Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[theprestige]

I don't think they said anything about facilities anywhere in the decision.

The Equality Act 2010 describes what is and isn't illegal discrimination under the law.

Section 19A defines discrimination in applying a provision, criterion, or practice.

Section 29 defines discrimination in the provision of services.

 

[d4m10n]

Have any British lawyers (not activist groups) argued that either section should bar Hampstead Heath from having a pond reserved for transgender and cisgender women and another for transgender and cisgender men, given the provision of a third fully mixed pond?

 

[theprestige]

Have any British lawyers (not activist groups) argued that either section should bar Hampstead Heath from having a pond reserved for transgender and cisgender women and another for transgender and cisgender men, given the provision of a third fully mixed pond?

Why does that now matter to you? And why aren't you satisfied with the legal experts on the SC?

ETA: Alternatively, how would you interpret the EA, in conjunction with the SC ruling about EA language, in such a way that it would be non-discriminatory to offer a mixed-sex facility or service as single gender, using the terms "men only" or "women only"?

 

[d4m10n]

And why aren't you satisfied with the legal experts on the SC?

Because they were addressing a very specific issue (application of a 2018 Scottish law written in conformity with the EA 2010) and went so far as to explicitly disclaim any attempt to "define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010." If you want to make the argument that the EA henceforth requires every mixed-sex service to avoid sorting based on gender identity, then please do make the argument.

Alternatively, how would you interpret the EA, in conjunction with the SC ruling about EA language, in such a way that it would be non-discriminatory to offer a mixed-sex facility or service as single gender, using the terms "men only" or "women only"?

If the people who manage the ponds have to change the signage, they will just change the signage; the outcome isn't going to turn on something so malleable as that.

The core question here is whether the new interpretation of the EA 2010 has suddenly made it legally impermissible—throughout all of Great Britain—to offer services based on a mix of two distinct protected characteristics such as sex at birth and gender reassignment at present. Several posters here have affirmed that this is going to be true going forward, but they've yet to point to the legal reasoning which gets them where they want to go.

 

[theprestige]

The core question here is whether the new interpretation of the EA 2010 has suddenly made it legally impermissible—throughout all of Great Britain—to offer services based on a mix of two distinct protected characteristics such as sex at birth and gender reassignment at present. Several posters here have affirmed that this is going to be true going forward, but they've yet to point to the legal reasoning which gets them where they want to go.

I think you misunderstand the core question.

It's not whether you can offer such a service. It's whether you can advertise such a service as being single-sex, using a gendered interpretation of "man" or "woman". And the EA+SC language pretty clearly indicates that you cannot.

As to whether you can offer and advertise a service as being open only to females and trans-identifying males, I don't know. As far as I can tell, neither the SC nor the EA have a clear opinion on that. But that's not what we're talking about here.

 

[smartcooky]

Well, this is encouraging...

It seems all those people who claim the objections to transgender ideology will evaporate as young people take it up and all us old fogies die off, have severely misjudged the younger demographic quite spectacularly.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1978085518253441198

The passing fad is plummeting in popularity.

A have to say that most the the Gen X and Gen 𝛼 kids I interact with (work colleagues, friends of my grandkids etc) consider it all just a bit ridiculous.

 

[Brainster]

Tangentially related, polls of college-aged kids reveal that we've passed peak trans:

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which conducts a large annual survey of US undergraduates, polled over 60,000 students in 2025. My analysis of the raw data shows that in that year, just 3.6% of respondents identified as a gender other than male or female. By comparison, the figure was 5.2% in 2024 and 6.8% in both 2022 and 2023. In other words, the share of trans-identified students has effectively halved in just two years.

I suspect that those percentages are and were inflated by those claiming to be "non-binary," but regardless, it appears that the trendline is down.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Just to add a little more to that last post. The Scottish Ministers previously agreed that “woman” in section 2 of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 must "bear the same meaning as the term “woman” in section 11 and section 212 of the EA 2010" and thus the Supreme Court need only interpret the EA 2010 in order to resolve the key issue under dispute, which was "whether the appointment of a trans woman who has a GRC counts as the appointment of a woman and so counts towards achieving the goal set in the gender representation objective" in the 2018 Act.

Does any of this tell us whether service providers are allowed to mix gender identity and birth sex together when designating users of mixed-sex spaces? Not so far as I can tell, but activists seem quite hopeful.

Are you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ with us?

 

[d4m10n]

It's whether you can advertise such a service as being single-sex, using a gendered interpretation of "man" or "woman". And the EA+SC language pretty clearly indicates that you cannot.

Do you sincerely believe that the sort of folks who earnestly believe in trans-inclusion (e.g. folks who came up with multiple choices for the Hampstead Heath Pools) are going to stand on the principle that they have to keep using the previous gendered language even if that means they cannot continue to be substantively inclusive?

As to whether you can offer and advertise a service as being open only to females and trans-identifying males, I don't know. As far as I can tell, neither the SC nor the EA have a clear opinion on that.

Agreed on all points.

But that's not what we're talking about here.

That's what I'm talking about, though, because I don't believe trans-inclusivist activists and "captured" civil servants are more motivated by naming conventions than they are by substantive inclusion in practice. I think they'd be quite content to tack "& transwomen welcome " in smaller print beneath "women" and call it good.

 

[smartcooky]

Are you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ with us?

His feigning a lack of understanding is all part of the contrarianism game he's playing

Its fairly obvious to anyone with even a passing understanding of the EA and the SC ruling that the gotcha he is proposing won't fly. As I said earlier, if it did, then one or more of the many ideologically captured solicitors in the UK would have done this by now. Why haven't they? Because unlike @d4m10n they read and understand the law.

 

[theprestige]

Do you sincerely believe that the sort of folks who earnestly believe in trans-inclusion (e.g. folks who came up with multiple choices for the Hampstead Heath Pools) are going to stand on the principle that they have to keep using the previous gendered language even if that means they cannot continue to be substantively inclusive?

I believe that post the EA+SC ruling, they will have to either enforce women's services as single-sex only, or else use some other terminology to indicate that it is mixed-sex with certain other criteria.

Agreed on all points.

That's what I'm talking about, though, because I don't believe trans-inclusivist activists and "captured" civil servants are more motivated by naming conventions than they are by substantive inclusion in practice.

As long as they don't advertise a mixed-sex space as for women only, or men only, they should not run afoul of the EA+SC.

 

[d4m10n]

Are you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ with us?

Nope; and despite searching I've yet to find a legal analysis on point.

As I said earlier, if it did, then one or more of the many ideologically captured solicitors in the UK would have done this by now.

Such as the solicitors advising City of London Corporation?

 

[Emily's Cat]

His feigning a lack of understanding is all part of the contrarianism game he's playing

Its fairly obvious to anyone with even a passing understanding of the EA and the SC ruling that the gotcha he is proposing won't fly. As I said earlier, if it did, then one or more of the many ideologically captured solicitors in the UK would have done this by now. Why haven't they? Because unlike @d4m10n they read and understand the law.

If the "woman means anyone who says they feel like a woman" interpretation were acceptable, there wouldn't have been an SC ruling in the first place. That's the interpretation of "woman" that was in place - and causing so many problems - before the SC ruling!

 

[Rolfe]

I believe that post the EA+SC ruling, they will have to either enforce women's services as single-sex only, or else use some other terminology to indicate that it is mixed-sex with certain other criteria.


As long as they don't advertise a mixed-sex space as for women only, or men only, they should not run afoul of the EA+SC.

Hmmm. I await the acceptable wording with bated breath. This is a single space we're talking about. I don't see it. If you allow non-trans females in, then you have no justification for excluding non-trans males. If you allow any males in, you have no justification for excluding any other males.

If "all females and a subset of males" was legally permissible, all the captured organisations in the land would be labelling their toilets and changing rooms with the magic formula. Strangely, they're not. I have however seen some absolutely batcrap crazy takes on this from actual lawyers, takes that should give anyone pause as to their competence and fitness to practice. Perhaps some of these jokers are advising as regards the swimming ponds.

 

[d4m10n]

If the "woman means anyone who says they feel like a woman" interpretation were acceptable, there wouldn't have been an SC ruling in the first place.

Which solicitors have concluded that the new ruling requires all currently trans-inclusive services (spas, ponds, gyms) in the UK to rewrite their policies and convert themselves to single-sex services? I'm very keen to read how we get from the new ruling to the 100% TERF ISLAND scenario.

 

[smartcooky]

Which solicitors have concluded that the new ruling requires all currently trans-inclusive services (spas, ponds, gyms) in the UK to rewrite their policies and convert themselves to single-sex services?

Seriously @d4m10n this contrarian theatre you're indulging in is wearing very bloody thin.
You are looking for something hard and fast written down in black letter law that you are never going to find. Laws cannot possibly particularise every single conceivable variation of circumstances... that's why we have judges... to interpret the laws.

 

[Pixel42]

Yeah, I guess that's true, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to work on that. Just for your own sake.

That sort of mindless intransigence is so frustrating. I don't hate men with gender dysphoria, I have every sympathy for them. I deeply resent being labelled a hater when I am strongly opposed to discrimination against them, and in favour of every reasonable accommodation being made for their safety and comfort. I just don't consider accommodations which come at the expense of the safety and comfort of women to be reasonable.

 

[smartcooky]

That sort of mindless intransigence is so frustrating. I don't hate men with gender dysphoria, I have every sympathy for them. I deeply resent being labelled a hater when I am strongly opposed to discrimination against them, and in favour of every reasonable accommodation being made for their safety and comfort. I just don't consider accommodations which come at the expense of the safety and comfort of women to be reasonable.

Always keep in mind that gender ideology rests entirely on just two core beliefs.

The first is that someone's sex is determined entirely by the thoughts in their head rather than by their biology.

The second is that those who do not share the first belief can reasonably be expected to sacrifice their sex-segregated spaces and sports leagues in order to accommodate those that do.

You only have to agree with the second belief to not have a problem with gender ideology. If, after due consideration, you decide that you cannot agree with the second, then you DO have a problem with gender ideology, and you can expect to be demonised and vilified, and in many cases fired from your job or receive threats of death and rape directed at you and your family should you ever express that disagreement openly.

The problem is that TRAs see everything in relation to trans issues in simple black & white terms - "all-in" or "all-out". If you are opposed to transgender identified males being allowed in women's sports or women's spaces, or if you don't immediately cowtow and agree to every demand TRAs make, or even if you dare to use the term "transgender identified male" instead of "transwoman" you are automatically branded a tranny-bashing, transphobic ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bigot who should be put to death for having that opinion.

Its summed up nicely in this cartoon...

 

[Aber]

Which solicitors have concluded that the new ruling requires all currently trans-inclusive services (spas, ponds, gyms) in the UK to rewrite their policies and convert themselves to single-sex services? I'm very keen to read how we get from the new ruling to the 100% TERF ISLAND scenario.

These
https://www.shma.co.uk/our-thoughts/supreme-court-ruling-on-definition-of-a-woman/

It is not compulsory for services that are open to the public to be provided on a single-sex basis or to have single-sex facilities such as toilets. These can be single-sex if that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (and other conditions in the EqA are met). However, it could be indirect sex discrimination if the only provision is mixed sex.

In workplaces and services that are open to the public, where separate single-sex facilities are lawfully provided:​

• Transgender women should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and transgender men should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single sex facilities and are open to all users of the opposite sex.

ie If they don't provide single sex services, there is a significant risk of a claim of indirect discrimination (as given the disparity of risks in mixed sex spaces, they are discriminating against females)

And These
https://www.dentons.com/en/insights...ourt-ruling-on-woman-in-the-equality-act-2010

There are many scenarios where single-sex spaces will still be appropriate, ranging from toilets/changing facilities to crisis support for women. Importantly though,
it no longer seems permissible to draw the dividing line by anything other than biological sex– so the old approach of allowing individuals to change facility to accord with their trans identity does not seem coherent (as that would create a blurred divide and no legal basis for excluding all men from female facilities, for example).

Or if you want to get really technical see pages 17-31 of this on single sex services
https://oldsquare.co.uk/wp-content/...-SC-decision-does-not-breach-trans-rights.pdf

despite searching I've yet to find a legal analysis on point.

 

[smartcooky]

These
https://www.shma.co.uk/our-thoughts/supreme-court-ruling-on-definition-of-a-woman/


ie If they don't provide single sex services, there is a significant risk of a claim of indirect discrimination (as given the disparity of risks in mixed sex spaces, they are discriminating against females)

And These
https://www.dentons.com/en/insights...ourt-ruling-on-woman-in-the-equality-act-2010


Or if you want to get really technical see pages 17-31 of this on single sex services
https://oldsquare.co.uk/wp-content/...-SC-decision-does-not-breach-trans-rights.pdf

"Transgender women should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and transgender men should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single sex facilities and are open to all users of the opposite sex."​

So it is abundantly clear that you can't offer women's single sex spaces then allow their use by transgender identified males without including ALL males because then you'd have a mixed sex space that you are advertising as a single sex space... strictly not allowed.

There are many scenarios where single-sex spaces will still be appropriate, ranging from toilets/changing facilities to crisis support for women. Importantly though, it no longer seems permissible to draw the dividing line by anything other than biological sex–​

so the old approach of allowing individuals to change facility to accord with their trans identity does not seem coherent (as that would create a blurred divide and no legal basis for excluding all men from female facilities, for example). ​

This also makes the law clear and obvious in both its application and its intent, because...

"The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex."​

... there is NO WIGGLE ROOM FOR GOTCHAS. When anyone, any organization, club, business, council or any other body, makes any decision, proposal, rule or arrangement, for the provision of any kind of sex-segregated spaces, the EA 2010 immediately applies...

You may have single sex spaces for which the criteria MUST be based in biological sex.
You may have mixed sex spaces.
If you provide single sex spaces for women, only biological females can use them.
If you provide single sex spaces for men, only biological males can use them.
If you provide mixed sex spaces, anyone can use them.

This is the upshot of the SC ruling. Its what we have been telling @d4m10n for the last several pages with no success while he insists on playing his contrarian games.