FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Single Sex Toilets
Single Sex Toilets
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
The High Court has ruled that EHRC single-sex guidance is lawful.
It has confirmed that in the workplace, (and just about everywhere is someone’s workplace) single-sex facilities cannot be open to anyone of the opposite sex. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You might need to explain what you're talking about so that the rest of us can point out where you've made your mistake.
BTW: The High Court is not the top level court in the UK. That would be the Supreme Court. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The High Court has ruled that EHRC single-sex guidance is lawful.
It has confirmed that in the workplace, (and just about everywhere is someone’s workplace) single-sex facilities cannot be open to anyone of the opposite sex."
Common sense has prevailed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You might need to explain what you're talking about so that the rest of us can point out where you've made your mistake.
BTW: The High Court is not the top level court in the UK. That would be the Supreme Court."
Seems a groups of trans people lost their appeal over which toilets to use |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You might need to explain what you're talking about so that the rest of us can point out where you've made your mistake.
BTW: The High Court is not the top level court in the UK. That would be the Supreme Court."
"Seems a groups of trans people lost their appeal over which toilets to use "
You couldn't possibly give us a link, or even just some search terms so that we can find the story for ourselves?
In any case, if your summary is accurate, there's no story here. They'll just appeal to the Supreme Court. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
"You might need to explain what you're talking about so that the rest of us can point out where you've made your mistake.
BTW: The High Court is not the top level court in the UK. That would be the Supreme Court."
I’m more than aware that the high court is not the highest court in the land. And the highest court in the land is indeed the Supreme Court which has already ruled that women means biological women. Not what some bloke in a frock thinks.
I’m just making a post about the court case. It’s not my case. I’m also pretty sure you have to go to the high court before you can go to the Supreme Court.
Sorry, what is your point exactly? That we should do away with all courts except the Supreme Court? Don’t we already have a backlog? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You might need to explain what you're talking about so that the rest of us can point out where you've made your mistake.
BTW: The High Court is not the top level court in the UK. That would be the Supreme Court."
"I’m more than aware that the high court is not the highest court in the land. And the highest court in the land is indeed the Supreme Court which has already ruled that women means biological women."
No it hasn't. It ruled that in any interpretation of the Equality Act, 'woman' means 'biological woman'. It only applies in cases where the Equality Act is being invoked. It isn't a general ruling.
"I’m just making a post about the court case. It’s not my case."
No, and we don't know whose court case it is (if it even exists) because you won't, or can't, tell us any more about it.
"I’m also pretty sure you have to go to the high court before you can go to the Supreme Court."
Correct.
"Sorry, what is your point exactly? That we should do away with all courts except the Supreme Court? Don’t we already have a backlog? "
My point is that what you posted at the start is almost certainly wrong, but we can't tell because you haven't given us any details which would allow us to search for the actual story. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
"You might need to explain what you're talking about so that the rest of us can point out where you've made your mistake.
BTW: The High Court is not the top level court in the UK. That would be the Supreme Court.
I’m more than aware that the high court is not the highest court in the land. And the highest court in the land is indeed the Supreme Court which has already ruled that women means biological women.
No it hasn't. It ruled that in any interpretation of the Equality Act, 'woman' means 'biological woman'. It only applies in cases where the Equality Act is being invoked. It isn't a general ruling.
I’m just making a post about the court case. It’s not my case.
No, and we don't know whose court case it is (if it even exists) because you won't, or can't, tell us any more about it.
I’m also pretty sure you have to go to the high court before you can go to the Supreme Court.
Correct.
Sorry, what is your point exactly? That we should do away with all courts except the Supreme Court? Don’t we already have a backlog?
My point is that what you posted at the start is almost certainly wrong, but we can't tell because you haven't given us any details which would allow us to search for the actual story."
Someone posted a link
And you’re saying that biological women aren’t women, only men in frocks are, unless the equalities act is being envoked? Then it’s the other way around? That’s an interesting point of view. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
But to help anyone out, this is the BBC website (not exactly hard to find, unless you don’t want to find the result of course)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lrd0ey074o#:~:text=A%20High%20Court%20judge%20has,rooms%20transgender%20people%20should%20use.
Their phrasing is their usual bias of course because they don’t want women going in women’s toilets but they can’t change the ruling |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *G LanaTV/TS 12 weeks ago
Gosport |
For anyone unsure of the case the OP is referring to it was the case before Mr Justice Swift, between the King on the application of the Good Law Project and 3 named claimants and the defendant Commision for Equality and Human Rights, yesterday.
Based on the actual judgment those conclusions a bit of a reach or arguably a lot of spin from those following the gender-critical ideology. The Court didn't rule that facilities must be strictly sex-segregated by birth; it ruled that the EHRC’s explanation of the law was legally acceptable. Crucially, the ruling reminds us that service providers risk committing unlawful discrimination if they exclude trans people without a robust, specific justification. The default remains inclusion.
The judgment explicitly states that a service provider who excludes a trans person from a facility matching their gender identity could still be found guilty of direct or indirect discrimination unless they can prove the exclusion is a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.' It confirms the status quo: providers have a duty to treat trans people as the gender they live in, unless there is a very specific, evidenced reason not to.
The claim that 'single-sex facilities cannot be open to the opposite sex' is a misreading of the law. Under the Equality Act 2010, a trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) is legally of the female sex.
The Court confirmed that the EHRC guidance is just that—guidance. It doesn't give employers a green light to discriminate. In fact, the ruling reinforces that if a provider excludes trans people without a very high legal justification, they are likely breaching their legal duties. It's about a case-by-case balance, not a mandatory ban. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *G LanaTV/TS 12 weeks ago
Gosport |
While the Good Law Project celebrated a partial victory regarding public service providers, they are appealing the High Court’s ruling primarily because of its impact on the workplace. They argue that the judgment creates a "bathroom ban by stealth" for employees and incorrectly interprets the law to permit, and in some cases require, the exclusion of trans people from facilities that align with their gender identity. Their appeal rests on the grounds that the court has misinterpreted workplace regulations, ignored the human rights implications of "outing" trans individuals, and incorrectly reduced trans people to a "third sex" status.
The High Court ruled that under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, toilets and changing rooms must be strictly single-sex based on biological sex unless they are individual lockable rooms. The GLP intends to challenge this, arguing that these 1992 regulations were designed to ensure privacy and decency, not to mandate the exclusion of trans people. They believe the judge’s "biological" interpretation is a legal error that forces employers to discriminate against their trans staff.
A central pillar of the appeal is the Human Rights Act 1998. The GLP argues that forcing trans people to use "neutral" or "third" facilities effectively "outs" them to their colleagues. They are specifically challenging the judge's dismissal of this concern as mere "workplace gossip" or a "burden" that people must expect to bear. The GLP contends that this violates Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for private and family life) by stripping trans people of their dignity and safety.
The GLP argues that the judgment creates a legally incoherent "third sex" category. By ruling that trans people can be excluded from both male and female spaces and instead be provided with "separate but equal" facilities, the GLP claims the court is ignoring the legal reality of the Gender Recognition Act. They argue that once a person has legally transitioned, they should not be treated as a separate class of person who is neither fully male nor fully female in the eyes of the law.
On a procedural level, the High Court judge ruled that the Good Law Project did not have "standing" to bring the case because it was not directly affected by the guidance. The GLP is likely to appeal this point to ensure that public interest groups can continue to hold regulators like the EHRC to account, even when they are not the individual victims of the guidance in question.
While the GLP "won" the argument that service providers (like shops and restaurants) can lawfully include trans women in women's spaces, the court still found the EHRC’s overall guidance to be lawful. The GLP is appealing to ensure that the EHRC is legally mandated to rewrite its guidance more clearly, removing any language that encourages providers to think exclusion is the default or a legal requirement.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *G LanaTV/TS 12 weeks ago
Gosport |
For anyone wanting to read the judgment themselves the 32 page document is available from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 'good law project-EHRC-AC-2025-1953-judgment-13Feb26'.
I won't share a direct link as I am not sure that would pass Fab's acceptable sources requirements.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *G LanaTV/TS 12 weeks ago
Gosport |
"But to help anyone out, this is the BBC website (not exactly hard to find, unless you don’t want to find the result of course)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lrd0ey074o#:~:text=A%20High%20Court%20judge%20has,rooms%20transgender%20people%20should%20use.
Their phrasing is their usual bias of course because they don’t want women going in women’s toilets but they can’t change the ruling "
Yes the BBC article does show their usual biases including their now standard use of gender-critical dogwhistle phrases. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
There seems to be some conflicting laws or interpretation of laws and cases like these will hopefully clear things up eventually.
It seems it’s illegal to discriminate against a persons chosen gender ideology? A man saying he’s a woman for example has the right to be treated like a woman such as using a women’s toilet because he would be uncomfortable in the gents? And on the face of it some people things that’s a reasonable stance.
Yet at the same time it’s been ruled that women have the right to single sex toilets and changing rooms, and that women in this context means biological women, not a m2f trans. This is also considered “reasonable” by many people.
If both of these are true in law, and an employer has a legal obligation to provide toilets, then it’s impossible to win, unless you only have GN toilets? But the cost of converting from single sex toilets to GN toilets is cost prohibitive for many businesses. These things cost tens of thousands to sort.
Even providing a female toilet for biological women and a female toilet for anyone who wants to use one is still going to get some men claiming the are being discriminated against because they want to use the women only toilets not the free for all toilets.
The answer some sports organisations have come up with is a possible solution. They have an open category that anyone can enter, and they have a category purely for biological women. Perhaps that’s the answer. Only biological women use the women’s toilets and there’s a free for all alternative that anyone can use.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Someone posted a link"
But it was a link to a Facebook post that just contained the same text you posted. That doesn't help us figure out what your talking about.
"And you’re saying that biological women aren’t women, only men in frocks are, unless the equalities act is being envoked? Then it’s the other way around?"
I've not said anything about how people should be treated when the Equality Act isn't involved. You really should learn to read what people have said, rather than imagining what you think they want to say. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *G LanaTV/TS 12 weeks ago
Gosport |
I think the sensible solution for most businesses is probably to make suitable but limited provision for those women who feel uncomfortable with sharing facilities with trans women. Then the exclusion is self selection rather than enforced and doesn't force the outing of anyone's protected characteristics. This may simply be the guidance in these situation to use the single occupancy accessibility toilets. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So now that we know what the story actually is, let's look at the first post:
"The High Court has ruled that EHRC single-sex guidance is lawful."
Incorrect. The High Court was not asked to determine whether the EHRC guidance was lawful, it was asked to judge a very narrow complaint about that guidance, and it found that the complaint had no merit.
"It has confirmed that in the workplace, (and just about everywhere is someone’s workplace) single-sex facilities cannot be open to anyone of the opposite sex."
That's just tautological. Obviously if a space is to be classed as single sex, it must be for only one sex.
The real question is whether toilets in workplaces are intended to be single sex spaces. If the company strictly enforces access policies, then they are single sex spaces. If the company is just 'giving guidance as to the sort of facilities available', then it's not a single sex space, and the Equality Act doesn't apply. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *G LanaTV/TS 12 weeks ago
Gosport |
To an extent I faced this issue very early on in my transition when a woman, some one I didn't really expect it from, objected to my use of facilities at work. Thankfully they raised the issue via a management intermediary rather than directly so it wasn't as directly uncomfortable as it could have been. In this instance the building had 2 sets of gendered toilets with accompanying accessibility ones and then a single, single occupancy unisex changing room. For some reason this lady has chosen to change in the toilets rather than the changing room and was concerned about doing so.
With none of us knowing the company policy as none of the managers had bothered looking them up after I announced I needed to start transitioning it was left to me to 'peacekeep' and come up with a solution. I opted for one that I wouldn't use her preferred toilet and would always use the one further from our office, now by corporate policy this was the wrong solution but it worked at defusing the issue. Probably the correct corporate solution would have been strongly suggest she changed in the suitable, provided changing room but that would have just got her back up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It seems it’s illegal to discriminate against a persons chosen gender ideology? A man saying he’s a woman for example has the right to be treated like a woman such as using a women’s toilet because he would be uncomfortable in the gents?"
Incorrect. It's illegal to discriminate against trans people, e.g. by not employing them just because they're trans. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with their description of themselves.
"Yet at the same time it’s been ruled that women have the right to single sex toilets and changing rooms ..."
No it hasn't. No one has the right to demand a single sex space. The law only applies if single sex spaces are provided. If they aren't, the law doesn't get involved.
"But the cost of converting from single sex toilets to GN toilets is cost prohibitive for many businesses. These things cost tens of thousands to sort."
Nonsense. You can do it just by putting different signs on the doors. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 12 weeks ago
near enough |
"I think the sensible solution for most businesses is probably to make suitable but limited provision for those women who feel uncomfortable with sharing facilities with trans women. Then the exclusion is self selection rather than enforced and doesn't force the outing of anyone's protected characteristics. This may simply be the guidance in these situation to use the single occupancy accessibility toilets."
May I ask how ?
Should businesses install an extra toilet facility or subdivide an existing one ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *G LanaTV/TS 12 weeks ago
Gosport |
"They should be having these anyway. The fact that some don't probably routinely breaches other aspects of equality law."
In the UK this could breach Section 20 of the equality act, employers have a proactive duty to make "reasonable adjustments" to ensure disabled workers are not at a "substantial disadvantage.
This also potentially covers both job applicants attending interviews and site visitors.
Unlike other types of discrimination, employers are expected to anticipate these needs. They shouldn’t necessarily wait for a disabled person to be hired before they consider how someone would use the facilities.
To an extent though this does depend on the employer's size and resources. A FTSE 100 company failing to install an accessible toilet is almost certainly in breach; a tiny shop in a Grade II listed building might have more leeway if the adjustment is physically impossible or prohibitively expensive.
There are also other provisions in the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and Approved Document M of the Building Regulations (which would apply to new buildings and major refurbishment of existing ones).
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
"It seems it’s illegal to discriminate against a persons chosen gender ideology? A man saying he’s a woman for example has the right to be treated like a woman such as using a women’s toilet because he would be uncomfortable in the gents?
Incorrect. It's illegal to discriminate against trans people, e.g. by not employing them just because they're trans. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with their description of themselves.
Yet at the same time it’s been ruled that women have the right to single sex toilets and changing rooms ...
No it hasn't. No one has the right to demand a single sex space. The law only applies if single sex spaces are provided. If they aren't, the law doesn't get involved.
But the cost of converting from single sex toilets to GN toilets is cost prohibitive for many businesses. These things cost tens of thousands to sort.
Nonsense. You can do it just by putting different signs on the doors."
Your entire attitude here seems to be to split hairs and argue.
But let’s follow your logic. A pub owner serves food so legally has to provide public toilets. It’s a small county pub and a listed building so modifications can sometimes be impossible or at the very least, seriously expensive.
They have 2 toilets. What signs would you suggest they put up to keep 100% of their customers happy.
And just in case you think this is a rare occurrence, I live in rural Suffolk and this describes just about every pub we go in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your entire attitude here seems to be to split hairs and argue."
I don't have an attitude. I'm just pointing it out when people say stuff that isn't true.
"But let’s follow your logic. A pub owner serves food so legally has to provide public toilets. It’s a small county pub and a listed building so modifications can sometimes be impossible or at the very least, seriously expensive.
They have 2 toilets. What signs would you suggest they put up to keep 100% of their customers happy."
You can't keep 100% of the people happy, they want different things. In any case, the current situation doesn't make 100% of the people happy. The best they can do is to avoid prosecution under the Equality Act.
The obvious change is to put "unisex" signs on both doors. That way neither space is single-sex, and so no discrimination can be claimed.
If the country pub was in a more progressive area and had a large trans customer base, they could put up signs saying "with penis" and "without penis". Again that's not making single-sex spaces, so there's no discrimination.
The absolute easiest thing to do is just to write "advisory" on the existing signs. If they don't enforce it as a single-sex space, then people can choose whichever space they want, and no one would have a valid legal claim of discrimination. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
"Your entire attitude here seems to be to split hairs and argue.
I don't have an attitude. I'm just pointing it out when people say stuff that isn't true."
I rest my case 🤣
" But let’s follow your logic. A pub owner serves food so legally has to provide public toilets. It’s a small county pub and a listed building so modifications can sometimes be impossible or at the very least, seriously expensive.
They have 2 toilets. What signs would you suggest they put up to keep 100% of their customers happy.
You can't keep 100% of the people happy, they want different things. In any case, the current situation doesn't make 100% of the people happy. The best they can do is to avoid prosecution under the Equality Act.
The obvious change is to put "unisex" signs on both doors. That way neither space is single-sex, and so no discrimination can be claimed.
If the country pub was in a more progressive area and had a large trans customer base, they could put up signs saying "with penis" and "without penis". Again that's not making single-sex spaces, so there's no discrimination.
The absolute easiest thing to do is just to write "advisory" on the existing signs. If they don't enforce it as a single-sex space, then people can choose whichever space they want, and no one would have a valid legal claim of discrimination."
That’s exactly my point. There is seemingly nothing anyone can do to make everyone happy. Or more worryingly, comply with all laws.
But marking them male and female makes 99.99% of people happy and has zero cost as that’s probably what 99.99% of toilets say anyway, in some way shape or form.
I have been giving thought to the pubs around here and I don’t think any of them have a specific disabled toilet. Most of the toilets can only hold 3 or 4 people at any give time so making space for a disabled toilet is probably not viable. And I’m struggling to think of one that has disabled access. They all have steps in and out the building. I assume it’s listed building status that keeps this lawful. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That’s exactly my point. There is seemingly nothing anyone can do to make everyone happy."
Well that's not much of a point. People seem to enjoy disagreeing with each other.
"Or more worryingly, comply with all laws."
I've just given you 3 options for complying with the law. Did you not read them?
"But marking them male and female makes 99.99% of people happy and has zero cost as that’s probably what 99.99% of toilets say anyway, in some way shape or form."
So now you've given up on pleasing 100% of the people, and are ignoring the legal implications. Fair enough. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 12 weeks ago
|
"That’s exactly my point. There is seemingly nothing anyone can do to make everyone happy.
Well that's not much of a point. People seem to enjoy disagreeing with each other.
Or more worryingly, comply with all laws.
I've just given you 3 options for complying with the law. Did you not read them?
But marking them male and female makes 99.99% of people happy and has zero cost as that’s probably what 99.99% of toilets say anyway, in some way shape or form.
So now you've given up on pleasing 100% of the people, and are ignoring the legal implications. Fair enough."
Your opinion of my point is of zero interest to me. But yes, some people are very argumentative and seem to enjoy conflict. Personally I prefer peace and harmony but each to their own.
You said no option complies with all laws and you said you gave me 3 that do. Erm…… yeah.
I don’t own a premises with a public toilet so I don’t need to please anyone. I’m perfectly happy with mens toilets for biological men and women’s toilets for biological females.
Thinking about it, that’s so close to 100% of the population of the planet. Baring the incredibly rare genetic exceptions I think we’ve done it. Who would have thought that in the end the answer was so glaringly obvious
Now all we need is for everyone to stick to that and everyone will be happy. 😃 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
