Culture leaders 'unwilling' to police which toilets people use
Leaders across the UK's cultural sector have said they are "unable and unwilling" to police which toilets people choose to use after a recent Supreme Court ruling.
Last month, the Supreme Court said the terms "woman" and "sex" in the 2010 Equality Act "refer to a biological woman and biological sex".
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued interim guidance that, in places open to the public, trans women - people who are biologically male but identify as female - shouldn't use women's facilities such as toilets.
More than 1,000 cultural figures have signed an open letter which claims the judgement "overlooks the need to protect trans, non-binary and intersex people from discrimination".
Signatories include joint chief executives and general directors of the Welsh National Opera (WNO), Adele Thomas and Sarah Crabtree, the founder of the Vagina Museum, Florence Schechter, and the director of Queer Britain museum, Andrew Given.
The letter says that the majority of cultural venues "are unable to magic up new toilet facilities" and "this kind of segregation will have significant social, cultural and economic impact".
The Supreme Court judges say trans people are still protected from discrimination under equalities legislation, and that this interpretation of the law does not cause disadvantage to the "potentially vulnerable group".
The court sided with campaign group For Women Scotland, which brought a case against the Scottish government and argued for a "common sense" interpretation of the words man and woman, telling the court that sex is an "immutable biological state".
Following the ruling two weeks ago, For Women Scotland co-founder Susan Smith said: "Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women and we are enormously grateful to the Supreme Court for this ruling."
Harry Potter author JK Rowling posted on social media to say the campaign group have "protected the rights of women and girls across the UK."
described the ruling as "a model of clarity and provides a solid foundation for approaching consequential issues", while Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy at the campaign group Sex Matters, said the ruling was "incredibly important for the half of humanity who need single-sex spaces".
Several organisations have been updating their guidelines in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.
Earlier this week, the Football Association announced transgender women will no longer be able to play in women's football in England from 1 June.
Meanwhile, professionals in the UK music industry have signed a different open letter expressing solidarity with the trans community.
Signatories including Charli XCX, Jessie Ware, Jade, Olly Alexander, Sugababes, Sophie Ellis-Bextor and Paloma Faith.
Their letter says that the industry must "urgently work to ensure that our trans, non-binary, and intersex colleagues, collaborators, and audiences are protected from discrimination and harassment in all areas of the industry - whether in studios, at venues, in offices, or at festivals".
Trans former judge plans to challenge gender ruling at European court
The Supreme Court ruling gives clarity - but now comes the difficult part
Supreme Court backs 'biological' definition of woman
The letter comes after actors including Oscar-winning star Eddie Redmayne, The Brutalist actor Joe Alwyn and Babygirl star Harris Dickinson signed an open letter addressed to film and TV industry bodies, encouraging them to support the trans community.
The letter said that the signatories wish to "add our voices to the 2,000+ signatories of the Open Letter from UK Writers to the Trans Community", which was signed by Doctor Who showrunner Russell T Davies and Chewing Gum's Michaela Coel.
The EHRC has issued guidance aimed at clearing up questions about what the judgment will mean in practice.
Transgender women "should not be permitted to use the women's facilities" in workplaces or public-facing services like shops and hospitals, the EHRC said.
The same applies to transgender men, who are biologically female, using men's toilets.
The watchdog also insisted that transgender people "should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use".
The EHRC is currently reviewing its statutory code of practice for services and will seek affected stakeholders' views on how the practical implications of the judgment can be reflected in the updated guidance in a consultation expected to launch later this month.
Gender ruling offers clarity after years of ambiguity
Five key takeaways from Supreme Court ruling
FA bars transgender women from women's football
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mayor Karen Bass Implements Curfew in Downtown L.A. Amid Ongoing Protests
After four days of protests against ICE raids, Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass announced that a one-square-mile area of downtown will be under curfew starting at 8 p.m. Tuesday. 'I have declared a local emergency,' Bass said, 'and declared a curfew to stop the vandalism, to stop the looting.' More from Variety L.A. Aims to Lower Production Costs by Requiring Only One City Staffer on Film Sets Karen Bass Plugs Hike in Film Tax Credit: 'Let's Bring Hollywood Back' L.A. Mayor Karen Bass Appoints Steve Soboroff to Lead Pacific Palisades Rebuilding Efforts 'Last night, there were 23 businesses that were looted,' she continued. 'If you do not live or work in downtown L.A., avoid the area.' Bass said she expected the curfew, which lasts until 6 a.m., to last several days. But she emphasized that the vandalism was not widespread. 'It is extremely important to know that what is happening in this one square mile is not affecting the city. Some of the imagery of the protests gives the appearance that this is a citywide crisis, and it is not.' The curfew area covers the central part of the downtown area from the 110 freeway to the 5 freeway, stretching to the 10 freeway to the south. Last week, immigration agents descended on Los Angeles and began detaining individuals they suspected of being undocumented. A number of mostly peaceful protests were held over the weekend, but directed by President Trump, the National Guard arrived in Los Angeles to maintain order. Mayor Bass, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the LAPD repeatedly emphasized that the Los Angeles Police Department had the situation in hand, but the arrival of the National Guard only inflamed tensions more, and 50 arrests were made over the weekend. Best of Variety 'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts? 25 Hollywood Legends Who Deserve an Honorary Oscar New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court rejects GOP request to review Pa. provisional ballot ruling
A voter deposits a mail-in ballot at the drop box outside the Chester County Government Center on Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024. (Capital-Star/Peter Hall) A GOP challenge to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling on provisional ballots is dead, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case Friday. The high court's rejection means county boards of elections must count provisional ballots cast by voters who find out their mail-in ballots have been rejected under the state Supreme Court's decision in October. The case at issue, Faith Genser et al vs. the Butler County Board of Elections, stemmed from a lawsuit filed after the 2024 primary election by two Butler County voters. They claimed they were disenfranchised when the board refused to count provisional ballots the voters cast on Election Day, after learning their mail ballots were disqualified for missing dates. The board of elections reasoned that the Pennsylvania Election Code says provisional ballots from voters whose mail-in ballots are 'timely received' can't be counted, even if the voters' mail-in ballots are rejected. In its 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court found the Elections Code requires county elections officials to count provisional ballots if no other ballot is attributable to the voter, and as long as there are no other issues that would disqualify their provisional ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court did not explain its decision not to hear the appeal. Attorneys for the RNC and Republican Party of Pennsylvania did not respond to an email requesting comment. 'Republicans don't think every rightful vote should count. We disagree, and now, the Supreme Court has sided with us. Pennsylvanians deserve to have their say in every election – full stop,' Democratic National Committee Chairperson Ken Martin said in a statement. The case is one of many involving 'paperwork errors' on vote-by-mail-ballots, since absentee voting without an excuse became an option in 2019 with the passage of Act 77. 'Every election, thousands of Pennsylvania mail ballots are voided due to common technical mistakes made by voters,' Rich Ting, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said. 'Thanks to Faith Genser and Frank Matis fighting for their right to vote, all Pennsylvania voters who make those mistakes are guaranteed the right to vote by provisional ballot as a failsafe.' The ACLU of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center with pro-bono counsel from Dechert LLP represented Genser and Matis in their lawsuit. 'The Supreme Court's determination not to hear this case means that Pennsylvanians who make a technical mistake with their mail-in ballots will have a way to fix the mistake instead of losing the opportunity to vote,' Ben Geffen, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center, said. In its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the GOP argued the state Supreme Court usurped the Pennsylvania Legislature's authority to set the 'times, places and manner' for congressional elections, leaning on a premise known as the 'independent state legislature theory.' That theory asserts that the U.S. Constitution reserves the authority to set the times, places and manner of elections exclusively for state legislatures. In opposition, the DNC and Pennsylvania Democratic Party asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction, because the case falls outside the limited circumstances in which it can review the judgment of a state's highest court. Such appeals are allowed only when a federal law is in question, a state law is claimed to conflict with federal law or 'where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution.' The decision last week is the second time the U.S. Supreme Court has passed on reviewing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision. In November it refused to place a stay on enforcement of the ruling days before the presidential election. The Pennsylvania General Assembly has taken steps to pass amendments to clarify the vote-by-mail law in recent weeks. House Bill 1396, sponsored by Speaker Joanna McClinton (D-Philadelphia) would give election workers up to a week before Election Day to prepare to count mail-in ballots, a process that has been a bottleneck for election results in parts of the state, and has provided fodder for election deniers. The measure would remedy other ambiguities in Act 77, such as making clear that county election officials must notify voters if their mail ballots are rejected. It passed the House with a 102-101 vote along party lines May 13. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court said no, but this legal battle lives on
A major mining project in Arizona remains on hold this month even after the Supreme Court declined to consider a faith-based plea to block it. The justices said on May 27 that they wouldn't hear a religious freedom case aimed at preventing federal officials from transferring Oak Flat, a site that's sacred to the Western Apache, to Resolution Copper. At first, that announcement seemed like the end of the road for the mining project's opponents. But then on Monday, they secured a small but potentially significant victory in a federal court in Arizona in separate but related lawsuits on the future of Oak Flat. According to Inside Climate News, one of the ongoing lawsuits was brought by the San Carlos Apache Tribe and argues that the land transfer would violate a treaty between the tribe and the government, as well as environmental and historic preservation laws. The other lawsuit was brought by a group of environmental activists, who claim the government has failed to fully study the environmental impact of the proposed mining project. In Monday's ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Dominic W. Lanza said the government can't transfer the land until at least 60 days after the publication of the Environmental Impact Statement on the mining project and promised to revisit the transfer during that 60-day period to consider implementing an injunction that would block it. The battle over Oak Flat dates back to 2014, when Congress removed the federal protections that were preventing mining in the area, as the Deseret News previously reported. That legal shift made it possible for the land to be transferred to a private company, although seven years passed with no major developments along those lines. But then, in 2021, the federal government published an Environmental Impact Statement on Oak Flat, signaling that mining was soon to begin. That's when a group of Native Americans filed a religion lawsuit to block the land transfer, arguing that destroying Oak Flat would violate their religious freedom rights. While the lawsuit, called Apache Stronghold v. United States, delayed the mining project, it didn't restore land protections. Apache Stronghold lost at the district and circuit court level, where judges said destroying Oak Flat would not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. With its May 27 announcement, the Supreme Court allowed those decisions to remain in place. Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized the court's refusal to take up the case in a strongly worded dissent, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. 'Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a chain of legal reasoning. I have no doubt that we would find that case worth our time. Faced with the government's plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less,' Gorsuch wrote. Although the Supreme Court's announcement brought an end to the religious freedom case, it did not end the battle. Two other lawsuits aimed at blocking the mining are ongoing, as Inside Climate News reported. By ensuring that the land transfer won't happen before late August, Judge Lanza in Arizona created time for those lawsuits to move forward. The mining project's opponents present the judge's move as significant, noting that they haven't given up hope. 'We are grateful that Judge Lanza has provided us an opportunity to be heard,' San Carlos Apache Tribe Chairman Terry Rambler said in a statement provided to the Deseret News. But the mining project's supporters believe their plan is still on track. 'The court correctly found no legal basis for a preliminary injunction, and its order is consistent with prior decisions about this project at every level, including the Supreme Court's recent decision to deny further review in Apache Stronghold v. United States,' said Vicky Peacey, president and general manager of Resolution Copper, in a statement. 'The order simply gives the parties time to review the (Environmental Impact Statement) within the timeframe Congress directed for the land exchange. We are confident the project satisfies all applicable legal requirements.' The statement is expected to be published by June 20, Inside Climate News reported. Once it's released, the 60-day countdown will start.
