The Minister for Women and Equalities made no overall submission on whether the Claimants’ claim should succeed or fail, but did make submissions on this point. She submitted that if single-sex lavatories were provided they could continue to be a single sex-service for the purpose of the provisions in Schedule 3 to EA 2010 notwithstanding what she referred to as “derogations” – i.e., situations where (taking lavatories as the example) a man used the female lavatory. The examples relied on were of a piece with those the Claimants relied on. Based on those examples the Minister submitted that a trans-inclusive lavatory (as above, see paragraph 38) could continue to have the protection of one or both of the exceptions at paragraph 26 and 27 of Schedule 3 to the EA 2010 as a single-sex provision.
It does suck, but hopefully sooner rather than later a ECtHR judgement comes against however it will take time as domestic court options have to be exhausted. So try to wait it out
Oh wait nvm this is just the sc ruling this has nothing to do with toilets
deleted by creator
It’s actually the guidance issued after court judgements that aren’t as misleading as this and this will in effect act as a bathroom ban if passed
Where’s the actual bathroom ban? Bathrooms were never protected spaces so what you showed in that screenshot doesn’t apply to them
They could be counted as single sex spaces and therefore this guidance could be seen as applying to them
This is written where? If they could do this that would’ve been a thing ages ago
Bathroom have been refered to as single sex in court cases before for exmaple see - https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/good-law-project-EHRC-AC-2025-1953-judgment-13Feb26.pdf
Where in that case it was said
gg killing myself
It does suck, but hopefully sooner rather than later a ECtHR judgement comes against however it will take time as domestic court options have to be exhausted. So try to wait it out
Yeau