Trans activists install 'third toilet' outside UK Supreme Court after ruling
A trans activist group made their stand by placing a "third toilet" on the steps of the Supreme Court - a direct response to the suggestion to make their own "third space"
Trans advocacy organisation TransActual UK launched its latest campaign right on the doorstep of the UK Supreme Court, and its not something you can miss. On Wednesday, May 21, the "Third Toilet," - which is quite literally, a toilet - was placed significantly on the court steps to highlight the question: where will trans people go... for the 'loo'?
Made by creative agency BBH London, the pink and blue striped toilet, representing the trans flag, posed as both a call for action and demand for a reinforcement of trans rights and the community's protection since the UK Supreme Court ruled in favour of what is called the 'gender critical' volunteer organisation For Women Scotland.
The group's appeal fought against the Scottish Government's use of 'woman' in reference to the non-cis community. The Mirror reported on the joint judgement given by Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler, with which the other Justices agreed, relaying that a unanimous verdict that the term 'woman' used in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, and that alone.
This controversial court ruling created a wave of debate on online platforms, stirring the fears of the trans community in regards of their safety, along with the stigma that trans women are supposedly at fault for women feeling unsafe, particularly in bathrooms.
The court ruling in Scotland has manifested into exclusive bathrooms for cis-gendered men and women, drawing TransActual's question: "Where, exactly, are trans people supposed to go?".
Demand for single-sex places - and comments such as Baroness Kishwer Falkner's, active chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who said that trans rights groups should create a separate "third space" - have resulted in the statement piece dropped deliberately outside Britain's most esteemed court.
TransActual's message? To confront the exclusive ruling which threatens to isolate the minority from the public and social aspect of everyday life. The organisation's director, Hafsa Qureshi, shared a statement which read: "The Supreme Court claimed it brought clarity to an area of difficulty, however, it did the exact opposite," who added that whilst reducing the rights of the trans community, the ruling has already has "devastating" effects.
She continued, saying: "This campaign is a powerful statement – about being forced to exist without safety, privacy, and rights, in full view of a society that refuses to see us".
Two days ago, in act of defiance, Olivia Campbell Cavendish, founder and executive director of the Trans Legal Clinic, made her stand by (in fact) sitting on the Third Toilet. She said: "We need to move the conversation on from ridiculous things like bathrooms and onto the things that matter," before stating that "the safety of trans people everywhere," takes precedence.
Camila Gurgel and Ieva Paulina, Associate Creative Directors at BBH, were clear about the exhibit not being a real victory "when so much has been lost," when the ruling ostracised the community in question from what "directly impacted their lives".
"Our hope is that the Third Toilet installation sparks awareness, conversation, solidarity and inspires more people to stand with the trans community," concluded BBH. To find out more, visit transactual.org.uk.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
'Stop letting criminals choose their own gender', UN warns after UK police forces allow 49 rapists to identify as female offenders
The United Nations has warned over letting criminals choose their own gender, after a new report found that 49 rapists were allowed to identify as female offenders in the UK. Reem Alsalem, the UN's special rapporteur for violence against women and girls, said at least a third of UK forces were still collecting data on criminals and victims' self-identified gender rather than their assigned sex at birth. Criticising British institutions, she said that the approach 'neglects women's and girls' specific needs' and increases safety risks, Ms Alsalem said in her interim report, which was published on Friday. Over the last 10 years, 49 convictions for rape have been listed as female, despite the fact the offenders were born male. Ms Alsalem added that the 'lack of legislative clarity on sex hampers data collection on violence against women and girls. 'Police data, while disaggregated by crime and location, often conflates the sex with the gender, for data on victims and perpetrators'. Her remarks come a month after the Supreme Court ruled that the definition of a woman relates to 'biological sex'. Lord Hodge said that five Supreme Court justices had unanimously decided that 'the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act refer to a 'biological woman and biological sex'. He recognised 'the strength of feeling on both sides' and cautioned against seeing the judgement as a triumph for one side over another, stressing that the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination. In an 88-page ruling, the justices said: 'The definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.' The decision could have far-reaching implications on how sex-based rights apply, including how women-only spaces are allowed to operate. The judgement marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle between the Scottish government and a women's group over the definition of a 'woman' in Scottish legislation mandating 50 per cent female representation on public boards. The case centred on whether somebody with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the 2010 Equality Act. In handing down the court's judgement, Lord Hodge said: 'The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological woman and biological sex.' 'In a judgement written by Lady Rose, Lady Simler and myself, with whom Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones agree, we unanimously allow the appeal,' he added. Lord Hodge said: 'But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not… 'The Equality Act gives transgender people protection not only against discrimination through the protected characteristics of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and harassment, in substance in their acquired gender.' He recognised the 'strength of feeling on all sides' which lies behind the case, adding: 'On the one hand women, who make up one half of the population, have campaigned for over 150 years to have equality with men and to combat discrimination based on their sex. That work still continues. 'On the other hand, a vulnerable and often harassed minority, the trans community, struggle against discrimination and prejudice as they seek to live their lives with dignity.' The judgement was celebrated by women's rights groups, who cheered outside the court, opened a bottle of champagne and broke into song after the ruling was handed down. But a furious protester shouted 'trans rights are human rights' at those gathered, adding: 'Even if you kill every last one of us another will be born tomorrow.'
Reuters
6 hours ago
- Reuters
Tariff strike-down widens the US omni-crisis
WASHINGTON, May 29 (Reuters Breakingviews) - The Trump administration's norm-bending ranges from the dismantling of the global trade system to defiance of the co-equal legal apparatus of the U.S. government. An international trade court ruling on Wednesday striking down sweeping tariffs imposed on trading partners threatens to combine these crises. The White House poses levies as a fix for various ills central to its agenda, making this setback critical. The range of possible outcomes now widens significantly, depending in turn on whether legal appeals succeed, how the president responds to them, or if legislators step in. Investors and firms just getting to grips with recent chaos must contend with a new bout of unpredictability. For now, the trade court's ruling, opens new tab leaves the administration 10 days to stop collecting most tariffs imposed thus far, including a 10% global retaliatory duty and separate 'national security' levies imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China. President Trump still retains significant power to ratchet fees back up, and existing tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars are unaffected. The ruling also lays out that a 1974 trade law enables temporary levies of up to 15% for up to 150 days. The administration appealed on Wednesday evening, and the urgency of the matter probably ensures speedy proceedings - after all, the first hearing in this case was just two weeks ago. The Supreme Court, the nation's top legal body, has shown the White House some deference in the past, particularly over the conduct of foreign policy. However, President Trump's response to a case over a wrongfully deported man shows that consequences can continue after pushback. Regular attacks on federal judges set a worrying precedent. It's one that's difficult for investors to price. Stock markets brutalized by Trump's initial tariff barrage had recovered after a series of climbdowns. A trade deal struck with the UK offered at least a hazy blueprint for ending the whipsaw of changeable whims, even if further agreements will be harder. And revenue from levies, reaching an all-time high of $16 billion in April, was one of few sops to concerns about bulging deficits as bond markets squirm over the rest of the president's agenda. All of this is in the air. Negotiators in Europe and elsewhere, for the moment, face a muddled counterparty. Ad hoc attempts to rebuild tariffs will take time and invite a frenzied round of lobbying. Of course, Congress could resolve the legal issue by reasserting its trade authority. The powers Trump enjoys have been delegated to him and could be revoked. Legislation, opens new tab instituting a 60-day review process for new tariffs has budding Republican support in the Senate, where seven members of the president's party have signed on. In the battle between the judicial and executive branches, the best outcome would be for the legislature to break the tie. Follow @Rubinations, opens new tab on X
NBC News
7 hours ago
- NBC News
What's next as Trump vents fury at Vladimir Putin: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, Elon Musk and Donald Trump bid farewell from the Oval Office on live TV. Meanwhile, Kristen Welker digs into Trump's latest social media salvos at Vladimir Putin and what they could mean for the Russia-Ukraine war. And senior Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley answers a reader question about a notable provision tucked into the House budget bill that passed recently. — Scott Bland Elon Musk's missed opportunity By Jonathan Allen Elon Musk stood next to President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Friday, but the physical proximity belied a growing philosophical divide between two of the world's most powerful men, resulting in the tech mogul's abrupt announcement that he is departing Washington — without having achieved his goal of decimating the federal government. 'He came, he saw, he folded,' Steve Bannon, a senior White House adviser during Trump's first term who is influential with the working-class wing of Trump's MAGA base, said in a text exchange with NBC News. Musk, who stood with his arms folded across his chest as he and Trump took questions, sported a bruise near his right eye — an unmistakable metaphor for his tumultuous government service — that he said was incurred while playing with his 5-year-old son X. Trump took a more charitable view of Musk's tenure during a sprawling news conference in which he also declined to rule out pardoning Sean 'Diddy' Combs, who is standing trial on charges of sex trafficking and other alleged crimes; said he dislikes 'the concept' of former first lady Jill Biden being forced to testify before Congress about her husband's mental fitness; and predicted again that Iran is on the cusp of making a deal that would suspend its pursuit of nuclear weapons. 'He had to go through the slings and the arrows, which is a shame because he's an incredible patriot,' Trump said of Musk. Trump and Musk both contended that DOGE will continue to wring out savings by rooting out waste and fraud without Musk as its face. 'This is not the end of DOGE, but really the beginning,' Musk said, vowing to reach the trillion-dollar mark in cuts by the middle of next year. At the same time he spoke of cutting government spending, Musk lauded Trump's remodeling of the Oval Office. 'I love the gold on the ceiling,' he said. Musk has argued that inertia throttled his efforts to reduce government spending — a conclusion that raises questions about whether he was naive about the challenge of the mission he undertook. 'The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized,' he told The Washington Post this week. 'I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least.' The next steps as Trump vents fury at Putin By Kristen Welker President Donald Trump has ramped up the rhetoric attacking Russian President Vladimir Putin, but so far there's no teeth behind it. After months of cutting Putin slack on the world stage and clashing with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump has undergone a stark rhetorical shift in recent days. He's taken to social media to blast Putin for having gone ' absolutely crazy ' and for 'needlessly killing a lot of people' including Ukrainian citizens 'for no reason whatsoever.' He has warned that 'what Vladimir Putin doesn't realize is that if it weren't for me, lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia, and I mean REALLY BAD. He's playing with fire!' Trump appears to now be warming to the belief many Western leaders have held for years — that Putin isn't seriously pushing for peace, outside of total Russian victory. In recent weeks, we've seen some of the biggest bombardments of the entire war, including a massive drone attack in Kyiv that came in the shadow of a prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine. None of this means Trump is buddy-buddy with Zelenskyy now, and he criticized the Ukrainian as 'stubborn' during Friday remarks in the Oval Office, even as he underscored his disappointment with Putin. Meanwhile, the issue of sanctioning Russia and sending aid to Ukraine obviously splits the GOP, and it doesn't necessarily sit well with the 'America First' wing of the GOP that Trump commands. But if Trump wants to act, as former Vice President Mike Pence told me he recommended during our conversation earlier this month, he has arrows in his quiver. Earlier this week on 'Meet the Press Now,' former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul told us that the only way to convince Putin to come to the negotiating table is to convince him he can't advance on the battlefield. While one might think the West is tapped out when it comes to sanctions, McFaul said there's a lot more on the table, including seizing more assets or banning Russia's 'shadow fleet' that ships oil from docking at Western ports. And just a few days ago, Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, an elder statesman in the Senate, called on Trump to be as 'decisive' in new sanctions against Russia as he's been in his push against Harvard University. So if Putin has run out of leash with Trump, then what's the president waiting for? Join us Sunday when we talk about this and a flurry of other important domestic and international issues with House Speaker Mike Johnson and Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock. ✉️ Mailbag: Congress and the courts Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question is on an under-the-radar provision in Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill.' 'I heard that the bill contains language that takes away a judge's authority to hold someone in contempt when they don't comply with the court's orders. Is that true? I've seen a lot about the financial implications but nothing on this.' To answer this, we turned to senior Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley. Here's his response: The House bill does indeed include a provision that would limit the ability of federal judges to hold people in contempt for violating court orders. (Read it here.) The Republican-backed measure comes amid considerable pushback on the right against a number of judges who have not only blocked Trump administration policies but have also questioned whether the administration is complying with rulings and at least considered contempt proceedings. The provision in question would seek to limit the ability of judges to pursue contempt findings by withholding federal funds that could be used to enforce such a ruling unless the plaintiff posted a bond when seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. But there is no guarantee the Senate will include the language in its version of the bill, in part because it may fall foul of rules intended to ensure budget bill provisions have a direct link to federal revenues.
