According to the Sex Matters website, in Croft v RM, "the Court of Appeal said that at some point a male person should be considered transitioned enough to gain access to women’s facilities, even if they had not ‘changed sex’, but it would not say what that point was."
According to the Sex Matters website, in Croft v RM, "the Court of Appeal said that at some point a male person should be considered transitioned enough to gain access to women’s facilities, even if they had not ‘changed sex’, but it would not say what that point was."
Does the Croft judgment mean that it's impossible for an employer to provide single sex facilities as inevitably at some point the employer would have to allow the trans employee to use those facilities?
Also at some points in Sandie Peggie's tribunal, the judge remarked on the level of expertise of witnesses. Would the judge accord more 'expertise' to Upton's definition of sex as compared to testimony of non-experts? Would it have helped Peggie's case if an expert witness like Professor Winston had explained the definition of sex to the judge?
Hi Michael, thanks for doing the Q&A
According to the Sex Matters website, in Croft v RM, "the Court of Appeal said that at some point a male person should be considered transitioned enough to gain access to women’s facilities, even if they had not ‘changed sex’, but it would not say what that point was."
Does the Croft judgment mean that it's impossible for an employer to provide single sex facilities as inevitably at some point the employer would have to allow the trans employee to use those facilities?
Also at some points in Sandie Peggie's tribunal, the judge remarked on the level of expertise of witnesses. Would the judge accord more 'expertise' to Upton's definition of sex as compared to testimony of non-experts? Would it have helped Peggie's case if an expert witness like Professor Winston had explained the definition of sex to the judge?