A rape crisis centre, theatres, museums, and London ladies’ pond continue to allow trans-identifying males access to women’s spaces, despite legal clarity.
Businesses and public services, including a rape crisis centre, have vowed to ignore the Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of a woman and continue admitting transgender-identifying men into single-sex spaces meant for females.
The CEO of the Tyneside and Northumberland Rape Crisis Centre, which receives government funding, was warned by a barrister that the charity would be opening itself up to lawsuits after she put out a statement declaring her support for trans-identifying males to continue to access its facilities.
“At Rape Crisis Tyneside and Northumberland, we continue to support all women – including trans women and those who identify as non binary,” she said, adding that the full impact of the ruling is “still unfolding.”
Traynor said that the charity had been offering services to trans-identifying males for two decades, appearing to suggest that the charity will disregard the law around single-sex spaces even after the clarification from the Supreme Court.
‘Expensive Legal Challenges’
Her post drew immediate objections, including from family law barrister Sarah Phillmore, who told Traynor: “You need to be clear to female users of your service that you are not a single sex service. That you offer services also for men and women need to be told this up front so they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they use your services. I imagine many female victims of male sexual violence will not.
“The Supreme Court was very clear. You may not pretend to be a single sex service if you invite men in,” going on to warn that the centre will be opening itself up to “expensive legal challenges.”
Related Stories
Traynor made a follow-up statement, reflecting on her “somewhat naive” post, and saying that the charity’s website makes clear that it supports trans-identifying people.
She said: “We offer single sex spaces, and we also offer mixed spaces – it’s not an either/or situation. We can do both!”
The ruling, made two weeks ago by the UK’s highest court, found that the terms “woman” and “sex” refer to biological females and biological sex only, for the purposes of the 2010 Equality Act, meaning that businesses and public services that have allowed people to use single-sex facilities meant for the opposite sex have been acting unlawfully for 15 years.
There is no obligation on private businesses to provide single-sex toilets, so having just one or two gender neutral facilities in a cafe or a small office, for example, is lawful, just as on trains, but where there are single-sex facilities, there is now an obligation to make clear to customers and employees that these should be used in line with biological sex.
‘Clarity’ or Confusion?
The ruling says that transgender-identifying people can be excluded from using the facilities intended for the opposite sex “if proportionate.” The government has said it accepts the unanimous verdict of the five Supreme Court justices, and welcomes the “clarity” that it brings.
But there appears to be considerable confusion among businesses.
Susan Smith (L) and Marion Calder, co-directors of For Women Scotland, outside the Supreme Court in London on April 16, 2025. Lucy North/PA
While bigger businesses, including financial institutions such as Barclays, moved swiftly to make clear they would immediately start complying with the existing law by telling employees to use the toilets in line with their birth sex, some smaller organisations appeared confused.
Some have said they are awaiting the publication of new government guidelines, although interim guidance was swiftly administered, and both the equalities minister Bridget Phillipson and head of the EHRC, Baroness Kishwer Falkner, gave unequivocal direction that the provision of single-sex spaces must be based on biology.
In spite of the ruling, the organisers of the London Marathon allowed trans-identifying males to compete in the women’s mass participation event last Sunday. As per World Athletics rules, biological males were not allowed in the women’s elite races.
A number of arts and culture venues have announced their intention to ignore the law on the use of single-sex facilities, including the famous Bristol Old Vic theatre.
“In light of the recent supreme court ruling … we want to reassure our trans and non-binary visitors, staff and artists that you are welcome here.
Vagina Museum Challenges ‘Normative Assumptions’
The Thackray Museum of Medicine in Leeds put out a statement saying it does not intend to uphold the law because they believe sex and gender are on a “spectrum,” and that people should be able to choose which toilets they use.
“As a museum family, we believe that sex and gender are a spectrum; this a position supported by science. Where people choose to sit on that is their choice and it should be respected. The Thackray is not here to provide authoritative definitions but we are here to provide an open, respectful, safe and inclusive platform for conversation, where trans people are represented in our collection and through our activities.
“The trans community have been excluded from consultation around the Supreme Court’s decision which in our eyes has increased ambiguity and not offered clarity. We will not exclude the trans community and our building and our facilities remain open to all.”
The five justices of the Supreme Court made clear that transgender-identifying people have the same human rights as everyone else, are protected from discrimination under the Equality Act as a minority group, and made no suggestion that trans people should be excluded from anywhere other than single-sex facilities designed for the opposite sex.
Other smaller museums appeared to signal their support for trans-identifying men to carry on using the women’s loos, regardless of the law, while some issued statements signalling their support for transgender customers.
Although it made no mention of toilets, the statement said that part of the museum’s mission was “spreading knowledge and raising awareness of gynaecological anatomy and health … to challenge normative assumptions around our bodies and how they may or may not be connected to experiences of gender, gender expression and broader sexuality. ”
“Their ruling centred on the word ‘biology’, with the judge stating that biological sex is ‘assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation.’ Speaking in a professional capacity as museum of biology: this is not how biology works.
“There are no binaries in nature, and biology, like all sciences, should never be taken for granted or assumed to be ’self-explanatory’. Even worse, it should never be used to justify weaponised culture war issues. This ruling is an abuse of science.”
A swimmer paddles in the water at the Hampstead Heath ponds in London on March 30, 2021. Tolga Akmen/AFP via Getty Images
Hampstead Ladies’ Pond
The historic Kenwood Ladies’ Pond on north London’s sprawling Hampstead Heath became a flashpoint when owners, the City of London (CoL) Corporation, announced a self-ID policy in 2019.
Th controversial policy allowed any male to enter the bathing pool meant for women, in spite of the fact there is a men’s pond and a mixed pond alongside the female facility. It also meant that any woman could enter the men’s pond, although this has not proven to be an issue.
A series of protests ensued, led by the Let Women Swim group, with counter-protests by transgender activists, including TV presenter India Willoughby.
On Wednesday, C0L confirmed its self-ID policy would “remain in effect at this time” while it considered the implications of the Supreme Court judgment.
In an internal memo to staff who work at the ponds, sent on the day of the ruling and seen by The Epoch Times, a manager wrote: “As yet we don’t know the impact of this ruling on our single-sex ponds. Until further notice from CoL senior managers, we must not get drawn into any conversations with swimmers/visitors about this ruling.
“If asked, we must respond with: ‘We are continuing as we are until we hear further notice from our managers.”
The memo goes on to tell staff to refer concerned swimmers to an email address for CoL, adding, “We understand this ruling will be distressing to many in our team – please reach out to colleagues and team leaders for support.”
An employee who wished to remain anonymous told The Epoch Times: “I don’t know what [the manager] is on about. The judgment is not distressing to anybody. We all think it’s ridiculous that men have been using the women’s pond, but we’re the ones who get the grief for it from the public.
“What are we supposed to do about it? Get into a fight with a bloke who says he’s a woman? We’re not security guards. Honestly, we’re not paid enough for the hassle. It should never have been allowed in the first place, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.”
A gender neutral toilet in an office building in the City of London on Jan. 11, 2024. Yui Mok/PA
A spokesperson for CoL told The Epoch Times: “In line with many other affected organisations we are carefully considering the judgment and awaiting statutory guidance from the EHRC which, by law, service providers must take into account.
“It is completely false to suggest that the City Corporation is not compliant with existing UK law. We take our obligations very seriously and a carefully considered decision in this complex matter will be taken in due course.
“We remain committed to providing a safe and respectful environment for all.”
‘Not Optional’
A number of leading barristers, including KCs, have pointed out that while the EHRC has issued interim guidance, the Supreme Court judgment has clarified the existing law, meaning that businesses which describe themselves as single-sex spaces are breaking the law by knowingly allowing a self-ID policy.
On Thursday, following the Football Association’s announcement that trans-identifying males will no longer be allowed to play in girls’ and women’s football, lobby group Stonewall put out an erroneous post on social media platform BlueSky, stating, “It is important to remember that the ruling is not law as yet and organisations should wait to see how statutory guidance is changed before making policy changes.”
Akua Reindorf, KC told Stonewall in response: “No, the judgment of the Supreme Court is the law. It has immediate effect. It is not optional.”
Stonewall has now deleted the post.