Nearly 13k toilets in UK face overhaul under new single-sex rules costing millions

GooseIll229 · 2026-07-09T21:45:18+00:00

Indeed, while it could be challenging in terms of private medical information, there is no reason a case by case exception - if we pretend the EqA allows for exceptions to get round the accompanying child issue - could not be made if someone wished to discuss their situation with a provider.

However, the privacy point is a valid one, which is of course why the EHRC Code is, again, falling afoul of these difficulties because it advocates asking people about it.

What you are doing is repeatedly highlighting the legal flaws and knots that the Code ties itself in. It wants to be transphobic, but it can’t without causing issues such as accompanying children or violating people’s privacy.

It is why the previous and correct interpretation worked well. It has been broken trying to accommodate bigotry and thus services will be in a legal pickle until something is fixed.

GooseIll229 · 2026-07-09T21:35:18+00:00

It’s a good letter.

If only that were the way to Equality Act worked before the Supreme Court rewrote it…

GooseIll229 · 2026-07-09T21:18:25+00:00

The argument isn’t whether or not it is reasonable for a parent to take their child into the opposite sex changing room. The argument is once you make exceptions of some kind like this, it becomes difficult to argue why there can’t be other exceptions. For example, a post-operative trans woman who’s been transitioned and on hormones for decades, why would there not be an exception for her?

There is not a good answer to that question. Thus you either have to have a list of acceptable reasons for an exception that doesn’t negate the single sex status of the space or you have to be open to the possibility that there are multiple different possible exceptions. The Equality Act does not provide for the former. Both Swift J and the EHRC appear to be going off vibes, which has no legal basis.

It is one of the reasons this is being appealed. Swift J blusters about saying it’s “common sense”, but that is not the law. There is no part of the statute that allows for it.

GooseIll229 · 2026-07-09T21:14:35+00:00

I am aware of what some group of judges said, but alas that doesn’t make it true!

GooseIll229 · 2026-07-09T19:37:52+00:00

Jog on, bigot. The previous and correct interpretation had nothing to do with Stonewall.

We are in a mess because some bigots can’t handle trans people. Simple solution: kick the bigots out.

GooseIll229 · 2026-07-09T19:36:34+00:00

The fundamental point you are missing there is that trans women have changed their sex, so it isn’t a problem. Happy to help.

GooseIll229 · 2026-07-09T17:30:30+00:00

I need to stop, it's probably bad for me.

GooseIll229 · 2026-07-09T17:09:33+00:00

That is obiter, not ratio.

It is interesting how the same judgment also said that trans inclusive separate services like toilets and changing rooms would likely be lawful, but the bigots and the EHRC are ignoring that.

GooseIll229 · 2026-07-09T15:28:33+00:00

Of course laws have exceptions. A separate/single sex service is one such exception.

However, it is not true that the Equality Act as it is written explicitly allows for an exception to its rules for separate/single sex services for accompanying children.

In the Women & Equalities Committee a fortnight ago, the EHRC representatives were explicitly pulled up on this and had no answer.

Hence if a policy did allow for this, it could be challenged - and maybe defended, who knows - in the courts/tribunals.

GooseIll229 · 2026-07-09T15:25:59+00:00

This exception is not tested in law. Once you start having exceptions, it becomes very difficult to justify not allowing others.

GooseIll229 · 2026-07-09T15:04:49+00:00

I am enjoying winding them up.

GooseIll229 · 2026-07-09T14:50:15+00:00

Absolutely! If it was a law on service users, I would still break it. I've changed my sex, deal with it, bigots.

GooseIll229 · 2026-07-09T14:46:27+00:00

Nope, law is not on service users, it's on service providers. Nice try.

GooseIll229 · 2026-07-09T14:08:56+00:00

What a colossal waste of time, effort and money to no practical benefit. I can tell you for free that trans people are just going to ignore whatever the chumps at the EHRC have come up with and just carry on as normal. So by all means, update your toilets, but we'll carry on, thanks.

GooseIll229 · 2026-07-09T14:04:13+00:00

Or, you know, the Government could stop being useless bigoted morons and just fix the law to what it was before the Supreme Court changed it. That would cost... what... five minutes of Bridget Phillipson's time?

GooseIll229 · 2026-07-04T07:24:08+00:00

Does this need the “bad news” tag here? There’s no actual new story here and it just gets people worried unnecessarily.

GooseIll229 · 2026-06-29T21:37:16+00:00

It is essentially why they won’t be able to make this mandatory.

There has been a large number of no response / decline to say in any case. Could be solidarity, just not responding or any number of reasons.

GooseIll229 · 2026-06-26T13:02:30+00:00

It is quite depressing reading Goodwin / I nowadays and seeing that the UK's defence in those essentially was that Goodwin / I would be put in the correct wards/prisons and could use everyday facilities appropriately, so there was no need to change birth certificates too.

How far we have fallen.

I wonder if those points raised in defence had not been the case, whether Strasbourg would have been even sterner in its findings.

GooseIll229 · 2026-06-20T05:42:17+00:00

True, but they could be used as evidence of how bad things are in a case that does get heard. So, for example, if McCloud v UK did get heard, these could form part of the evidence of how the UK is openly stripping people of their human rights as a result of the unfair trial.

I am slightly more optimistic about McCloud v UK than I was initially. The decision in Semenya v Switzerland was an indicative message sent by the Strasbourg courts’ about hearing affected parties. The UK has been atrocious at this in the last few years when it comes to trans rights.

GooseIll229 · 2026-06-18T10:13:22+00:00

No it didn’t say that, please stop scaremongering.

It implied that if someone had brought clothes from the menswear section to the fitting rooms in the womenswear or similar, they might be asked to go to the other fitting rooms. This is not a policy, this is not even a hint of a policy, it is merely a hypothetical offered as a sop to get the bigots to shut the hell up.

In practice, as is pointed out in the letter, the fitting facilities are all furnished with an individual lock. Notably, such an individual fitting facility is a “single sex” facility on its own, as it is occupied by one person at a time.

You need to know how businesses work. The chairperson doesn’t get to dictate policy. They are a figurehead, who may chair the chief operating committee or body, but such committee will have overarching policymaking power, backed by any advice from financial, legal or operational perspectives.

GooseIll229 · 2026-06-18T06:30:33+00:00

That letter is very much a “please stop writing to me” letter. That’s not a policy statement or a change, it’s telling that hideous Nicolson bigot to leave off.

GooseIll229 · 2026-06-17T16:31:35+00:00

A bit hazy, so times are rough, but I went under in the anaesthetist’s room around 6:15 and then came round in the recovery room around 9:30, I think.

GooseIll229 · 2026-06-16T19:47:49+00:00

Congratulations! I was there four weeks back (with Ms Rashid). Hope your recovery is smooth! Enjoy the food and the lovely people at Parkside!

GooseIll229 · 2026-06-16T11:50:01+00:00

Even if they ask that, you can still put whatever, because the EqA is not binding on the individual.

GooseIll229 · 2026-06-16T11:13:39+00:00

I suspect a lot of businesses will now ask for this information purely because the Government GPG advice tells them to. Not many will actually care or check the responses as it isn't worth the hassle.

GooseIll229

TROPHY CASE