• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

smartcooky said:
These organizations and companies who bought into the Stonewall bollocks really are going to have to be dragged kicking an screaming every step of the way to compliance. @Rolfe mentioned earlier that organizations like FWS and Sex Matters are loaded for bear to take on these cases. They are going to need to be if this is the tactic these recalcitrant arsehats are going to resort to.
Click to expand...

Joanne Rowling has set up a legal aid fund that women can apply to for funding for bona fide cases where they want to sue a provider or take an employer to an employment tribunal. When it was first announced the usual crew of aggressive trans activists gleefully announced that they were going to paralyse the system with a flood of spurious claims. Some even posted screenshots of what they were doing. Rowling just laughed and said, do you think we didn't anticipate you'd do that? Do you think I haven't taken competent advice about how to run this? They soon gave up.
 
Aber said:
https://hampstead-heath-bathing-ponds.commonplace.is/en-GB/proposals/v3/consultation?step=step2

The last one is interesting - the Council is against making the ponds mixed sex, while most of the options would be? :rolleyes:

I'm guessing that the 4th option is their preferred compromise.
Click to expand...

It's the usual story. Trans-identifying men simply start using women's facilities and the provider doesn't have the guts to stop them. Women who are upset are reluctant to complain for fear of being called transphobic, and intimidated into silence if they do. Male access to women's spaces becomes the de facto norm without any consultation, risk assessment or even a public announcement.

Then finally when the objections build up a sufficient head of steam that they can't be ignored (and of course the FWS SC judgment has been a catalyst here) it's all so terribly complicated and we have to take so many points of view into account and we need to have a massive consultation which could take years and in the mean time trans-identifying men can go on doing anything they like.

Actually, looking at this again, most of the options are actually illegal. They can make all the ponds mixed. They can operate strict sex segregation. They can make them mixed at some times and operate strict sex segretation at other times. But that's it. There's nothing in law that allows them to admit some men but not others to a pond labelled "women", at any time, and nothing in law that allows them to admit some women but not others to a pond labelled "men", at any time. Someone really needs to challenge these illegal options.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
There's nothing in law that allows them to admit some men but not others to a pond labelled "women", at any time, and nothing in law that allows them to admit some women but not others to a pond labelled "men", at any time.
Click to expand...
Is there some applicable UK law which bars this approach, should service users happen to prefer it?
 
d4m10n said:
Is there some applicable UK law which bars this approach, should service users happen to prefer it?
Click to expand...
For a start, the April 16, 2025 Supreme Court ruling....

"the terms 'sex' and 'woman' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex and biological women, respectively"​

....which brought clarity to the legal definition of sex. This affected areas such as workplaces, schools, and public spaces, including single-sex facilities.
 
d4m10n said:
Is there some applicable UK law which bars this approach, should service users happen to prefer it?
Click to expand...

Yes. If you open a facility to some men but not others, you are unlawfully discriminating against the men you are excluding. This does not seem to have penetrated the thick skulls of those who are desperately trying to get round the SC ruling, despite the fact that it has comprehensively checkmated them.

You can have completely mixed provision, but if you do that in certain circumstances you are probably opening yourself to a claim of indirect sex discrimination from women, because it is recognised that in certain circumstances lack of sex segregation disadvantages women more than it disadvantages men. Attempts to make all toilets in a large venue unisex will probably fall at this hurdle. The legislation is fairly clear that provision of unisex facilities is intended to cover very small venues where there is only room for one toilet.

You can have strict sex segregation, so long as this can be shown to be a legitimate means of achieving a proportionate aim. Toilets, changing rooms and sleeping accommodation would certainly be covered by this. I can't imagine that swimming pools wouldn't, particularly in the situation under discussion where there are three pools that have operated as men's, women's and mixed for a very long time, thus there is somewhere for everyone.

What you cannot do is say, this facilitiy is for one (or the other) sex, but we will let certain members of the opposite sex use it, but not others. The SC was absolutely clear about this.
 
smartcooky said:
This affected areas such as workplaces, schools, and public spaces, including single-sex facilities.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of the ruling, but it's not obvious why the facility owners couldn't just put up a sign saying "This pool is for females and for transgender people" without running afoul of the EA2010. While I agree that "lack of sex segregation disadvantages women more than it disadvantages men" I don't see any British case law standing for that proposition.
 
d4m10n said:
I'm aware of the ruling, but it's not obvious why the facility owners couldn't just put up a sign saying "This pool is for females and for transgender people"
Click to expand...

Clearly, that would be functionally equivalent to "open to anyone", since transgenderism is an unverifiable quality purely defined by just saying you are, which is clearly not workable.
 
d4m10n said:
I'm aware of the ruling, but it's not obvious why the facility owners couldn't just put up a sign saying "This pool is for females and for transgender people" without running afoul of the EA2010. While I agree that "lack of sex segregation disadvantages women more than it disadvantages men" I don't see any British case law standing for that proposition.
Click to expand...
That would be illegal under the EA as determined by the SC Ruling.
If what you suggest here was legal, then what would prevent ANY organisation from putting up a sign saying "These facilities are for females and for transgender people" on any toilet, bathroom, changing room, hospital ward, rape crisis centre etc? What would prevent a sporting body from announcing "This competition is for females and for transgender people"?
 
Last edited:
The women's organisations who would take them to court over it. It is absolutely explicit in the SC ruling that that is not lawful.
 
Rolfe said:
It is absolutely explicit in the SC ruling that that is not lawful.
Click to expand...
Where does it say in the ruling (or the EA) that individual communities cannot choose to provide mixed-sex provisions based on cisgender/transgender status? I don't recall seeing that anywhere.
 
They can choose "open to anyone" legally, so long as this doesn't put any group with a protected characteristic at a disadvantage.

What they cannot do legally is declare "some men may use this facility but not others". Because that definitely puts the men who are excluded at a disadvantage.
 
Rolfe said:
What they cannot do legally is declare "some men may use this facility but not others". Because that definitely puts the men who are excluded at a disadvantage.
Click to expand...
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that completely separate ponds based on birth sex doesn't put "men who are excluded at a disadvantage" if marginally less sex-segregated ponds does so. Have any British jurists weighed in on this in law review articles?
 
I don't see what is so difficult about this. If all men are excluded, then all men are treated equally, therefore no men are disadvantaged.

If some men are allowed in and others are excluded, the men who are excluded are put at a disadvantage compared to the men who are allowed in.
 
Rolfe said:
I don't see what is so difficult about this.
Click to expand...
Mostly it's that you haven't pointed to a specific portion of the ruling or the law. Until this happens, I'm going to assume this is mostly wishcasting a preferred outcome on to the situation.
Rolfe said:
If some men are allowed in and others are excluded, the men who are excluded are put at a disadvantage compared to the men who are allowed in.
Click to expand...
Feminists generally don't mind comparing the sexes to each other in terms of relative advantages, so it's weird that you've scrupulously avoided doing so here. In the scenario where "all men are excluded" from the women's pond, they are at a disadvantage relative to the users who have access to that pond.
 
Last edited:
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Sex segregation is permitted under the EA if it is done as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate objective. Having single-sex swimming pools is recognised as a legitimate objective, therefore excluding men from the women's pool (and vice versa) is permitted discrimination.

That is what the EA is about. About the circumstances where it is permissible to discriminate. You can discriminate against all men in order to provide a female-only pool. That is allowed. However you cannot then decide to admit some men and not others, because you are then discriminating against the men you aren't allowing in. That is not allowed.

I'm not explaining my preferences to you, I am explaining the law. Single-sex provisions are allowed. But as soon as one person of the other sex is allowed in the provision is no longer single-sex and it is discriminatory to keep any other people of the other sex out.

Here is the judgment in full. Read it for yourself.

www.supremecourt.uk

For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) - UK Supreme Court

www.supremecourt.uk www.supremecourt.uk
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Mostly it's that you haven't pointed to a specific portion of the ruling or the law. Until this happens, I'm going to assume this is mostly wishcasting a preferred outcome on to the situation.

Feminists generally don't mind comparing the sexes to each other in terms of relative advantages, so it's weird that you've scrupulously avoided doing so here. In the scenario where "all men are excluded" from the women's pond, they are at a disadvantage relative to the users who have access to that pond.
Click to expand...
Are you messing with us?

If there are facilities where being separated on the basis of sex is reasonable and appropriate, then they can be separated on the basis of sex - but in doing so, they must adhere to sex as a biological reality. They cannot make exceptions for some people of the opposite sex.

In this situation, there are two ponds: One is a pond for males and the other is a pond for females. They've historically been separated by sex. Over the past several years, the management has made exceptions, and have allowed some males to use the female pond, provided those males said they had a special gender essence in their minds.

The recent SC ruling made it clear that they cannot make exceptions of that sort.

When it comes to toilets, changing rooms, showers, etc. it's pretty clear. If it's a single use facility that doesn't have any shared spaces, it can be designated unisex, no problem. So if a small restaurant only has two completely enclosed restrooms, they can both be designated unisex. But they can't make one of them for males and the other one "gender neutral" or anything like that - if one is set aside for one sex, there must be a facility for the other sex, and they have to enforce that sex designation.

In this particular case I end up on the fence. They're swimming ponds that have historically been separated by sex, so there's tradition there. On the other hand, most ponds, pools, lakes, etc. aren't separated by sex. As I understand it, neither of these ponds allows nudity. So I think there's a plausible argument to be made that both ponds should be available to both sexes.
 
Emily's Cat said:
The recent SC ruling made it clear that they cannot make exceptions of that sort.
Click to expand...
I am skeptical of this claim.
Emily's Cat said:
Are you messing with us?
Click to expand...
Not at the moment. The ruling makes it clear that "provisions...directed at maintaining the availability of separate or single spaces or services for women (or men) as a group – for example changing rooms, homeless hostels, segregated swimming areas" are legally acceptable under the EA 2010. That does not logically or legally imply that it is illegal for municipalities to offer swimming areas based on other criteria, such as self-i.d.
Emily's Cat said:
The recent SC ruling made it clear that they cannot make exceptions of that sort.
Click to expand...
Where?
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
In this particular case I end up on the fence. They're swimming ponds that have historically been separated by sex, so there's tradition there. On the other hand, most ponds, pools, lakes, etc. aren't separated by sex. As I understand it, neither of these ponds allows nudity. So I think there's a plausible argument to be made that both ponds should be available to both sexes.
Click to expand...

There is also a mixed pond. Having one pond for females, one for males and one for anyone who wants to be there gives a place for everyone. Making all three ponds mixed excludes everyone who doesn't want to swim with people of the opposite sex. This includes people of certain religious groups.

You're wrong about nudity not being permitted. I understand it's common for women to go topless, at least to sunbathe topless, in the women's pond, and the showers and changing facilities are communal and involve full nudity.
 
d4m10n said:
No, it did not.

Not at all. The ruling makes it clear that "provisions...directed at maintaining the availability of separate or single spaces or services for women (or men) as a group – for example changing rooms, homeless hostels, segregated swimming areas" are legally acceptable under the EA 2010. That does not logically or legally imply that it is illegal for municipalities to offer swimming areas based on other criteria, such as self-i.d.
Click to expand...
IIRC, it actually does make it illegal to allow that criteria to be on the basis of gender identity in opposition to sex. I'm sure Rolfe or Elaedith will be able to provide the actual language that goes into this - we've discussed it before.
 
d4m10n said:
No, it did not.

Not at all. The ruling makes it clear that "provisions...directed at maintaining the availability of separate or single spaces or services for women (or men) as a group – for example changing rooms, homeless hostels, segregated swimming areas" are legally acceptable under the EA 2010. That does not logically or legally imply that it is illegal for municipalities to offer swimming areas based on other criteria, such as self-i.d.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. I went through the entire thing and posted the relevant passages earlier in the thread. It is absolutely a breach of the EA to discriminate against one group of men (or women) in favour of another group of men (or women). We worked through all this in minute detail last April. Go back and read it if you don't remember.

There is a very specific way this works in that you can add protected characteristics, but you can't mix them. So you can have a group for women only. You can then specify that this is for young (or old) women only. You can then add that it is only for women of a particular religion. And so on. But you cannot mix the categories. You can't add in some old men at the point where you specify that the group is for old women, for example.

As far as gender reassignment goes, you can have a group which is only for people who have undergone gender reassignment. You can then say it is only for female people (or male people) who have undergone gender reassignment. But you can't have a group that is for female people and male people who have undergone gender reassignment, because that is mixing the groups. Honestly, go back six months and read it.

d4m10n said:
I remain skeptical of this claim, but I'm happy to read whichever part of the decision backs it up.
Click to expand...

You can be as sceptical as you like, but it's the reality. Read the bloody judgment. I read it several times, I extracted the relevant passages, and I'm not doing it again just because some people in this thread have short attention spans.
 
Last edited:
I'll try again. You can say, female people only. But as regards gender reassignment, the only modification you can make is to say that the group is for female people who have undergone gender reassignment (so, a group for "transmen"). You can't add male people at that point, because you already excluded them with your first criterion.

You can say, people who have undergone gender reassignment. But then, the only modification you can make is to restrict it to one or the other sex that has undergone gender reassignment. You can't add in people who haven't undergone gender reassignment, because you already excluded them with your first criterion.

You can have a group for elderly Jewish women. Because age and sex and religion are all PCs. But you can't at a later stage go back and admit people who were excluded by one criterion just because they fulful another criterion.

There is literally no legal way under the EA to have a group that is "women and some men, but not other men". It has to be either women-only or everyone.

The EHRC guidance is easier to search, but I assure you it merely reflects what's in the judgment.


1759795850147.png
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Honestly, links or it didn't happen.

Just tell me what pages to (re)read.
Click to expand...

Read it. Or go back to April and read the discussion from then. Or go to bed like sensible people should be doing anyway.

I relented and dug out the bit from the EHRC guidance. Can it be any clearer?

1759795966563.png
 
I was thinking about associations. You can say this hillwalking group is for women only. You can then say it is for lesbian women only. But you can't at that point add in some men, because you'd have to add all men back in. So you could have a hillwalking group for lesbian women and gay men only, because everyone in the group has the same protected characteristic, same-sex attraction. But you couldn't have one for lesbian women and men who have undergone gender reassignment. EVERYBODY IN THE GROUP MUST HAVE ALL OF THE PROTECTED CHARACTERISTICS IN QUESTION.

In the case of these ponds, they're trying to mix the groups, that is have groups where some people don't have both/all the protected characteristics, and that is not lawful. The trans-identifying men do not have the PC of being female and the women do not have the PC of gender reassignment. That's not lawful.
 
d4m10n said:
Where does it say in the ruling (or the EA) that individual communities cannot choose to provide mixed-sex provisions based on cisgender/transgender status? I don't recall seeing that anywhere.
Click to expand...
I know you're trying to play the role of contrarian devil's advocate here, but how many times do you need telling that the April 16, 2025 Supreme Court ruling EXPLICITLY rules that out. It's the law.
 
Rolfe said:
Can it be any clearer?
Click to expand...
I was asking what happens when a municipality decides to provide something other than single sex services, e.g. mixed-sex based on gender i.d.

Your excerpt is not responsive to my question.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
As many times as it takes to quote something on point.
Click to expand...
What part of "trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex" eludes you?
 
Once again, I didn't ask about single-sex facilities.

I asked whether municipalities are allowed to have mixed-sex facilities based on other criteria.

ETA: Poor form putting non-quotes in quotes; seems like you are misrepresenting an unnamed source.
 
Please let me reframe the question once again, bearing in mind that it is not devil's advocacy but ordinary legal practice to address edge cases which might come up: Suppose a hypothetical British city wants to offer one pond for "anyone male at birth and also females with GRC" and another pond for "anyone female at birth and also males with GRC" open to anyone who meets those explicitly mixed-sex criteria.

Which part of the SC decision or the EA tells us whether this scenario would be allowed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom