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

2 hours ago
A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments in Trump's bid to erase his hush money conviction
NEW YORK -- President Donald Trump's quest to erase his criminal conviction heads to a federal appeals court Wednesday. It's one way he's trying to get last year's hush money verdict overturned. A three-judge panel is set to hear arguments in Trump's long-running fight to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court, where he could then try to have the verdict thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. The Republican is asking the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the federal appeals court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. The 2nd Circuit should 'determine once and for all that this unprecedented criminal prosecution of a former and current President of the United States belongs in federal court," Trump's lawyers wrote in a court filing. The Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted Trump's case, wants it to stay in state court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If Trump loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, arguing that Trump's historic prosecution violated his constitutional rights and ran afoul of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, which was decided about a month after the hush money trial ended. The ruling reins in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors in pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. In a four-page ruling, Hellerstein wrote that nothing about the high court's ruling affected his prior conclusion that hush money payments at issue in Trump's case 'were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.' Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that prosecutors erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. Trump's former criminal defense lawyer Todd Blanche is now the deputy U.S. attorney general, the Justice Department's second-in-command. Another of his lawyers, Emil Bove, has a high-ranking Justice Department position. The trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, rejected Trump's requests to throw out the conviction on presidential immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Appearing by video at his sentencing, Trump called the case a 'political witch hunt,' 'a weaponization of government' and 'an embarrassment to New York.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court of Georgia overturned four rules from the State Election Board
AUGUSTA, Ga. (WJBF) – The Supreme Court of Georgia overturned four rules from the State Election Board. Those measures were approved just before the presidential elections last year. So, what does this mean for local voting? When the SEB passed seven new election rules, they faced a legal challenge. The Fulton County Superior Court ruled them unlawful. The Supreme Court has now ruled that four of the seven rules are invalid. 'The State Elections Board had passed some rules. There was a lawsuit. So, they adjoined the rules, and they appealed it, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision,' said Travis Doss, Executive Director for the Richmond County Board of Elections. The rules that are now invalid are the reasonable inquiry rule, the hand count rule, the drop box ID rule, and the examination rule. The only rule that was upheld out of the seven is video surveillance of absentee drop boxes outside of voting hours. The other two rules, regarding poll watchers and daily reporting, have been sent back to the trial court. 'Now, there were two rules that the Supreme Court said were fine. One has to do with video surveillance of droboxes, and another one had to do with posting results to the website. We've been posting results to the website already,' said Doss. Richmond County Board of Elections Director Travis Doss says this will not change anything for voters because the rules were never implemented. 'I'm currently president of the association of voter registration and election officials. And we had kind of fought against these rules. Only because they were too close to the election. So, the court did adjoin them so they couldn't be used,' said Doss. Doss says he is happy to finally have closure. 'The good thing about the decision for the Supreme Court. It kind of gives a definitive answer. We were sort of in limbo after the rules were passed in November after there was the lawsuit,' said Doss. The primary for the Public Service Commission is currently underway in Richmond County, with early voting taking place until this Friday and Election Day on Tuesday, June 17th. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Bloomberg
4 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Argentina's Top Court Bans Kirchner From Office for Life
By Updated on Save Takeaways NEW Leer en español Argentina's Supreme Court upheld former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's fraud conviction, ratifying her sentence to six years in prison as well as a lifelong ban on holding public office, according to the court ruling reviewed by Bloomberg.