Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

I know, I linked to it.

How that can actually be compatible with equality law or even human rights is a mystery.

Nora or Tom over there says you look a bit masculine or feminine you can't use any toilet.

Or Trans or non binary biological women who always used women's toilets no longer can use any toilet or vice versa.

That is exactly what could happen under the guidance.

If someone objects to a biological woman using a female only space, that biological women is precluded by law to use the male only space.

So where do they use?

It does say.

She said there "should never be a situation where a trans person is left without a toilet to use".

That is fantastic opinion, but not practical in the real world in many circumstances.

I thought you'd read the whole judgment?

You thought wrong.

I know, it's why I said the below.

That is fantastic opinion, but not practical in the real world in many circumstances.

If there is no option of a "3rd toilet".

What are they going to do, get the builders in to knock one up in no time while the person waits?

the ehrc has laid out the interim guidance, plodder linked to it, but it was at the bottom of the article so maybe missed it.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment

it lays out all these cases of who can use what and when

didnt link before

The women were civil servants who were handed the top cusy jobs all for themselves (quotas!) ,were annoyed that this included transwoman.

Do you have evidence for this claim please? What "top cushy jobs" were they in?

Of the four original founders (4WomenScotland was a play on words) one is still a highland farmer, (are many highland farmers employed by the Scottish government? That would be a cushy number if so!) another, since deceased, was a sound engineer, and the other two are a former financial adviser and an NHS employee. And she is a single mother, who got into this via her participation on Mumsnet, not because she was some high flying commission executive nor had any aspirations to become one.

So I think you're just chancing your arm there.

@Boggles admits to not having read the judgment, so it's probably not surprising he's so ill-informed about it.

The law has been clarified, and businesses will have the same obligations to provide toilets suitable for transidentifying people as they for disabled people, IOW it's not enough for a company to say "it's a bit awkward for us to do this". They will need to respect the law, that's all.

Whether you understand it or not, that's the law now.

That's the guidance on A SC judgement, an interim interruption.

Where is the actual legislation that a biological born woman can be removed from a female single space?

Because the SC just ruled they are not just entitled to be there, they must be. Discrimination or equality is based on birth sex.

It seizes be anything to do with a trans issue then.

You probably aren't, but unlike you, "most people" aren't insisting that they know what the judgment will lead to without being able to cite at least that part of the judgment that they think is relevant.

Separate lockable rooms with washing areas included are fine.

Cubicles inside a mixed area are not enough.

The judgment is clear on that.

I don't know why you keep repeating your misunderstanding of what the law says when you haven't read the judgment and can't give any sources for your claims. You've been given links that prove that you are wrong.

So unless you start providing some actual sources for your inaccurate claims, I think I'm done with you on this.

LOL come back with those goalposts!

A penis?

Trans men are women.

Happy to help

@Boggles Too many posts to quote, but I'll make a few points:

I though it was clear, but Jennifer Sey certainly doesn't get a pass from me for supporting, and indeed voting for Trump. (Not that she needs one…). You didn't say explicitly that she was ok with his predatory behaviour, but your posts implied it. If you had said it I'd have agreed with you - I think a vote for Trump is tantamount to saying such behaviour is ok, just as a vote for Michael Lowry is tacit approval of corruption, and a vote for Mick Wallace is tacit approval of VAT evasion. I like to start from principled positions while realising that sometimes political, or even Political realities demand compromise. So, I might vote for someone if I felt they'd overall be a good person to hold public office, even if I disagreed with them on some things. I voted for at least two candidates in the recent GE who probably weren't sure what a woman is, even though I think that's a bit cowardly. Perhaps this judgement will have helped clarify matters for them. The Title IX stuff is important, but that doesn't excuse a vote for Trump, given the adverse effects of his recent actions on billions of people. He's morally bankrupt, and lacking in any analytical skills.

My admiration for Sey was based on the clever ad targeting Nike (your point about Peruvian or Vietnam t-shirts is valid, and would equally apply to Nike), and the fact that she was willing to put her desire to speak freely ahead of her large salary. I've twice been subject to US multinational social media policies, and the only real restriction was that we kept away from company matters in any context where we were identifiable as company employees. There was probably something general about not bringing the company into disrepute but there was no restriction on political views. I'd be very surprised if Levi's didn't have a company handbook extolling the virtues of diversity - that diversity doesn't seem to extend to diversity of opinions. Corporations should stay out of public policy matters, and definitely stay out of their employees' private lives.

You referred to Sey's lies, but gave no supporting evidence - liar is a very strong term and defamatory if you can't prove it. You referred to her undermining public health officials: Albert Bourla lied about the effectiveness of Pfizer's vaccine against transmission (no clinical trials were done to test that) and many public health officials repeated the lie - to my knowledge none of them was asked to choose between resigning and recanting their lies.

You mentioned women's reproductive rights. If you're going to blame Trump, and/or Sey for the recent erosion of those rights, then you really should throw in the Dems as well. Legal experts often said Roe vs Wade was a shaky judgement, and the issue needed proper legislation. The Dems had 6 presidential terms to improve that, but they stayed away from it. RBG, who was near deified by Democrats, didn't have the sense to resign at a time when a Democrat president could appoint her successor (that shouldn't matter, but it does seem to in general, despite the occasional surprising ruling from the likes of Thomas and Coney Barrett). You could also blame the Dems for Trump being elected as well - he lost votes since first time around, but Harris lost more - not surprising when she did so poorly first time around.

While the points above are OT for this thread, the bigger thinking behind them is relevant, I feel. Sey had the courage to voice unpopular opinions out loud; the mess in the US and UK regarding men in women's sports is almost entirely due to people not being willing to stand up to the mob, whether due to fear of public shaming or fear of losing their livelihoods. More for the other thread, but the same comment would apply to affirmative care. It's good that the recent UK judgement will give people courage to say things that many people knew to be true all along, but hats off to those who spoke up when it was less safe.

I think a vote for Trump is tantamount to saying such behaviour is ok, just as a vote for Michael Lowry is tacit approval of corruption, and a vote for Mick Wallace is tacit approval of VAT evasion

Not exactly.

If you are self styled and vocal advocate against corruption and tax dodging. Then you are just glaring hypocrite who shouldn't be taken seriously.

Sey is hardly a mystery TBH.

She is fear mongering in order to flog over priced tat to the terminally gullible who lap that up.

MAGA 101.

Her marketing cred was never in doubt, that's all this is. A Grift.

It's not fear mongering

Of course it is.

She literally tries to bribe women to drop out of events so she can manufacture outrage and profit from that outrage and fear mongering.

It's hardly opaque, but it is pretty insidious.

Not a person any reasonable person should be admiring, it's the reason she has fully embedded herself in the cult of MAGA.

The bribery allegation, just like the one about lies, is defamatory unless you provide proof. For now I'll add it to the burgeoning "unsubstantiated" folder.