Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided
for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space
provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we
need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in
order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
Especially as <x> is not a quantum proposition but merely the directive
that in the provision of toilet facilities, it's biological men to one
side, and biological women to the other. That is the base level provision.
Yet it seems to me with all this ECHC "guidance" a lot of service
providers have decided that the law is wrong, and their guidance somehow supports that ?
Anyway, when the court cases start again, how much of a defence is "I thought we were following the guidance" ?
Also, is there similar guidance for murder, or rape, or assualt ?
Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided
for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space
provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we
need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in
order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
Especially as <x> is not a quantum proposition but merely the directive
that in the provision of toilet facilities, it's biological men to one
side, and biological women to the other. That is the base level provision.
Yet it seems to me with all this ECHC "guidance" a lot of service
providers have decided that the law is wrong, and their guidance somehow supports that ?
Anyway, when the court cases start again, how much of a defence is "I
thought we were following the guidance" ?
Also, is there similar guidance for murder, or rape, or assualt ?
Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided
for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space
provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we
need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in
order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
Especially as <x> is not a quantum proposition but merely the directive
that in the provision of toilet facilities, it's biological men to one
side, and biological women to the other. That is the base level provision.
Yet it seems to me with all this ECHC "guidance" a lot of service
providers have decided that the law is wrong, and their guidance somehow supports that ?
Anyway, when the court cases start again, how much of a defence is "I
thought we were following the guidance" ?
Also, is there similar guidance for murder, or rape, or assualt ?
On 06/08/2026 14:35, Jethro wrote:
Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as
parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided
for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space
provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we
need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Because that's a misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court said.
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in
order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
I don't think you are being a little bit dim. You have been misled by incompetent journalism.
At the risk of oversimplifying the Supreme Court judgment, a reasonable interpretation is: For the purpose of interpreting the provisions of the Equality Act, references to "female" mean "biological females" rather
than "trans females".
It is fair to say that trans females therefore cannot enforce their
right to use female-only spaces or female-only committee places. It does
not mean that henceforth they should be barred from using female-only
spaces or female-only committee places, which is largely in the
discretion of employers and occupiers.
On 7 Aug 2026 at 09:43:47 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I am not going to comment on all your statements although I do not necessarily agree with all of them. But on the specific subject of
employers' provision of toilets and changing rooms the workplace
regulations *do* require the provision of single (biological) sex
changing rooms and toilets. Although they do not preclude the provision
of additional mixed sex facilities.
On 7 Aug 2026 at 09:43:47 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2026 14:35, Jethro wrote:
Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as
parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided
for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space
provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we
need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Because that's a misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court said.
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in
order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
I don't think you are being a little bit dim. You have been misled by
incompetent journalism.
At the risk of oversimplifying the Supreme Court judgment, a reasonable
interpretation is: For the purpose of interpreting the provisions of the
Equality Act, references to "female" mean "biological females" rather
than "trans females".
It is fair to say that trans females therefore cannot enforce their
right to use female-only spaces or female-only committee places. It does
not mean that henceforth they should be barred from using female-only
spaces or female-only committee places, which is largely in the
discretion of employers and occupiers.
I am not going to comment on all your statements although I do not necessarily
agree with all of them. But on the specific subject of employers' provision of
toilets and changing rooms the workplace regulations *do* require the provision of single (biological) sex changing rooms and toilets. Although they
do not preclude the provision of additional mixed sex facilities.
On 06/08/2026 14:35, Jethro wrote:
Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as
parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided
for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space
provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we
need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Because that's a misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court said.
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in
order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
I don't think you are being a little bit dim. You have been misled by incompetent journalism.
At the risk of oversimplifying the Supreme Court judgment, a reasonable interpretation is: For the purpose of interpreting the provisions of the Equality Act, references to "female" mean "biological females" rather
than "trans females".
It is fair to say that trans females therefore cannot enforce their
right to use female-only spaces or female-only committee places.
On 7 Aug 2026 at 09:43:47 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2026 14:35, Jethro wrote:
Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as
parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided
for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space
provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we
need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Because that's a misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court said.
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in
order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
I don't think you are being a little bit dim. You have been misled by
incompetent journalism.
At the risk of oversimplifying the Supreme Court judgment, a reasonable
interpretation is: For the purpose of interpreting the provisions of the
Equality Act, references to "female" mean "biological females" rather
than "trans females".
It is fair to say that trans females therefore cannot enforce their
right to use female-only spaces or female-only committee places. It does
not mean that henceforth they should be barred from using female-only
spaces or female-only committee places, which is largely in the
discretion of employers and occupiers.
I am not going to comment on all your statements although I do not necessarily
agree with all of them. But on the specific subject of employers' provision of
toilets and changing rooms the workplace regulations *do* require the provision of single (biological) sex changing rooms and toilets. Although they
do not preclude the provision of additional mixed sex facilities.
On 07/08/2026 09:43, The Todal wrote:
On 06/08/2026 14:35, Jethro wrote:
Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as
parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided
for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space
provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we
need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Because that's a misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court said.
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in
order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
I don't think you are being a little bit dim. You have been misled by
incompetent journalism.
At the risk of oversimplifying the Supreme Court judgment, a
reasonable interpretation is: For the purpose of interpreting the
provisions of the Equality Act, references to "female" mean
"biological females" rather than "trans females".
Perhaps I am being a bit dim here, but what happens with regard to biological males in the XY genetic sense who have been surgically
altered to be indistinguishable from from XX genetic females?
(apart from the obvious fact that they cannot have children)
They form a relatively small subset of trans females but a few are high profile activists. Although born male their commitment to being female
is absolute in the very strictest sense.
It all hinges on the exact definition of "biological females" - how does
the law actually define it?
It is fair to say that trans females therefore cannot enforce their
right to use female-only spaces or female-only committee places.
And yet it has been established that they can belong to an all female Cambridge college (and the college members supported that decision).
It is incredibly rare though. I only know of one such example.
It all hinges on the exact definition of "biological females" - how does
the law actually define it?
On 07/08/2026 09:43, The Todal wrote:
On 06/08/2026 14:35, Jethro wrote:
Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as
parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided
for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space
provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we
need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Because that's a misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court said.
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in
order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
I don't think you are being a little bit dim. You have been misled by
incompetent journalism.
At the risk of oversimplifying the Supreme Court judgment, a reasonable
interpretation is: For the purpose of interpreting the provisions of the
Equality Act, references to "female" mean "biological females" rather
than "trans females".
Perhaps I am being a bit dim here, but what happens with regard to
biological males in the XY genetic sense who have been surgically
altered to be indistinguishable from from XX genetic females?
(apart from the obvious fact that they cannot have children)
They form a relatively small subset of trans females but a few are high profile activists. Although born male their commitment to being female
is absolute in the very strictest sense.
It all hinges on the exact definition of "biological females" - how does
the law actually define it?
--
It is fair to say that trans females therefore cannot enforce their
right to use female-only spaces or female-only committee places.
And yet it has been established that they can belong to an all female Cambridge college (and the college members supported that decision).
It is incredibly rare though. I only know of one such example.
On Fri, 07 Aug 2026 11:18:59 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:--
It all hinges on the exact definition of "biological females" - how does
the law actually define it?
AFAIAA the law follows the science. With the additional clause that possession of a GRC overides that.
Being cynical, the requirement fot a GRC (i.e. testicle removal surgery)
has proved a bit too much for *some* men to be considered women. So the
whole house of cards about "how do you *feel*" was erected.
On Fri, 07 Aug 2026 11:18:59 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
It all hinges on the exact definition of "biological females" - how does
the law actually define it?
AFAIAA the law follows the science. With the additional clause that possession of a GRC overides that.
Being cynical, the requirement fot a GRC (i.e. testicle removal surgery)
has proved a bit too much for *some* men to be considered women. So the
whole house of cards about "how do you *feel*" was erected.
Nor, arguably, the provision of facilities that are as described in my quotations, small rooms which can be occupied by males or females but not both sexes simultaneously.
I am not going to comment on all your statements although I do not
necessarily agree with all of them. But on the specific subject of
employers' provision of toilets and changing rooms the workplace
regulations *do* require the provision of single (biological) sex
changing rooms and toilets. Although they do not preclude the provision
of additional mixed sex facilities.
But why did is seems so many employers (especially public sector one)
needed guidance on this ? What will the guidance do that the SC judgement >didn't ?
On 07/08/2026 13:54, The Todal wrote:
Nor, arguably, the provision of facilities that are as described in my
quotations, small rooms which can be occupied by males or females but not
both sexes simultaneously.
No reason why a toddler should not be accompanied by an adult of a different sex.
On 07/08/2026 10:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 09:43:47 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 06/08/2026 14:35, Jethro wrote:
Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as >>>> parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided >>>> for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space
provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we >>>> need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Because that's a misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court said.
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in
order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
I don't think you are being a little bit dim. You have been misled by
incompetent journalism.
At the risk of oversimplifying the Supreme Court judgment, a reasonable
interpretation is: For the purpose of interpreting the provisions of the >>> Equality Act, references to "female" mean "biological females" rather
than "trans females".
It is fair to say that trans females therefore cannot enforce their
right to use female-only spaces or female-only committee places. It does >>> not mean that henceforth they should be barred from using female-only
spaces or female-only committee places, which is largely in the
discretion of employers and occupiers.
I am not going to comment on all your statements although I do not necessarily
agree with all of them. But on the specific subject of employers' provision of
toilets and changing rooms the workplace regulations *do* require the
provision of single (biological) sex changing rooms and toilets. Although they
do not preclude the provision of additional mixed sex facilities.
Nor, arguably, the provision of facilities that are as described in my quotations, small rooms which can be occupied by males or females but
not both sexes simultaneously.
On 07/08/2026 11:18, Martin Brown wrote:
On 07/08/2026 09:43, The Todal wrote:
On 06/08/2026 14:35, Jethro wrote:
Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as >>>> parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided >>>> for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space
provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we >>>> need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Because that's a misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court said.
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in
order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
I don't think you are being a little bit dim. You have been misled by
incompetent journalism.
At the risk of oversimplifying the Supreme Court judgment, a
reasonable interpretation is: For the purpose of interpreting the
provisions of the Equality Act, references to "female" mean
"biological females" rather than "trans females".
Perhaps I am being a bit dim here, but what happens with regard to
biological males in the XY genetic sense who have been surgically
altered to be indistinguishable from from XX genetic females?
(apart from the obvious fact that they cannot have children)
They form a relatively small subset of trans females but a few are high
profile activists. Although born male their commitment to being female
is absolute in the very strictest sense.
It all hinges on the exact definition of "biological females" - how does
the law actually define it?
It is fair to say that trans females therefore cannot enforce their
right to use female-only spaces or female-only committee places.
And yet it has been established that they can belong to an all female
Cambridge college (and the college members supported that decision).
It is incredibly rare though. I only know of one such example.
My point, really, is that even though a trans woman cannot sue or apply
to a tribunal to enforce her right to use female-only spaces, it does
not follow that she should be barred from female-only spaces. That must
be in the discretion of those who are in charge of those spaces (I take
the point made by Roger of course that the law relating to employers and workplaces is probably stricter).
If women at an Oxbridge college decided to band together and apply for a court order requiring the college to expel trans female undergraduates,
I don't think they would win and I think it would be spiteful and petty
of them.
No doubt very different considerations apply if the trans female people--
were sexual predators or deliberately trying to flaunt whatever male
parts they have to embarrass and scare females in the college.
On 07/08/2026 13:54, The Todal wrote:
Nor, arguably, the provision of facilities that are as described in
my quotations, small rooms which can be occupied by males or females
but not both sexes simultaneously.
No reason why a toddler should not be accompanied by an adult of a
different sex.
On Fri, 07 Aug 2026 11:18:59 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
It all hinges on the exact definition of "biological females" - how does
the law actually define it?
AFAIAA the law follows the science. With the additional clause that possession of a GRC overides that.
Being cynical, the requirement fot a GRC (i.e. testicle removal surgery)
has proved a bit too much for *some* men to be considered women. So the whole house of cards about "how do you *feel*" was erected.
In message <1154o1m$enki$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:53:59 on Fri, 7 Aug
2026, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
On 07/08/2026 13:54, The Todal wrote:
-aNor, arguably, the provision of facilities that are as described in
my-a quotations, small rooms which can be occupied by males or females
but not-a both sexes simultaneously.
No reason why a toddler should not be accompanied by an adult of a
different sex.
If they are a parent/guardian or carer, yes. But not if the objective is
to bugger them in private.
On 7 Aug 2026 at 13:54:52 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 07/08/2026 10:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 09:43:47 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 06/08/2026 14:35, Jethro wrote:
Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as >>>>> parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided >>>>> for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space
provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we >>>>> need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Because that's a misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court said.
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in >>>>> order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
I don't think you are being a little bit dim. You have been misled by
incompetent journalism.
At the risk of oversimplifying the Supreme Court judgment, a reasonable >>>> interpretation is: For the purpose of interpreting the provisions of the >>>> Equality Act, references to "female" mean "biological females" rather
than "trans females".
It is fair to say that trans females therefore cannot enforce their
right to use female-only spaces or female-only committee places. It does >>>> not mean that henceforth they should be barred from using female-only
spaces or female-only committee places, which is largely in the
discretion of employers and occupiers.
I am not going to comment on all your statements although I do not necessarily
agree with all of them. But on the specific subject of employers' provision of
toilets and changing rooms the workplace regulations *do* require the
provision of single (biological) sex changing rooms and toilets. Although they
do not preclude the provision of additional mixed sex facilities.
Nor, arguably, the provision of facilities that are as described in my
quotations, small rooms which can be occupied by males or females but
not both sexes simultaneously.
I suggest you read the relevant workplace regulations.
On 7 Aug 2026 at 13:54:52 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 07/08/2026 10:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 09:43:47 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 06/08/2026 14:35, Jethro wrote:
Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as >>>>> parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided >>>>> for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space
provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we >>>>> need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Because that's a misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court said.
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in >>>>> order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
I don't think you are being a little bit dim. You have been misled by
incompetent journalism.
At the risk of oversimplifying the Supreme Court judgment, a reasonable >>>> interpretation is: For the purpose of interpreting the provisions of the >>>> Equality Act, references to "female" mean "biological females" rather
than "trans females".
It is fair to say that trans females therefore cannot enforce their
right to use female-only spaces or female-only committee places. It does >>>> not mean that henceforth they should be barred from using female-only
spaces or female-only committee places, which is largely in the
discretion of employers and occupiers.
I am not going to comment on all your statements although I do not necessarily
agree with all of them. But on the specific subject of employers' provision of
toilets and changing rooms the workplace regulations *do* require the
provision of single (biological) sex changing rooms and toilets. Although they
do not preclude the provision of additional mixed sex facilities.
Nor, arguably, the provision of facilities that are as described in my
quotations, small rooms which can be occupied by males or females but
not both sexes simultaneously.
I suggest you read the relevant workplace regulations.
On 7 Aug 2026 at 13:54:52 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 07/08/2026 10:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 09:43:47 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 06/08/2026 14:35, Jethro wrote:
Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as >>>>> parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided >>>>> for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space
provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we >>>>> need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Because that's a misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court said.
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in >>>>> order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
I don't think you are being a little bit dim. You have been misled by
incompetent journalism.
At the risk of oversimplifying the Supreme Court judgment, a reasonable >>>> interpretation is: For the purpose of interpreting the provisions of the >>>> Equality Act, references to "female" mean "biological females" rather
than "trans females".
It is fair to say that trans females therefore cannot enforce their
right to use female-only spaces or female-only committee places. It does >>>> not mean that henceforth they should be barred from using female-only
spaces or female-only committee places, which is largely in the
discretion of employers and occupiers.
I am not going to comment on all your statements although I do not necessarily
agree with all of them. But on the specific subject of employers' provision of
toilets and changing rooms the workplace regulations *do* require the
provision of single (biological) sex changing rooms and toilets. Although they
do not preclude the provision of additional mixed sex facilities.
Nor, arguably, the provision of facilities that are as described in my
quotations, small rooms which can be occupied by males or females but
not both sexes simultaneously.
I suggest you read the relevant workplace regulations.
On 06/08/2026 14:35, Jethro wrote:
Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as
parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided
for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space
provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we
need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Because that's a misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court said.
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in
order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
I don't think you are being a little bit dim. You have been misled by incompetent journalism.
At the risk of oversimplifying the Supreme Court judgment, a reasonable interpretation is: For the purpose of interpreting the provisions of the Equality Act, references to "female" mean "biological females" rather
than "trans females".
It is fair to say that trans females therefore cannot enforce their
right to use female-only spaces or female-only committee places. It does
not mean that henceforth they should be barred from using female-only
spaces or female-only committee places, which is largely in the
discretion of employers and occupiers.
Employers have to provide facilities suitable for any worker, including
those with disabilities,
On 07/08/2026 14:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 13:54:52 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 07/08/2026 10:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 09:43:47 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 06/08/2026 14:35, Jethro wrote:
Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as >>>>>> parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided >>>>>> for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space >>>>>> provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we >>>>>> need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Because that's a misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court said.
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in >>>>>> order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
I don't think you are being a little bit dim. You have been misled by >>>>> incompetent journalism.
At the risk of oversimplifying the Supreme Court judgment, a reasonable >>>>> interpretation is: For the purpose of interpreting the provisions of the >>>>> Equality Act, references to "female" mean "biological females" rather >>>>> than "trans females".
It is fair to say that trans females therefore cannot enforce their
right to use female-only spaces or female-only committee places. It does >>>>> not mean that henceforth they should be barred from using female-only >>>>> spaces or female-only committee places, which is largely in the
discretion of employers and occupiers.
I am not going to comment on all your statements although I do not necessarily
agree with all of them. But on the specific subject of employers' provision of
toilets and changing rooms the workplace regulations *do* require the
provision of single (biological) sex changing rooms and toilets. Although they
do not preclude the provision of additional mixed sex facilities.
Nor, arguably, the provision of facilities that are as described in my
quotations, small rooms which can be occupied by males or females but
not both sexes simultaneously.
I suggest you read the relevant workplace regulations.
I suggest you quote them, if you have a point to make.
On 07/08/2026 14:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 13:54:52 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 07/08/2026 10:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 7 Aug 2026 at 09:43:47 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 06/08/2026 14:35, Jethro wrote:
Following the Supreme Courts judgement last year, regarding the law as >>>>>> parliament created and intended meaning that labelling a space provided >>>>>> for the sex "female" - biological females - required that the space >>>>>> provider ensure they are for the use of pesons of that sex, why have we >>>>>> need to wait 16 months for "guidance" ?
Because that's a misrepresentation of what the Supreme Court said.
Am I being a little bit dim here ? If the law says you must do <x> in >>>>>> order to remain within the law, then what more is needed ?
I don't think you are being a little bit dim. You have been misled by >>>>> incompetent journalism.
At the risk of oversimplifying the Supreme Court judgment, a reasonable >>>>> interpretation is: For the purpose of interpreting the provisions of the >>>>> Equality Act, references to "female" mean "biological females" rather >>>>> than "trans females".
It is fair to say that trans females therefore cannot enforce their
right to use female-only spaces or female-only committee places. It does >>>>> not mean that henceforth they should be barred from using female-only >>>>> spaces or female-only committee places, which is largely in the
discretion of employers and occupiers.
I am not going to comment on all your statements although I do not necessarily
agree with all of them. But on the specific subject of employers' provision of
toilets and changing rooms the workplace regulations *do* require the
provision of single (biological) sex changing rooms and toilets. Although they
do not preclude the provision of additional mixed sex facilities.
Nor, arguably, the provision of facilities that are as described in my
quotations, small rooms which can be occupied by males or females but
not both sexes simultaneously.
I suggest you read the relevant workplace regulations.
You could read this. https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/workplace-facilities/health-safety.htm
quote
Employers have to provide facilities suitable for any worker, including
those with disabilities, which includes:
snip
separate facilities for men and women, except where each toilet is in a separate room lockable from the inside.
unquote
I appreciate of course that men habitually leave the seat up. And
habitually aim rather badly and leave urine around the toilet bowl.
However, in law that does not give women the right to exclusive use of toilets in a workplace.
On Sat, 08 Aug 2026 10:10:06 +0100, The Todal wrote:
Employers have to provide facilities suitable for any worker, including
those with disabilities,
NOw I know you are talking nonsense.
You left out the phrase "reasonable adjustments".
I have 30+ years of direct experience with employers obligations under
the law when it comes to adjustments and accessiblity. And they are none.
On 08/08/2026 17:47, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2026 10:10:06 +0100, The Todal wrote:
Employers have to provide facilities suitable for any worker, including
those with disabilities,
NOw I know you are talking nonsense.
You left out the phrase "reasonable adjustments".
I was quoting verbatim from HSE guidelines. I left nothing out. Nor
would your phrase add anything useful to the sense of the wording.
I have 30+ years of direct experience with employers obligations under
the law when it comes to adjustments and accessiblity. And they are none.
Please clarify the meaning of "they are none". Are you saying that
there are no obligations? That might pass for satire but it isn't an
accurate statement of the law.
On 8 Aug 2026 at 19:05:01 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 08/08/2026 17:47, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2026 10:10:06 +0100, The Todal wrote:
Employers have to provide facilities suitable for any worker, including >>>> those with disabilities,
NOw I know you are talking nonsense.
You left out the phrase "reasonable adjustments".
I was quoting verbatim from HSE guidelines. I left nothing out. Nor
would your phrase add anything useful to the sense of the wording.
I have 30+ years of direct experience with employers obligations under
the law when it comes to adjustments and accessiblity. And they are none. >>>
Please clarify the meaning of "they are none". Are you saying that
there are no obligations? That might pass for satire but it isn't an
accurate statement of the law.
There is an obligation to consider whether reasonable adjustments are possible. But having considered they don't actually have to do very much.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 51:19:41 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,016 |