Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Para 42 does not mean that trans identifying men can therefore have access to women's single sex toilets. It means only that toilet provision must ensure that those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment aren't discriminated against. This can be done by providing single sex M and F toilets and an additional mixed toilet. Or by using single enclosed cubicles.

It's a big leap from what the judge says in para 42 to 'men can go in women's toilets'. Every argument the Good Law Project put forward to suggest they can was rejected.

But again, I'll be going with verified legal opinion not your vested interest spin.
It's clear the judgement doesn't support your position but you continue to grasp at straws.

Ah, you are using the word 'can' - at last we can make progress.

The judge is reminding employers that to be compliant with Workplace Regs Section 20 must not only meet the minimum requirement (often described as ''the floor''), then they must also ensure they provide facilities for trans people. This does not mean they must build more facilities, but the must have a compliant policy to fit around the available infrastructure. It's not a zero sum game.

Compliance with WPR + compliance with EqA = compliant. Removal of either = not compliant.

Therefore their policy will be such that there are two available spaces for men and for women, and because no other arrangement is possible for trans people they must have an inclusive policy, pne where cis women and trans women are accommodated in one space, and cis men and trans men are accommodated in the other. The policy must be made on on the grounds of legitimate aim and proportional means etc.

This is the only model by which employers can be compliant with both Workplace Regs and Equality Act.

It does not say as Sex Matters try to say, that therefore the women's toilet is open to all men. That is a category error.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Grasp away at those straws.

 

[CXRAndy]

where cis women and trans women TiMs

 

[monkers]

Grasp away at those straws.

It is what is written.

 

[AuroraSaab]

And what is written is very far from the interpretive spin you are trying to put on it.
All the GLP's arguments that said a variant of the same were dismissed. At least Jolyon isn't claiming he actually won this one, he's just lying about what it means.

 

[spen666]

Oh dear.

The ONLY material was the quote of p42 which was from that ruling, not some other ruling.

Please go and see a dominatrix for future spankings, I'm tired of doing that service for free.

Ohh look another persobal insult from the person who claims i am naking it personal.

 

[monkers]

And what is written is very far from the interpretive spin you are trying to put on it.
All the GLP's arguments that said a variant of the same were dismissed. At least Jolyon isn't claiming he actually won this one, he's just lying about what it means.

I'm not saying anything was won here. And that's my point, those who say they have won something on either side are being untruthful.

The High Court, as a lower court - that is to the Supreme Court - had no choice to say that what the Supreme Court has said can not be changed (at least not by them).

Which brings me back to my foremost point - what a waste of time bringing a case on guidance that was no statutory, had no legal force (OK a tautology) and was already withdrawn. The GLP said it the guidance was unlawful because the EHRC had made rushed and overstepped. In my opinion FWIW they had, however the legal basis of the GLP's submission was flawed. I doubt the judge would have agreed with me either, but that's an unknown and not something we need not consider.

 

[monkers]

Nowhere in the judgement does it say that trans people must have access to their toilet of choice, which is what you are implying with your 'it doesn't say there's a blanket ban' claim. Again, this is just you trying to sow confusion in the mind of readers. I'll go with the verified legal experts re the judgement, thanks.

It neither says there is blanket inclusion or exclusion. There are people on either side claiming opposite things. In my opinion both sides saying these things are reading judgments incorrectly. My view is nothing has changed since the Supreme Court judgment.

 

[monkers]

Ohh look another persobal insult from the person who claims i am naking it personal.

Yes in response - learn from the example.