Employers Can Ban Trans ‘Women’ From Female Toilets
Employers can lawfully ban transgender ‘women’ from using female toilets and changing rooms, the High Court has ruled, despite Bridget Phillipson’s attempt to argue this would be “trans exclusive”. The Telegraph has more.
Activists had challenged interim guidance from the equalities watchdog that said public bodies and organisations should segregate toilets, changing rooms and sports teams by biological sex rather than self-declared identity.
But on Friday a judge dismissed their claims that the guidance was unlawful because it conflicted with previous human rights and equalities legislation.
There is now no legal obstacle to prevent employers from implementing the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) advice, published in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that the word “sex” in the Equality Act does not [sic] refer to biological sex.
Women’s rights groups will use the ruling to urge Bridget Phillipson to publish the EHRC’s final version of the guidance following months of delays, and take action against employers who flout the rules.
Phillipson has so far refused to publish the EHRC’s final guidance, claiming that she is concerned about the potential cost to businesses.
Maya Forstater, the Chief Executive of gender-critical charity Sex Matters, said: “The law is clear. There was never any excuse for the Government, public bodies, regulators, charities or businesses to delay in implementing the Supreme Court judgment.
“The Secretary of State should now lay the full EHRC code of practice for service providers before Parliament without further delay.”
She added that other watchdogs “should update their own guidance swiftly to make clear that separate-sex accommodation and facilities are genuinely separated by sex”.
The judge rejected Phillipson’s argument that the EHRC guidance, which said trans women – biological men – should not use female facilities, could be “trans exclusive”.
The Telegraph revealed in December that she had given a statement to the High Court to say that banning biological males from women’s lavatories would also mean women could not take their “infant sons” into changing rooms at swimming pools.
Worth reading in full.
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.
“Phillipson has so far refused to publish the EHRC’s final guidance, claiming that she is concerned about the potential cost to businesses.” – What a joke. Since when has team red given a flying xxxx about costs to businesses?
“The Telegraph revealed in December that she had given a statement to the High Court to say that banning biological males from women’s lavatories would also mean women could not take their “infant sons” into changing rooms at swimming pools.” – what a pathetic argument. Parents have always taken their young children into changing rooms and toilets with them, no one bats an eyelid; it’s the sensible way to do things. Of course common sense is an anathema to these ideologically driven people.
Very very disappointed with the wording of this headline. Assuming that by “transgender women” they mean men, the headline should read “Employers can ban men from women’s toilets”. That this is news shows how evil and insane our enemies are. There is no such thing as a “transgender woman”. There are only women and men.
Quite so. “Inclusive” actually means including lies.
I don’t see this as a victory at all. A woman that objects to men in the female toilets has to get the company to impose a ban, I can’t see that ending well at many companies.
Does anyone else think Bridget Philipson looks dead behind the eyes??
Ladies, imagine going to spend a penny and seeing this person applying their lippy in the mirror. Look at the side profile. They look like a character from a Roald Dahl book;
”This is Heinrich Alexandra Hermann, a German left-wing politician. Hermann was born male (birth name Heinrich) but identifies as “divers” (Germany’s legal non-binary/third gender option) and goes by Alexandra.”
https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/2022621075910369282
Yuk
Forget about can, should is the correct word.
“THEY CAN”—-But this does not mean they will. Because there is that ESG Point Scoring to consider isn’t there? Companies that keep trans out of toilets or don’t provide them with their own toilet will see the score drop and this above all else is what concerns all corporations and Institutions today. —–Knowing that “they can” is unlikely to make the slightest difference to females seeking a female only environment.
Leftist women should be banned from voting. In fact, as many women are somewhat unable to make sensible political decisions, we should revoke their right to vote across the board. The country would rapidly become right leaning, ans slowly our problems would start to be resolved.
Life would be so much better if we had more Keir Starmers, then?🤡
Do you need to consume more calories in order to produce such a sustained level of hate for the opposite sex?🤔
I’d suggest re-structuring the education system to reward logic and reason, and critical thinking. We are where we are because kids don’t learn anything useful early on. Give me the child until they are 7, and all that…
Bridget Phillipson’s attempt to argue this would be “trans exclusive”. Yes you idiot, that is the whole point, it excludes MEN from women only spaces.
A couple of points to note with this judgement…. 1) The gov’t client classes have a religious/cultural problem with their women being in intimate spaces with men they’re not related to or married to. If employers were required to allow trans people to use their preferred spaces, it would mean a large number of people could argue they should not be expected to work because they risk contravening religious doctrine. 2) The gov’t is now holding employers liable for prevention of se*ual harassment of their employees in the workplace. The definition of harassment in UK law refers to environments which violate the person’s dignity and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Clearly the nature of toilets and changing facilities presents a high level of risk in this regard, so the gov’t would be heavily criticised if they placed employers in a lose-lose position. 3) The Health and Safety at Work Act requires employers to provide adequate toilet facilities for employees, ensuring they are suitable for all workers. Realistically the trans person will probably be able to argue that gendered facilities matching their biological se* are not safe or suitable for them, or that it creates the kind… Read more »