Major City businesses are still allowing male trans staff to use women’s toilets if they identify as female despite a Supreme Court ruling that sex is biological. The Telegraph has the story.
An investigation by Sex Matters found that companies including the Co-operative Bank, Coventry Building Society, NatWest and insurer Admiral still allowed workers to use bathrooms based on their self-identified gender, rather than biological sex.
That’s despite a landmark Supreme Court ruling last year that “man” and “woman” refer to biological sex under the UK’s main anti-discrimination law, the Equality Act 2010. This means that employers are obliged to ensure single-sex spaces are used exclusively by people of the corresponding biological sex.
However, Sex Matters, a gender-critical charity, found that City institutions had failed to update their policies on single-sex spaces since the ruling a year ago.
None of the 15 banks, insurers, consultancies or building societies approached by Sex Matters confirmed that access to single-sex facilities was restricted to people of one biological gender.
A majority said they were waiting for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to publish its revised code of practice before making changes to their policies. Others said the ruling was not directly relevant to employers.
However, James Townsend, the Head of Employment Law at Payne Hicks Beach, said there was nothing stopping employers from taking action sooner.
“The Supreme Court clarified over a year ago that ‘sex’ for equality law purposes means biological sex – employers may rely on this ruling to provide single-sex facilities for women in the workplace,” he said. …
Bridget Phillipson, the Secretary of State for Education and the Women’s Minister, delayed new guidance last month from the EHRC on the creation of women-only spaces, claiming it could impact local elections.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the EHRC’s former chairman, said the delay “betrayed” working women’s right to single-sex spaces and accused Ms Phillipson of putting her “personal ambition” before her duty as Women and Equalities Minister.
In February, Phillipson also said that the anticipated EHRC guidance “doesn’t apply to workplace regulations”, which could mean that companies continue to allow biological men to use female toilets.
An Admiral spokesman said: “While we await the release of the updated EHRC code of practice, our policies and procedures will remain the same and we maintain our approach to colleagues having a respectful workplace.”
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I’m guessing that Phillipson has delayed the new guidance because she knows how nasty the trans mob can be. I don’t blame her for not wanting to receive death threats or have her constituency office fire bombed.
She may well be hoping Starmer is booted out, she manages to be an early backer of the winner in the leadership contest and gets a promotion in the new cabinet so it’ll be someone else’s problem.
If they weren’t Liebour scum I’d feel sorry for the next minister for women/equalities who has to deal with this.
‘If they weren’t Liebour scum I’d feel sorry for the next minister for women/equalities who has to deal with this’ – my thoughts are that decent people would not be party to the rancid Labour administration and policies. Those who participate should be ashamed of themselves and their involvement.
The real men should mark a specific gents toilet not for their use and allow the actual women exclusive use of said facility, an informal arrangement…
All the fake women should be happy to use the ladies and logically should self excluded from the gents.
If they then decide to use the gents the ladies are using then it’s clear all they’re after is to get a sniff.
Yes, I know this is ridiculous.
Looking forward to hearing about all the cases of men finding a woman in their toilets who is pretending she is a man….
Hopefully a female worker will sue, for being exposed to by a male in the supposed security of a female bathroom.
I wonder how the execs would like it if their little girls were exposed to an adult males todger whilst trying to just go to the toilet.
Obviously the male execs in these businesses hate their own wives and daughters.
Nothing should surprise us about this government anymore. She thinks women can have penises – so is down with men invading women’s spaces and endangering them – she’s pro mass immigration – but will no doubt ignore the rise in sex offences as a result – and is a known paedo apologist. Therefore, of course she’s a perfect fit 🤯;
“I’m delighted to appoint Harriet Harman as my Adviser on Women and Girls.
Harriet is a strong advocate for women and girls and I know she will deliver greater opportunity for women in public life.
I’m committed to tackling structural misogyny that is a barrier for too many women and girls. I look forward to working with Harriet to drive forward action on this important issue.” Kier Starmer
https://x.com/i/status/2053042974548775188
“..women are women who are born women, but women are also women who are transwomen.”
https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/07/03/harriet-harman-ehrc-labour-trans/
And Battie Hattie has history as being part of the Paedofile Information Exchange that believed it would be OK to have sex with children from aged 5 upwards.
The Downing Street contemptible, odious great pretender is really cocking a snook towards women now with that appointment.
We can only conclude the Directors do not agree with the Court ruling. We must assume they are LGBTetc activists.
I wonder what their shareholders think of that. I shall contact the companies in my pension scheme and ask them.
“This means that employers are obliged to ensure single-sex spaces are used exclusively by people of the corresponding biological sex.”
I very much doubt it means anything of the sort. What the ruling meant was that employers, should they wish, COULD insist on single-sex spaces, not that they MUST.
I don’t see the ruling allows the flexibility you suggest. I envisage litigation in due course
If a woman were to be attacked by a male in a space that should have been secure the damages from the employer could be very large indeed.
You may well be right about damages but that is a choice that the firm can make based on the risk. It does not mean they are obliged to provide single sex spaces.
I can only assume you are a male, in which case you have zero understanding of what its like to be a female and from an early age to have a basic instinctive fear of being in any space which is enclosed, isolated and in which a lone male or males enter, the instinct and it is a very base instinct is that you the female are in possible position of danger.
No male can understand this, but every female does understand it and that is why there is a cruelty and frankly a misogyny surrounding the invasion of a females space by Men even if they are in a frock
I am indeed male
Where did I say that I disagree with single sex spaces?
I merely point out that I believe the words in the article do not accurately represent the legal ruling
You are correct, I apologise
No need to but thanks anyway
Have a good day
If I were ever in charge of anywhere I’d certainly be installing and enforcing single sex toilets. However I don’t like the state interfering in people’s lives more than is absolutely necessary. I tend to think if we hadn’t gone down the road of this “equality” legislation then by and large single sex toilets would never have been challenged.
“Obliged” means being legally or morally bound to do something (compelled/required) or feeling grateful and indebted to someone. It is often used formally to express gratitude (“much obliged”) or to politely request action (“I’d be obliged if you would…”).
Key Meanings & Usage
So I think OP is confusing the informal usage of “obliged” with the legal meaning which is undoubtedly what is meant by its use in the legislation.
My understanding is that the ruling dealt with the question of whether it would be breaching the Equality Act to enforce single sex spaces. They concluded it would not. But that doesn’t mean they must, just that they can if they want. It’s possible that the Act could be construed to mean that they must, but that’s not my understanding of the scope of the judgement referred to. I’m not a lawyer, though Claude agrees with me.
This sentence does not say employers MUST provide single sex spaces, rather if they do they MUST ensure they are only used by one sex. You are correct an employer can have unisex toilets, however if they have female toilets than they MUST exclude men including trans women ie men.
This sentence does not say employers MUST provide single sex spaces, rather if they do they MUST ensure they are only used by one sex. You are correct an employer can have unisex toilets, however if they have female toilets then they MUST exclude men including trans women ie men.