I may be too much of an optimist but I believe that good arguments win in the end. Anent religion, we have learned to cater for no religion. EqA s 10 "(1)Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion." Something similar could be done for gender.

This case confirms my impression that the definition of gender reassignment in the Equality Act needs to be changed. Quite apart from the semantic point noted in the decision, the emphasis on reassignment is unfortunate. Who does the reassigning? Also, the word "process" is vague and confusing..

The Scottish Government has accepted and implemented the SC judgment in FWS. The judgment said its published interpretation of the Equality Act was wrong. It has corrected that interpretation. Correctly applying the new interpretation of the Equality Act is a different, and contested, matter.

So England isn't a country either. Andrew Bowie should tell this to the English football fans and the "patriotic" English flag flyers.

What an incredible amount of high level work! Well done. A great service to anyone interested in this issue. Thank you.

Great point - and there is the rule of interpretation that exceptions should be construed narrowly, precisely to avoid them becoming the rule.

That could actually be nice, because services are not like financial benefits; it is much easier to manage, say, toilet facilities in a relaxed and inclusive way than in a policed way.

Is there any new statutory guidance? The Interim Update has (rightly) been withdrawn and the suspect new code has (rightly) not yet been approved by the Minister. I hope it never will be. The sensible course would be to send it back to a reconstituted Commission for a complete rethink.

The justification for separate toilet facilities is now up in the air. WCs are in cubicles. Urinals can be removed. We are talking of wash basin areas. It surely can't be a legitimate aim to protect women from having to wash their hands in the presence of anyone who doesn't look feminine enough.

Only an idiot would approve of guidance which is logically, morally, socially, economically and legally suspect and which goes well beyond anything required to implement the Supreme Court's judgment.

Only ten days now until there is a new chair of the EHRC.

I learned one thing from this.
"The new guidance also removes a suggestion in an earlier draft that those running services could in “necessary and proportionate circumstances” ask to see a birth certificate or gender recognition certificate (GRC) if they suspected someone was lying about their sex."

Nicely put. I think the EHRC argument breaks down at two points. 1 The idea that a flexible operation of a separate or single sex facility necessarily makes it a mixed sex facility. 2 the insinuation that a mixed sex facility will very often involve indirect discrimination. It may, but need not.

Fond memories. Walked and ran it years ago. We would leave the car, walk a section and then, while K explored some delightful place, I'd run back and fetch the car. Those were the days.

Strange that this isn't bigger news.

Yes. This was glaringly obvious at the time. Same on reporting events in Gaza.