Will the Supreme Court protect Women's Rights?

Yes there have been some terrible stories from girls about gender neutral toilets in schools. As an aside school toilets ( secondary schools) frequently aren't great, and could do with some investment.

Yes, I’d heard of similar reports, Carlotta. I’m so sick of women being told to budge up!

The issue of gender neutral toilets in schools was kicking off as long ago as February 2023 SueDonim. I seem to remember reading about a school in Norfolk I think who turned almost all toilets into gender neutral and the girls and their parents complained that the girls were afraid to use them.

I thought this was interesting, with a school being told it must provide single sex toilets, gender neutral alone is not acceptable. www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jz5ed7lv5o

Can I just thank all of you who are waving the flag for biological women on this thread? I’m reading your thoughtful posts, even though I am not contributing much. Well done!

This is where the sheer practicality comes in, doesnt it? A headache for guidance coming up in terms of recommending versus compelling.And then the much more complex what happens in hospitals guidance.

Apropos delays in any government taking on these issues - I recall watching out closely at the last election as to whether these issues would be addressed in any kind of depth. Read manifestos, watched the "head to heads"

It wasn't.

And with the best will in the world, I think the complexity and expense of all these actual practical issues was one of the reasons.

AGAA4

At the last census there were 262,000 transpeople 0.5% of the population of UK. I doubt that every toilet will be adjusted to suit this tiny minority.

Agreed, and it would be an over-reaction. But Carla Denyer did say that there would be an obligation to do so. Obviously that doesn't make it true, and I can't see anything in the ruling that suggests that it is, but her comments were not contested.

The problem (or one of them ) is that because of the nonsensical 'gender' questions on things like the census, the figure of 0.5% is meaningless. Is that people with a GRC? Surgically transitioned people (I doubt the figure for that would be as high as 1 in 200) or people having 'girly days', or 'living as a woman' (whatever that means), or what exactly? This sort of thing is exactly why I worry about the way the language has been mangled so that nobody knows what anyone else is talking about. Statistics based on vagaries can be twisted to mean anything.

Even so, I don't think there can be a ruling that all buildings have to build more toilets. If the law said that I had to add to the bathrooms in my house, I would have to sacrifice a bedroom to do so. If the house were a B&B, I would probably have to close, as I might not be able to rent enough rooms to make a profit, particularly after the expense of having it done.

Similarly if a cafe had to lose tables to accommodate three separate loos instead of the one they have now, many would go under. Also, places like that are often in historic buildings where planning permission would be hard to get if it meant changing the layout.

There needs to be a way that TW can use the Gents without shame or fear. I think this is very possible but it will take time to change attitudes. In the meantime, a sensible solution needs to be found.

At the last census there were 262,000 transpeople 0.5% of the population of UK. I doubt that every toilet will be adjusted to suit this tiny minority.

Satire sums it up perfectly!

I think it's likely that the Equalities Commission guidance will include references to toilets in terms of recommending best practice for organisations.

They have made a commitment to give both women and trans people safe spaces/third spaces/neutral spaces and KS reiterated that in his PMQ statement yesterday.

I imagine any campaigns will address themselves to actual recommendations. Its going to be the details of provision that are difficult, ie cost, layout of buildings, what is there already etc.

I read that earlier, and it seemed like satire.

Hold the front page: Stonewall are in a pickle and have the begging bowl out. This article in The i is just packed with so many examples of their complete and utter lack of self awareness; This is a human rights grab, in line with Donald Trump’s policies. And it’s a reminder if you need one, of a cold fact of history: all rights can be ripped away. and Stonewall, Britain’s largest LGBT organisation, is in crisis. It’s plummeting financially, with rounds of redundancies as funding cuts hit. And its credibility and influence is plunging amid a national and global backlash against LGBT rights.

Has anyone got a tiny violin? 🎻

archive.is/yGTYs

Oh I agree with that doodledog, I don't think they will be get away with gender neutral, badenoch for example is already speaking out against that. I know things look a lot better than they did but I think we still need to be wary.

Well women created refuges etc through their own organisation, or they could lobby the government to introduce third spaces

Absolutely this. Women have fought, campaigned, organised and paid for their own rights, "privileges" and benefits for the last 100 years! I don't consider it to be a woman's responsibility to start working out how the menz can get theirs. TRAs are savvy enough to organise a governing body for themselves, Stonewall. They're savvy enough to have figured out how to infiltrate national companies to do exactly what they want, influence governments, organise legal action, organise mass marches and demonstrations. A few sets of legally appropriate toilets shouldn't be out of the8r remit. This is their problem to solve, not ours.

As councils are stretched financially I doubt they will want to spend money on reorganising facilities. Other organisations may not want that cost either and as you fear doodledog they may just change the signs to unisex.
This would be a huge step backwards for women as we would have to share with transwomen and men.

I'm not sure of your point, Molly - the bolding is a bit confusing - but I doubt KS thinks the law can be applied on an 'if nobody realises, then it's ok' basis. Much as I feel for 'genuine' TW, the ones that pass can't get a different deal from those who can't - it would be horrible for all concerned, quite apart from being unjust. Sorry if that's not what you're saying, though 😀.

Galaxy I don't disagree with any of your post, but if CD is right about there being an obligation to provide provision for all groups there will have to be a lot of pragmatic decisions about what is meant by 'provision', or women will end up with the opposite of what we want, and all spaces will become unisex.

Also, much as I don't lay the blame for this at Starmer's door, I do think he should apologise to Rosie Duffield. She was treated very badly, and the buck does stop with him on that one.

I thought about NATs (non-aggressive trans) but I don’t really like using a negative)

How about LATs (law-abiding trans)

Or SEATs ((socially and emotionally aware trans)

Or maybe CATs (considerate and thoughtful trans)

Organisations are going to have to move to single cubicle toilets and changing rooms positioned for safe entrance I think.

Doodledog
The point though, is that laws have to be clear, and applied to all. Everyone has to be aware of what is legal and what isn’t, with no sliding scale of subjectivity. ‘You can use these facilities so long as you don’t make a fuss and nobody realises the truth’ is not a basis for law.

I’m not fixing singular blame on any government for allowing this to start or continue, or on any particular minister, except for Nicola Sturgeon.

But Doodledog’s statement above needs to be sent to KS, his ministers and the rest of the government, in big letters.

KS, as The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in England and Wales, and was responsible for prosecuting criminal cases on behalf of the state.

So now the Supreme Court has cleared his confusion about whether only females are women, he’s got great background knowledge and must be aware of what is legal and what isn’t, with no sliding scale of subjectivity.

Let’s hope success, rather than failure at sorting this out, will be what he is remembered for.

Well women created refuges etc through their own organisation, or they could lobby the government to introduce third spaces. They have managed to convince society that sex is not binary, that womens spaces should belong to men and that language has to be altered, they seem quite resourceful to me. I also think as a campaign they keep bringing it back to toilets but if they don't want to use male facilities they will need prisons, refuges, etc.
To be honest if you had told me even three years ago that the PM would be announcing transwomen aren't wonen I wouldn't have believed you for a second so it seems anything is possible.
But then again the needs of men who identify as women, and women who identify as men are so different, I can see that would be a difficult campaign. And look at prisons do women who identify as men actually want to be in a prison with men who identify as women. And is it right to do that. I actually care about those women even though they don't believe they are women.

I don’t think organising and fundraising would help, although the principle is sound. How can a disparate group of people fundraise to get plumbing altered in pubs across the land? It won’t always be feasible, and would be piecemeal at best.

Or you know they organise and fundraise in the way women have to do over the last decade.
I think the trans descriptor helps no one, the needs and reasons for why a middle aged man transition appear to me very very different to why a young woman transitions.

I wish there were a word to describe the people I’m sure we all mean when we say things like ‘unnoticed’, ‘quiet’ or ‘genuine’ in this context. Transpeople have different personalities, and may or may not be unnoticed or quiet, and who knows what genuine means? I’ve used all of those words but am aware that it sounds as though we are suggesting that all transpeople should be unassuming and meek, grateful for being allowed to live their lives in peace, and constantly vigilant about being outed. I don’t mean that at all, and don’t think others on these threads will either.

The point though, is that laws have to be clear, and applied to all. Everyone has to be aware of what is legal and what isn’t, with no sliding scale of subjectivity. ‘You can use these facilities so long as you don’t make a fuss and nobody realises the truth’ is not a basis for law. People would end up being prosecuted for not getting their make-up right, or for talking back when someone makes a nasty comment.

This is why there needs to be a proper solution. Carla Denyer was on Peston last night and said that there was now a legal obligation to provide both single sex and trans facilities in pubs. The man from Wetherspoons was there, and neither he nor Robert Peston corrected her. Wetherspoons Man said it cost £100,000 per pub to install staff toilets, which would ruin most businesses - specially in hospitality which is a struggling sector anyway. The answer has to be that TW use the Gents, but with a big push to provide security and safety until attitudes change. I know women didn’t get that security and safety when we lost our spaces, but two wrongs don’t make a right.

Galaxy

And what would you have done if one of the women had said no.

Good question.
Like saying what would a hitherto unnoticed TW if he was asked to leave a women’s toilet block.

And what would you have done if one of the women had said no.

Mollygo

Nannee49

Can someone on here define what a lady dick is, please?

The penis of a male who pretends to be a woman, but still has his equipment and wishes to use it on female.
Or possible what KS wrongly thought 1% of women have.

Your last sentence made me laugh, Mollygo. Thanks for that.

I totally agree with the judgement of the Supreme Court, but I feel sorry for the likes of Pamela, fka John, who was fully transitioned and on the same Training course as I was, way back in the late 1990s. Pamela had spent the previous session on the course as John, alongside several of the current male students and was worried as to their possible reaction. Management asked us females if she could use the female toilets. We discussed it and agreed. Pamela was a lovely person, very nervous and very gentle. We adopted her as an "honorary woman". She was given tips on clothes, make-up and how to walk. She had no trouble from the other male students because we women made it perfectly clear she/he was under our protection. The Ladies was her sanctuary if required.

Before the 2010 act, I believe it was perfectly legal for a woman to use a Public men's toilet? (Although one would have to be desperate to do so given the usual state of them!). Usually a quick in, pee, out, while otherwise unoccupied, with a friend on guard at the door. Has that changed?

When I was young, ambiguously sexed babies were given an "official" sex on their birth certs by a doctor. Sometimes the Doctor guessed wrong and later development (and even later, DNA testing) proved it but their Birth certificates could not be changed and they remained, officially, the sex they weren't. That was rightfully corrected, eventually. But allowing Trans people to change their birth certificate was a step too far. Perhaps that will stop, although I don't think it is covered by the Supreme Court ruling.

I have been concerned about this since what feels like the dawn of time. Research is very finely tuned, and it is vital that the conclusions reflect accurate results, which cannot be the case if people can record so-called 'gender' instead of sex.

More than once on here I have been accused of nitpicking and being 'obsessed' (a popular dig when someone refuses to be silenced about something) with this aspect of the debate, but it is important to all of us that we can see where there needs to be sex-based social policy and medical funding, and that the figures are accurate.