teachers wrote down marks for tests and homeworks, he wrote down the time it took each child to shower, dress, and present themselves to him.
Agreed. https://www.yahoo.com/news/walmart-fires-64-cisgender-woman-210344920.html is one such example
😱🤬😭
A good friend of mine, a transgender man, has had to use the Ladies today and therefore had to out himself to his cycle club to explain why he was having to do so. He is a lovely chap, with a very neat and very distinguished beard.
Several other trans friends are terrified that this guidance, if enacted as Legislation, will effective remove them from their social lives and possibly end their careers.
I was at a gig last night, and I very quietly enquired what gender neutral facilities they have before leaving home. The gig was in a city I couldn't have got home from, so I stayed over; I visited one of my favourite places there this morning before travelling home. I did not make the same enquiry.
I should perhaps add that I'm all of 5'5" tall and that I transitioned in the 1980s, with my surgery a few years later. I pass as a woman, and my voice passes. I outed myself to a colleague the other day, talking about the effect the SC judgement is having, and he had not twigged even though we have known each other for years.
My office has gender neutral facilities but many of our offices around the country do not. Am I now to out myself every time I visit one of them? If trans people are no longer allowed to be treated on the wards of our affirmed sex, how many of us will avoid hospitals altogether? With what effect on their health and mortality? There are only so many single-bed rooms in the NHS portfolio.
Changing rooms - no-one (pre-operative and) with gender dysphoris would want anyone knowing if they still had the bits they were born with, let along let anyone see them! They would be mortified! Equally, they wouldn't want to see anyone else's bits, no matter what the press or anti-trans campaigners say. I'm not going to comment on a certain NHS case that's been in the press recently. I will call for decent-sized, private, cubicles!!
Will the anti-trans campaigners go after the amended gender markers on out passports, driving licences etc next? Will we be forced to out ourselves every time we cross a national border in future? This isn't scaremongering, btw, it's already happening in the USA and you can bet that that has been noticed on this side of the pond.
These are only some of the potential repercussions of future transphobic legislation. Our fear is that this interpretation of the judgement opens the door for it. We are being removed from society.
BG
Clearly mileage varies, but I cannot recall in all my adult life any changing room, public bog or indeed any facility at all where I have had to disrobe in front of strangers or have them do so in my presence. Cubicles have certainly been ubiquitous in my experience.
Have you checked for his name in the sex offenders' register?
I take your point, and obviously I have no idea what was going on in anyone’s head. But I can think of many ways in which this decision could have been drafted more carefully assuming the intention was narrow and interpretive.
On another topic, what is the status of the EHRC document on the implications of this decision? Is it just guidance or does it have force of law?
Speaking again for the old gits, this is probably related to the kinds of places you go. We old gits tend to go to hotel spas, golf clubs and tennis clubs where the norm is an open changing room. In fact the norm is that old gits frequent these places entirely nude in an effort to make younger men feel uncomfortable.
It is true that in more enlightened council-run leisure facilities there are more cubicles although thinking of one that I went to recently there was a single cubicle for a large changing room. The old gits were still parading around naked there.
I think the real problem “they” have is self-id. It seems to me that all the (for want of a better word) “mainstream” anti-trans stuff only really started when self-id became a thing. I mean, there was an incredibly popular trans character on Coronation Street back in the last millennium, and barring the usual fuckwits I don’t remember anyone minding.
I’m convinced that self-id, rather than the existence of trans people itself, is the problem.
Politicians will not turn round and say - stop panicking about stranger danger, the people most likely to hurt you are those you know, most often in your own home. Stop looking for monsters under the bed, or in the toilet, serious offenders tend to be like vampires - they are the people you invited in. Because no one wants to hear that, they want to hear evil is out there, living in people and places that are different, not like us and if we do everything right we’ll never be victimised - that bad things don’t happen to good people and life is fair and we can trust the people close to us.
Using your nudity to intentionally make someone, of any sex or gender, feel uncomfortable is sexual harassment. I am guessing it doesn’t get reported though.
I'm not sure how one would prove it. It's a strange dynamic.
Abusive people exist, I'm not sure this is news to anyone.
The fact that an abuser has in the past found to be a teacher doesn't make all teachers abusers.
You're assuming that the "problem" is a spontaneous reaction, rather than a moral panic deliberately provoked by right wing media and well-funded US fascist organisations. If it were about self-ID this judgement would not have been sought as it's specifically about those with GRCs, who have been through extensive and intrusive assessment.
Your victim blaming doesn't hold water.