Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36193836)

Well, that’s your term, nobody else’s.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36193844)

Mentally ill people are not freaks. They deserve compassion and effective treatment, not ridicule and certainly not ideologically driven, poorly evidenced, faddish surgery.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36193861)

Much like the changing rooms if it’s just about wanting to live their lives in peace in the gender they perceive themselves to be why do they want to compete in sports where they know having undergone male puberty is an advantage?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36193844)

Indeed, and it’s a bit disappointing that in choosing to misrepresent the views of those he disagrees with, he should do so by raising distasteful tropes that nobody in this discussion has used.

Mentally ill people are not freaks. They deserve compassion and effective treatment, not ridicule and certainly not ideologically driven, poorly evidenced, faddish surgery.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36193890)

Is this you?

Trans people are mentally ill it seems. I suspect that they may disagree with you.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36193890)

Is this you?



Trans people are mentally ill it seems. I suspect that they may disagree with you.

What is ideologically driven is the anti-Trans backlash, especially in the US where the sponsorship of Trump by the Evangelical right underwrites a lot of the recent policy changes.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36193890)

Is this you?



Trans people are mentally ill it seems. I suspect that they may disagree with you.

What is ideologically driven is the anti-Trans backlash, especially in the US where the sponsorship of Trump by the Evangelical right underwrites a lot of the recent policy changes.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36193916)

TBH I think those who can not see the wood for the trees and accept this without question as almost as deluded as the guys who get themselves butchered

If I went to the doctor and said I do not think my left arm belongs to me and it causing me severe distress I want it cut off . What do you think the diagnosis would be?

That was directed at those with opposing views to me btw hahaa

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36193919)

I have no issue with anyone being who they want to be. I have issue with them and as a later result society trying to force me to accept it as normal

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36193928)

Welcome to the world of Pride.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36193996)

Well in the main that is encouraging. Imagine what that is going to look like in 50 years. Glad I will be long dead I guess

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194009)

Final point, I will have to dig out the figures but I’m fairly sure that in the UK, there are a disproportionately high number of trans-identifying males amongst those incarcerated for sex crimes

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36193998)

It’s a common error to assume that teens and young adults maintain the same social attitudes as they grow older. Real life eventually begins to have a say. Our young people tend to get their politics, or whatever passes for it, on TikTok, where gender madness is still at its height. But they do tend to grow out of their wide-eyed blinkered idealism.

There is a companion graph, which I’ll post when I find it again, which summarises the same Yougov survey taken a few years ago, in which a lot more of it was green. The direction of travel is going the right way, have no fear of that. Peak insanity probably passed a couple of years ago, and the many court and tribunal cases flooding the courts now are the result of the tide turning and people deciding they’re no longer putting up with illegal activist HR policies in their workplaces.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36194019)

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned it on here before, but I was around all this before it became fashionable. In 1990 I shared a house with a “trans-sexual”….(and two other men). Michael, who was pre-op and going through the process.

It was simple, he would dress as a man and I would call him Michael. On the days he dressed in women’s cloths, I would call him Michelle.

It was fine, it was all very amenable but he was a bit highly strung…to be polite.

He once came home in tears because he was thrown out of a night club for being in the women’s toilets……….can you imagine if that happened now.

The problem then, is the problem now. He looked and acted like a very camp gay man….and not a woman.

Back in the day it was clear.

We had Trans-sexuals, men who wanted to be women and will do the surgery to get there.

And Trans-vestites , men that wanted to be their mother.

Drag queens, gay men for which just being camp wasn’t enough.

And Auto gyno-Philes (to be fair they weren’t called that then). Men that want to dress in women’s clothing because they get a sexual kick out of it and by people looking at them, and there’s nothing stopping them getting a sexual kick assaulting women.

And now all these variants are now just called “Trans”, and we’re expected to treat them all the same.

This is the problem.

A trans-sexual just wanting to live their lives are most likely not a danger to women or women’s spaces. I wouldn’t say the same for some AGP’s

The trans in women’s sports, could come under a whole new category, I think the term is “cheat”

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194740)

Supreme Court about to decide what a woman is.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t#player

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36194745)

As per the ruling though.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36194744)

What are the implications of the ruling? I find the whole topic confusing.

Is it that, in legal matters relating to the Equality Act, 'woman' refers to a biological woman?

Does it impact anything else?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36194741)

The way the UK judiciary has embraced the woke agenda, anything could happen here.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36194752)

Still leaves open the definition of "female" as in "female changing rooms".

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194755)

It does not such thing.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36194756)

Where does it use the word "female"?
Link

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194757)

Your reasoning is flawed.

The ruling itself said that the court made its decision based on “plain reading” of words even when they are not explicitly defined.

It does not need to explicitly include the word “female” for it to be blindingly obvious to anyone (except you) that the ruling does in fact cover the word female. The definition of “female” is clear on exactly the same reasoning that the meaning of “woman” is clear. It’s biology. End of.

Stop being a contrarian. It’s tedious.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36194759)

A biological male with a GRC is legally female. Is that no longer true?

"female" and "woman" are different, depending on context.


Wading through the actual judgement highlights what a incoherent nonsense the whole thing is

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36194759)

A biological male with a GRC is legally female. Is that no longer true?

"female" and "woman" are different, depending on context.


Wading through the actual judgement highlights what a incoherent nonsense the whole thing is

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36194763)

I'm sick of the arguing for arguing sake myself. If only I was allowed to put certain members on ignore...:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36194749)

Trump wants to get involved too!

Starmer told UK must repeal hate speech laws to protect LGBT+ people or lose Trump trade deal

---------- Post added at 11:08 ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 ----------


They haven't and are a lot more considered than many politicians.

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36194763)

. If only I was allowed to put certain members on ignore...:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36194766)

Hate speech is a terrible term and far to broad to legislated for, and I would welcome any action to remove such laws.

Freedom of speech should be absolute. Obvious safeguards such as Incitement to violence should of course be included, but they should also be only if the threat is real, targeted and imminent.

As it stands a broad tweet saying "I'm sick of these small boats, we should all go down to Dover and chuck them all back in the channel" sent out to your dozen followers on X, could see you arrested in present day UK.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36194773)

Absolute freedom of speech won't be absolute if it includes safeguards. That's contradictory. I think most people in the West would agree on freedom of speech with safeguards, as is the case in most Western nations.

Your argument is around what is incitement to violence and what isn't. I think context is another thing to bear in mind here, not just one sentence on its own.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36193916)

TBH I think those who can not see the wood for the trees and accept this without question as almost as deluded as the guys who get themselves butchered

If I went to the doctor and said I do not think my left arm belongs to me and it causing me severe distress I want it cut off . What do you think the diagnosis would be?

That was directed at those with opposing views to me btw hahaa

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36194769)

or you cannot change to being female. Which is it?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36194775)

My view for what it's worth is if you have a cock and balls you're a man and if you've had them removed to be a woman or actually added to be a man then that's what you are and up until that moment you're not, you're still the other so it's best to stay out of those toilets and stuff as if it were me I wouldn't want to cause anyone else distress

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194777)

Herein lies (part of) the problem -

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36194776)

That one.

As you've never been able to change to female........ever.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36194749)

Starmer told UK must repeal hate speech laws to protect LGBT+ people or lose Trump trade deal

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36194786)

So how will it go down when a trans male has to use a women's bathroom or in a woman's hospital ward etc. I'm sure that women will still feel rather uncomfortable with someone that looks male being there.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36194792)

Has too?? Wants too more like

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36194794)

What does that mean?
As per the ruling a woman is born that way and always will be, even after transitioning to appear male they should use women's spaces and not men's.

Or is this uproar only because men becoming women are a scary threat so only applies to male to female and not female to male trans people.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36194794)

What does that mean?
As per the ruling a woman is born that way and always will be, even after transitioning to appear male they should use women's spaces and not men's.

Or is this uproar only because men becoming women are a scary threat so only applies to male to female and not female to male trans people.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36194779)

On the day that a trans man can give birth to a child I'll call them a woman.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36194789)

As the judgment says, you can legally change to be female. That is the source of all these problems. If that had never been allowed in the first place. none of this would be needed.
Either the judgment overturns that or use of the term "female" is context-specific. That would entail two different meanings and uses of the term.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36194786)

So how will it go down when a trans male has to use a women's bathroom or in a woman's hospital ward etc. I'm sure that women will still feel rather uncomfortable with someone that looks male being there.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36194800)

But even that is an incorrect assessment.

---------- Post added at 21:10 ---------- Previous post was at 21:04 ----------



You can’t change your biology, so the terms woman and female now refer to biological sex (why we need a court to decide this proves how far into hell we have already descended)

There is no context required.

Woman, female = not a man.

---------- Post added at 21:13 ---------- Previous post was at 21:10 ----------



They’ll usually be about 5’8” maximum, and look like a bearded woman.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36194798)

It is roughly equal though.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36194803)

As 5ft 7.5inches is the average male height they wont look out of place then. Bearded woman lol. Many will have been undergoing hormone therapy and can perfectly pass for looking male.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36194803)

As 5ft 7.5inches is the average male height they wont look out of place then. Bearded woman lol. Many will have been undergoing hormone therapy and can perfectly pass for looking male.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36194836)

So does this ruling mean that people must be defined as the gender that they were born as? If, for example, a male to female trans person has had their penis removed in favour of a vagina, does this make a difference?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36194838)

I’m gutted for my friend Danielle but in the bigger picture…I just don’t know if this was the right ruling or not. Time will tell how attitudes pan out however the decision will only make decisive attitudes even wider.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36194836)

So does this ruling mean that people must be defined as the gender that they were born as? If, for example, a male to female trans person has had their penis removed in favour of a vagina, does this make a difference?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194840)

The thing about the Supreme Court is that the law is whatever they say it is. They are the final word. It is the right ruling because it’s the ruling they made.

I hear lots of trans activists insisting it’s just an opinion. They are wrong. It is the definitive opinion; the binding one, not just on what the law is right now, but what it always has been. That’s the bit some of them haven’t twigged yet, and which HR departments up and down the country will be absolutely pooing their pants over today.

To take one current example - it is now beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Darlington Nurses, and Sandie Peggie in Fife, were asking for nothing more than their legal rights when they told their employers they did not want to share their single-sex changing room with a man.

The NHS in Darlington and in Fife seems to have been content to insist that it was fair for them to treat the men in question as if they were women. The Supreme Court has made clear that the NHS was wrong in law to do so. And it does not matter that these events are in the past, months or years before this ruling, because the Supreme Cour’s rulings don’t make the law, they clarify what laws passed by Parliament actually mean. And the Equality Act has been on the statute book for 15 years now.

Your friend Danielle still has his rights under the EA 2010 not to be discriminated against on the basis of his trans-identity (in which I assume he says he feels like a she). But he is not entitled to the protections afforded to women under the EA2010 because he is not a woman.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36194800)

But even that is an incorrect assessment.

---------- Post added at 21:10 ---------- Previous post was at 21:04 ----------



You can’t change your biology, so the terms woman and female now refer to biological sex (why we need a court to decide this proves how far into hell we have already descended)

There is no context required.

Woman, female = not a man.

---------- Post added at 21:13 ---------- Previous post was at 21:10 ----------



They’ll usually be about 5’8” maximum, and look like a bearded woman.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194840)

The thing about the Supreme Court is that the law is whatever they say it is. They are the final word. It is the right ruling because it’s the ruling they made.

I hear lots of trans activists insisting it’s just an opinion. They are wrong. It is the definitive opinion; the binding one, not just on what the law is right now, but what it always has been. That’s the bit some of them haven’t twigged yet, and which HR departments up and down the country will be absolutely pooing their pants over today.

To take one current example - it is now beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Darlington Nurses, and Sandie Peggie in Fife, were asking for nothing more than their legal rights when they told their employers they did not want to share their single-sex changing room with a man.

The NHS in Darlington and in Fife seems to have been content to insist that it was fair for them to treat the men in question as if they were women. The Supreme Court has made clear that the NHS was wrong in law to do so. And it does not matter that these events are in the past, months or years before this ruling, because the Supreme Cour’s rulings don’t make the law, they clarify what laws passed by Parliament actually mean. And the Equality Act has been on the statute book for 15 years now.

Your friend Danielle still has his rights under the EA 2010 not to be discriminated against on the basis of his trans-identity (in which I assume he says he feels like a she). But he is not entitled to the protections afforded to women under the EA2010 because he is not a woman.

---------- Post added at 18:55 ---------- Previous post was at 18:43 ----------



No, it would not make a difference so far as the Equality Act 2010 is concerned.

Let’s not lose sight of what the court has ruled on here, and what it has not ruled on. It has not ruled on an individual’s right to get surgery and change their name from Dave to Davina. It has not ruled on a man’s right to put on a dress and ask people to refer to him as ‘she’. And it has not ruled on anyone else’s right to refuse to do so, on the basis that he is in reality, immutably, a man. Those things were what they were on Monday and they are still what they are today.

The Supreme Court ruling relates to the Equality Act 2010 and whether someone with a Gender Recognition Certificate, which entitles them to change their passport and birth certificate and be treated by the State by their newly certified gender rather than their biological sex, has also acquired the rights conferred on the sex they have “changed” to. The Scottish Government claimed that a trans-identifying male has the rights afforded to women under the Equality Act. The Supreme Court says they do not, because a gender recognition certificate cannot change biological reality.

In truth this is a problem the last Labour government ought to have seen coming. Legislating to create a legal fiction is always fraught with difficulty no matter how well intentioned.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36194844)

Thanks for explaining. I had assumed that the NHS women had objected because some trans people elect not to have their genitalia surgically changed and they were fearful of sexual assault by a penis, this is why I asked what I did.

I can understand why they would object to a M to F person who is sexually attracted to females being in a place where they are in a state of undress, but the person may be sexually attracted to men, whose to know! Also, would they object to getting changed with a naturally born woman who happens to be a lesbian?

I suppose males and females being segregated in places where they get undressed goes back to the days where it was assumed that all men fancied women and all women fancy men. Perhaps changing rooms should be segregated according to whether one is gay or straight!

There again, women still wouldn't be safe as some men may lie in order to gain access to undressed females.

And what about those who are bisexual etc??

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36194844)

Thanks for explaining. I had assumed that the NHS women had objected because some trans people elect not to have their genitalia surgically changed and they were fearful of sexual assault by a penis, this is why I asked what I did.

I can understand why they would object to a M to F person who is sexually attracted to females being in a place where they are in a state of undress, but the person may be sexually attracted to men, whose to know! Also, would they object to getting changed with a naturally born woman who happens to be a lesbian?

I suppose males and females being segregated in places where they get undressed goes back to the days where it was assumed that all men fancied women and all women fancy men. Perhaps changing rooms should be segregated according to whether one is gay or straight!

There again, women still wouldn't be safe as some men may lie in order to gain access to undressed females.

And what about those who are bisexual etc??

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194879)

The basic argument is for dignity, privacy and safety. It ought to be a given in society that women ought to be able to use the toilet or get changed for work without men in close proximity. Whether or not the man in question is actually likely to assault them is a distant secondary consideration and in fact is a regular strawman put up by trans activists. Why should they have men listening to them, or looking at them? Why should women who have suffered sexual assault in the past have to suffer being told, while at a rape crisis centre, that it is their responsibility to ‘re frame their trauma’ when they learn that the person in charge of the centre is a man larping as a woman (this actually happened in Edinburgh)?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36194887)

I know you're not aiming that at anyone in particular, which ought to go without saying.

Given my long conversations with Dan over the past 2 decades, I'd stake my reputation that she'd never think that way or commit such crimes.

But as we all know, one person is one too many. It does happen.

I remain conflicted on this. I'm glad people like her still have protection in Law for their trans status. One of the only viable way forward to suit as many people as possible would be more gender-neutral toilets etc which of course will trigger many bigotted-types until it's been pointed out to them that disabled toilets have been that way for decades.

My employer has a LGBTQ+ forum group which is open to all, and we meet up each month. I joined so I could learn how to be a better Straight Ally, however, this does not mean I agree with all views put forward. This will no doubt be the main topic of discussion at the next meeting, and I'm eager to hear all opinions on the day.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194879)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but a sexual assault can be carried out by a man even after he’s had his Johnson removed.

The basic argument is for dignity, privacy and safety. It ought to be a given in society that women ought to be able to use the toilet or get changed for work without men in close proximity. Whether or not the man in question is actually likely to assault them is a distant secondary consideration and in fact is a regular strawman put up by trans activists. Why should they have men listening to them, or looking at them? Why should women who have suffered sexual assault in the past have to suffer being told, while at a rape crisis centre, that it is their responsibility to ‘re frame their trauma’ when they learn that the person in charge of the centre is a man larping as a woman (this actually happened in Edinburgh)?

Trans activists have been getting away with it because of the ludicrous claim that a ‘trans woman is a woman’, which far too many organisations, especially in the public sector, have been too willing to take as given. Even though the Supreme Court ruling this week dealt only specifically with how this relates to the Equality Act 2010, the fact that the highest court in the land has this week spoken in terms of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ being immutable biological categories has shifted the dial on this whole debate. And a good thing it is too.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36194893)

The problem that the NHS woman would have with gender neutral toilets is that any man could enter, not just trans people, so they'd view it as being worse.

In order to comply with the law, a lot of licensed premises are making the female toilets gender neutral from this weekend.

It's a complicated issue. I saw a programme the other day where men who take on female roles aren't classed as men or women, but as something else. I can't remember the term, it was in India I think.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36194897)

Most Gender Neutral toilets are single user rooms, like Disabled/Baby Changing rooms.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194896)

Indeed not. But if you do, never forget the wise words of Monty Python ;)

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36194904)

True, but a lot of commercial premises are now making their female toilets gender neutral in order to both comply with the law and ensure that those who identify as female and/or have undergone gender reassignment surgery don't have to face the embarrassment or safety concerns of using a male only toilet.

---------- Post added at 00:16 ---------- Previous post was at 00:15 ----------



Eh?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36194904)

Eh?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194912)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36194911)

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36194843)

Only applies to the Equality Act 2010.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36194913)

That’s all it needs to.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36194918)

But it doesn't.
If it applied to everything, then the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Gender Recognition Certificates that go with it, would be null and void. There could be no such terms as Trans male/female. Sports that have no biological advantage(eg Darts, Chess, Snooker) wouldn't have to accept Trans male/female. That is not the case, so it only applies to the EA 2010 and the SDA 1975.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36194920)

Chess, I’ll give you.

But males do have an advantage in Snooker and Darts. And any self respecting female should refuse to compete against a man in a female category.

The Gender Recognition Act and certificate are pretty much useless now and will need to be reformed or hopefully removed

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36194910)

Citation/source, please?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194912)

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36194925)

What advantage? There are short men that play snooker and darts.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36194961)

If that’s the foundation of your argument, you’re on shaky ground.

https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/menta...re%20important.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/snooker/...n-transgender/



Which negates most of the reasons for the need of it.

The slogan TWAW, is now meaningless because they are not, by law. If a female was in a bathroom in my place of work and Trans-female identifying man walked in the bathroom, she could quite rightly complain to HR and have something done about.




Yes and a man with GRC, that says he is a woman, is a man.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36194961)

If that’s the foundation of your argument, you’re on shaky ground.

https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/menta...re%20important.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/snooker/...n-transgender/



Which negates most of the reasons for the need of it.

The slogan TWAW, is now meaningless because they are not, by law. If a female was in a bathroom in my place of work and Trans-female identifying man walked in the bathroom, she could quite rightly complain to HR and have something done about.

Yes and a man with GRC, that says he is a woman, is a man.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36194966)

So a trans man has to use the female toilets and a trans woman has to use the male toilets. I can forsee this causing problems as the other users may believe that one gender is using the wrong toilet.

Additionaly, this swaps naturally born women from feeling at risk or being uncomfortable for trans people feeling this way instead. This is especially problematic for licensed premises where alcohol has been taken and toilets are often the place where people like to attack people because there are few/no witnesses or CCTV.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36194966)

So a trans man has to use the female toilets and a trans woman has to use the male toilets.
<SNIP>

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194973)

We might also ask ourselves how we survived the 1980s, which had more than its fair share of androgeny, cross dressing and New Romantics, all using the correctly sexed pub toilets. And somehow there was no genocide of Culture Club fans.
.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194973)

As I keep saying, the risks are asymmetric. A man in a woman’s toilet poses a risk to the women. A woman in a man’s toilet is at risk from men.

Either way, it is an assertion of trans ideology that they have no choice but to role-play as the opposite sex, and it is an assertion that ought to be challenged, because as far as I can see, if a man slaps on lipstick and a dress and then complains he would be vulnerable in a men’s toilet, he has made himself vulnerable and he ought to be asking himself, in the first instance, what he could be doing to mitigate that. Beyond that, we ought to be challenging the men in the men’s toilet to see if they really do have such a narrow and fragile conception of masculinity that they can’t cope with unconventional forms of dress. And we also need to make very clear that whosever problem this is, it is not the women, who want to have only women in their single-sex women’s private space. A great big chunk of the trans rights movement is just men’s rights in lipstick, trying to make women give way to them. It is misogyny on stilts and it has to stop.

We might also ask ourselves how we survived the 1980s, which had more than its fair share of androgeny, cross dressing and New Romantics, all using the correctly sexed pub toilets. And somehow there was no genocide of Culture Club fans.

Trans dogma needs challenged. We need to stop assuming the bleating about genocide and lives at risk is true and start demanding receipts.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36195027)

Social media is going wild over this. There's suggestions that trans people could/should use the disabled toilet, disabled people complaining that there is usually only one & they will have to wait (especially relevant where a disability/illness gives rise to extra toileting needs, especially at short notice), some venues are saying that they will ignore the law and a few saying that they will designate one or both toilets as gender neutral. Also, there are claims that the Government will amend the law to negate this ruling.