Brutkey

Mallory 🏳️‍⚧️:freebsd_logo:
@mallory@hachyderm.io

re: ukpol, transphobia

@noisytoot@berkeley.edu.pl @cwebber@social.coop “since gender reassignment is still a protected characteristic” The Supreme Court judgement addressed this. They claim that if everybody is treated as their legal birth sex, that’s not discrimination. I wonder if the ECtHR will agree.

Noisytoot
@noisytoot@berkeley.edu.pl

@mallory@hachyderm.io @cwebber@social.coop The Supreme Court judgement changed the definition of the protected characteristic of sex, but didn't modify the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which still exists. It means that if you ban trans people from single-sex spaces, you still have to provide a space for them otherwise you'll be discriminating against people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which effectively means that gender neutral toilets are required.

Mallory 🏳️‍⚧️:freebsd_logo:
@mallory@hachyderm.io

@noisytoot@berkeley.edu.pl Ah. That one is addressed by the article: “It will say that in the case of areas that are necessary for everyone, such as lavatories, it would not be proportionate to leave a trans person with no facilities.” So I’d assume only buildings with a non-gendered toilet would be banning trans people entirely from the gendered toilets. At least officially. In practice, many bigots will not know or care about the law and just yell at trans people in every bathroom.

Noisytoot
@noisytoot@berkeley.edu.pl

@mallory@hachyderm.io Is it up to the owners of buildings or would it be legally required to ban trans people from single-sex spaces? If the latter (which I think it is), then it seems that buildings without gender-neutral toilets would be required to install them.