Thread by @MForstater

Kemi Badenoch confirms "Providers have the right to restrict the use of spaces on the basis of sex, and exclude transgender people with or without a GRC if this is justified."

But what does "if this is justified" mean?

a-question-of-consent.net/2020/10/31/a-g…

The Equality Act allows for single sex spaces - including everyday privacy and dignity.

A single sex service means applying a sex based rule to the space

The question is does the Equality Act allow some people to claim that the sex based rules don't apply to them -- that some males can use female only spaces?

There isn't much specific case law on this - but there are good principles that apply from age discrimination cases.

The Supreme Court case of Homer v West Yorkshire Police is about whether fixed retirement age can be justified.

It says you test whether the *rule* is proportionate.

Is it proportionate to exclude all males?

Yes there is no other way to make it female only

The judges in Homer said if a rule adversely affects people the way to address this is not to make individual exceptions on an "ad hominem" basis

Its not possible to let some males in & still provide female only privacy.

It *is* often possible to provide a unisex alternative

Another age discrimination case Seldon emphasises that the clarity of rules is in itself a legitimate aim.

It talks about the avoidance of "unseemly debates" (about age related decline)

The avoidance of "unseemly debates" about sex vs gender identity in places where women are vulnerable and undressing seems absolutely a legitimate aim.

Its not fair on anyone to have ambiguous rules.

The need for clear rules justifies the clarity of the rules.