TailWindHome
Active Member
Insisting that Peggie won *and* the judge was completely wrong is quite funny though.
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
CXRAndy
Pharaoh
I dont think I said she won. I would call it more of a loss than win. She will definitely win on appeal.
Seems to be all the rage for legal experts to use AI to write their opinions
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
She won, at least in part, against the employer but lost on the rest.
As seems almost universal the employer's failings largely related to not following due process.
As seems almost universal the employer's failings largely related to not following due process.
CXRAndy
Pharaoh
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
Phillipson's claim that the law would mean that mothers couldn't take young sons into the Ladies loo with them was laughable.
monkers
Shaman
You might like to take careful note of Lord Hodge about the same talking points in his recent interview.
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
Why not include the context of that quote?
He's a judge. Why on earth would he be involved in the logistics of how service providers ensure there are single sex spaces when required? The Supreme Court weren't required to decide on a case by case basis who gets to go into particular single sex spaces. They made clear the principle.
In the same interview he said:
You've been one of the people attempting to lead others on here to believe men like you had rights to access women's single sex spaces when they didn't.
It's for service providers to work out how to provide single sex spaces when such spaces are appropriate, not the supreme court. They can accommodate people who are uncomfortable using the facilities of their birth sex with further facilities/services if they wish but again it's not for the supreme court to get involved in the logistics of every example of this.
TailWindHome
Active Member
Say I run a hospitality venue.
I provide toilets for women and toilets for men. I decide that access to these toilets are on the basis of gender identity, that trans woman can use the women's toilets and trans men can use the men's toilets.
What law am I breaking?
A woman or group of women object to this. I reject their objection and make clear I'm not providing a women's toilet which excludes transwomen
What law am I breaking?
Does the answer to any of these questions change if I'm an employer, a public facility such as a leisure centre, or somewhere where I may have no regulatory obligation to provide gendered spaces but may do for commercial reasons (eg shop changing rooms)
I provide toilets for women and toilets for men. I decide that access to these toilets are on the basis of gender identity, that trans woman can use the women's toilets and trans men can use the men's toilets.
What law am I breaking?
A woman or group of women object to this. I reject their objection and make clear I'm not providing a women's toilet which excludes transwomen
What law am I breaking?
Does the answer to any of these questions change if I'm an employer, a public facility such as a leisure centre, or somewhere where I may have no regulatory obligation to provide gendered spaces but may do for commercial reasons (eg shop changing rooms)
TailWindHome
Active Member
Is there not an important distinction between a person 'not having the right to' something and an obligation being created that the person be denied the 'something'
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
It could be a case of indirect discrimination under the EA. The argument would be that women are disadvantaged by having to share toilets or changing facilities with men (and vice versa of course).
If you are calling it a Women's toilet it has to be for biological women only or face scrutiny under the Equality Act. If you decide to call both sets of toilets Mixed Sex then it could be indirect discrimination towards either sex because each sex is disadvantaged by having to share with the other sex and having no provision in what is a fairly personal and vulnerable situation. If it were say a public shoe changing area then separate facilities by sex aren't required, but if separation by sex has been deemed appropriate they need to be single sex.
The Equality Act covers service providers so employers (who have workplace regs too), leisure centres, shops. I suppose if you created a private members club in which the membership terms and conditions specified that only mixed sex toilets would be provided you'd be ok.
Obviously if individual service providers fail to meet obligations under the EQ it may require legal action against them in individual cases to ensure compliance.
The sensible thing would be to work towards service provision that accommodates single sex, mixed sex, and in the case of things like say domestic violence, trans specific services.
If you are calling it a Women's toilet it has to be for biological women only or face scrutiny under the Equality Act. If you decide to call both sets of toilets Mixed Sex then it could be indirect discrimination towards either sex because each sex is disadvantaged by having to share with the other sex and having no provision in what is a fairly personal and vulnerable situation. If it were say a public shoe changing area then separate facilities by sex aren't required, but if separation by sex has been deemed appropriate they need to be single sex.
The Equality Act covers service providers so employers (who have workplace regs too), leisure centres, shops. I suppose if you created a private members club in which the membership terms and conditions specified that only mixed sex toilets would be provided you'd be ok.
Obviously if individual service providers fail to meet obligations under the EQ it may require legal action against them in individual cases to ensure compliance.
The sensible thing would be to work towards service provision that accommodates single sex, mixed sex, and in the case of things like say domestic violence, trans specific services.
monkers
Shaman
So you are content to use the language of and the legal provisions concerning ''proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim''?
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
You can only provide important things like fairness, safety, dignity, privacy etc for some groups by denying access to the 'something' that provides that fairness, safety, dignity, privacy etc by others. It's not unreasonable to exclude adults from children's sports events, able bodied people from disabled clubs, or men from women's changing rooms. All require creating an obligation to exclude others from those 'somethings'.
Where fairness, safety, dignity, privacy etc don't matter, there's no need to exclude anyone.
monkers
Shaman
Last edited:
