Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Houses of Parliament refuses to ban trans women from female lavatories

395 replies

IwantToRetire · 21/05/2025 01:14

A spokesman told The Telegraph that the House of Commons would be waiting for guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission before changing its rules.

He said they wanted to ensure that all are treated in an “inclusive manner”. The House of Lords said it would be adopting a similar approach.

“Like many organisations, we are awaiting full guidance from the EHRC on this issue.

“However, in advance of that we are reviewing the facilities that are available on the estate and providing support to colleagues where needed. We are committed to treating all those who work in or visit Parliament with respect, and in an inclusive manner.”

Asked why the Commons had decided not to follow the EHRC’s interim guidance, the spokesman said there was no comment.

A spokesman for the House of Lords said the Upper House was “taking a similar approach to the House of Commons”.

From a much longer article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/05/20/houses-of-parliament-refuse-ban-trans-women-female-toilets/

Can also be read in full at https://archive.is/0jQK3

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
16
Original poster
IwantToRetire · 24/05/2025 18:10

But also contact your own MP and why they are not ensuring that their workplace complies with the guidelines provided by the body they set up to implement equality laws.

Have just seen on facebook a post (I think from LWD) that MPs are most likely being inundated with emails etc., from TRAs saying how outrageous the Supreme Court ruling was for trans people. And like it or not, MPs are more than likely to take this as an indication of how the "public" or at least their constituents feel.

So any sort of message saying how important for women the Suprememe Court ruling is, what a relief to see the interim guidelines from the EHRC, and by they way do they know why the HoC isn't implemting them, could help balance out the picture they may be getting.

OP posts:
Original poster
IwantToRetire · 23/05/2025 17:23

IwantToRetire · 22/05/2025 15:55

Does anyone think this is the decision making group?
https://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/governance-of-the-house-of-commons-/house-governance-structure/

And if so "Nick Smith MP answers both oral and written questions on behalf of the Commission"

One of its responsibilities is:

  • To fulfil the statutory responsibilities delegated to it by the House of Commons Commission in relation to the employment of House staff.

From earlier in this thread. This maybe the group / MP to contact.

But also contact your own MP and why they are not ensuring that their workplace complies with the guidelines provided by the body they set up to implement equality laws.

OP posts:
lcakethereforeIam · 23/05/2025 13:00

It genuinely seems to be the Privy Council. I might be misunderstanding but I'm not making it up. Leader of the House, Lucy Powell MP* seems to be in charge, don't know if she's also responsible for the Lords though.

*love this ad.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/AK4d9FNohTU?si=0GiW0mcHoEZNkJyu

Keeptoiletssafe · 23/05/2025 12:42

lcakethereforeIam · 23/05/2025 10:33

Seems to be the Privy Council.

😂Is that a piss-take?

(apologies = toilet humour)

Davros · 23/05/2025 10:47

@alsoFanOfNaomi thanks, the third link worked. I need to stop myself getting agitated!

lcakethereforeIam · 23/05/2025 10:33

Seems to be the Privy Council.

Shortshriftandlethal · 23/05/2025 10:22

I want to know who it is in parliament that has stated the intention to flout the law? Is there a particular office or officer who has issued this statement?

Davros · 23/05/2025 09:54

That link doesn’t work for me. I’d like to see it

ArabellaScott · 23/05/2025 06:51

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/2025.05.21-124836/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/21/ban-trans-women-female-lavatories-says-equalities-watchdog" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.is/2025.05.21-124836/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/21/ban-trans-women-female-lavatories-says-equalities-watchdog/

The EHRC have stated that parliament should follow the law.

LHR2JFK · 23/05/2025 06:07

MyOliveHelper · 21/05/2025 18:03

That situation is totally irrelevant to what I'm saying. If you cant see why, its exactly what I mean by talking about things you don't actually understand.

How would you force your employer to reveal whether another employee is trans or not? Can you imagine having to stand there and list the reasons you suspect they are and why you should have access to their records to know for sure? If your boss wants to make you look like a weirdo, they can. What you going to do? Try and get the courts to reveal the truth?

The ruling sounded great at first. In reality, it changes very little.

Show quote history

You are engaging in double think. The reason I know the TW in my organisation is a man, is because he has fathered children and I also knew him as Steve, and not just Steffie. And that’s usually the case. You are trying to make it the law that women have to pretend that something which is a lie, is the truth.
The onus is not on women to be obedient to his whims.

MoltenLasagne · 23/05/2025 03:13

Part of EHRC's explanation of not intervening at ERCC is that they considered it to be too small to justify, which surely cannot be the case here. I'd also argue that the discrimination is directly against women in this case, as opposed to in the ERCC case.

In fact intervening in such a blatant refusal to follow the law in protecting women's spaces from a prominent employer would be a great use of resources given it would serve as a warning to others thinking of following suit.

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 22/05/2025 21:24

I was just trying to remember the time line of when ERCC appointed MW in breach of them advertising the role under the EA SSE.

Because whether or not the EHRC should have stepped in rather than the immediate organisations set up to monitor the charity sector in Scotland, there is also the fact that prior to the appointment of Baroness Falkner the EHRC was, if not captured, operating with employees who were very TWAW.

She started working there from 2021. There was a lot of internal strife, and formal complaints against her. Wasn't she suspended, and had lots of public abuse.

So lack of resources have also been taken up with this internal, but quite public, struggle to restore the EHRC to some more "balanced" position.

But based on what is going on now, I am beginning to suspect that even if the EHRC took whatever formal means they have to act against those breaching guidelines, they would be ignored. And politicians would just shruck.

The stance of the HoC virtually makes the EHRC irrelevant and signals to others they dont need to listen to them.

OP posts:
Walkden · 22/05/2025 21:20

"What is the point of the EHRC if they create guidelines and everyone ignores them?!!"

Many workplaces and institutions are adopting a wait and see approach I suppose hoping that the final guidance provides more clarity on circumstances where it is appropriate to exclude transmen from women's facilities
For instance, and what provision should be made if 3rd spaces cannot be accomadated

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 22/05/2025 21:13

ArabellaScott · 22/05/2025 16:54

This happened in Scotland, where there are regulatoring authorities who should have intervened.

Who?

Show quote history

As I remember at the time you supplied the correct names and contact details for various institutions in Scotland, such as the Charity Commission.

I agree the last stop is the EHRC, but the reality is, is if the institutions who monitori charities, funders and politicians had acted correctly if wouldn't be looking to the EHRC to sort out.

What is the point of the EHRC if they create guidelines and everyone ignores them?!!

OP posts:
BundleBoogie · 22/05/2025 18:09

MyOliveHelper · 21/05/2025 07:53

That would be the case if the vast majority of women agreed with the ruling and all wanted to advocate for single sex spaces. They clearly don't. Some of the most vocal advocates of trans inclusive spaces at the detriment of single sex spaces are heterosexual women. The truth is it would be a minority of women who would find it a worthy enough cause to actively do something about it. Probably not even a third of all women.

Show quote history

Th vast majority of women (and men) DO agree with keeping female only spaces for women only. The numbers supporting it over the years have increased as more women understand what they were actually proposing to give away.

Women who want to prioritise men over women are an extremely vocal minority. And getting more minority by the day thanks to charmers like Jamie the abusive MP and IWs incoherent rants.

BundleBoogie · 22/05/2025 17:59

BeizenderKarneval · 21/05/2025 07:24

Women (including trans identified ones), and gay and lesbian people, have legal protections onf paper and in theory but in practice apparently, the law is just kind of rough guidelines that let you make 'choices'.

That was my original point. I'm very, very happy to change that interpretation based on new facts if they can be supplied, but I could not find anywhere in the SC ruling any clause that states it is a requirement to ban trans-women from female bathrooms. I know you want it to be there, we all do, but I don't think it is.

I'm very open to being proved wrong on this if anyone can please direct me to the section of the ruling that actually states this.

Until then, I will say again, SC ruling is on the definition of a women. It is up to organisations, institutions, and individuals to then interpret that ruling; hence the EHRC issuing interim guidance stating that trans women should not be permitted to use women's facilities in workplaces and public-facing services like shops and hospitals.

Show quote history

A ‘trans identified woman’ is a woman who identifies as trans - maybe as a ‘transman’ or something else.

A ‘transwoman’ is a man and I realise you are super desperate for men to be in women’s spaces but they are not women so the law says they can’t be allowed into women’s spaces. HTH.

zenas · 22/05/2025 17:51

If the EHRC has such limited resources that it cannot intervene early in any lawbreaking under the EqA, then the obvious answer, especially now with the TRAs actively grouping to sow confusion and opposition to the SC - is vastly increased resources!

Who do I write to about this. Probably some Department ruled and funded by the HoC!

It appears that the EHRC operates independently of Government, fair enough, but it is funded by the Government Equality Office, now called the, wait for it..... the Women and Equalities Unit. It is part of the Cabinet Office.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/about-us/how-we-operate/how-we-work-governments#:~:text=Our%20funding%20is%20provided%20by,business%20or%20perform%20its%20functions.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/government-equalities-office

Government Equalities Office

The Government Equalities Office leads work on policy relating to women, sexual orientation and transgender equality. We are responsible for a range of equalities legislation.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/government-equalities-office

ArabellaScott · 22/05/2025 16:54

IwantToRetire · 22/05/2025 16:20

EHRC could and should have intervened and didn't due to 'limited resources'

Exactly the point I am making.

Everyone sitting round seeming to think the EHRC should do everything.

This happened in Scotland, where there are regulatoring authorities who should have intervened.

Is it any wonder their work load is beyond their resources.

Far too late to wait for the remote final point of contact, when there exists bodies that regulate charities, finances, funders.

Anyone of them could and should have intervened. And indeed MSPs.

Not forgetting RC Scotland!

This happened in Scotland, where there are regulatoring authorities who should have intervened.

Who?

Walkden · 22/05/2025 16:28

"EHRC could and should have intervened and didn't due to 'limited resources'"

Austerity means that enforcement of the law is lax in lots of areas and industry.
I'm not clear at all who, if anyone, is going to enforce the interim guidance and suspect many organisations will wait for consultations and final guidance to be issued ( also partly due to limited resources).

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 22/05/2025 16:20

EHRC could and should have intervened and didn't due to 'limited resources'

Exactly the point I am making.

Everyone sitting round seeming to think the EHRC should do everything.

This happened in Scotland, where there are regulatoring authorities who should have intervened.

Is it any wonder their work load is beyond their resources.

Far too late to wait for the remote final point of contact, when there exists bodies that regulate charities, finances, funders.

Anyone of them could and should have intervened. And indeed MSPs.

Not forgetting RC Scotland!

OP posts:
Nameychangington · 22/05/2025 16:12

IwantToRetire · 22/05/2025 15:57

Those who didn't intervene were the relevent regulatory organisations in Scotland who were told that the ERCC had falsely advertised a job as being women only under the EA SSE and chose not to act.

Show quote history

EHRC could and should have intervened and didn't due to 'limited resources' :

The EHRC’s answer to an inquiry about any action it intended to take in relation to the appointment of Wadhwa to the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre post was (after delay of over 12 weeks) as follows:

“The Commission has a number of regulatory powers. However, as you will appreciate, the Commission has limited resources and we must use our powers strategically. We consider our litigation and enforcement policy when deciding when to take legal action. The policy can be found here

We have considered carefully whether taking formal action in relation to ERCC would be a proportionate and effective use of our powers. We have taken into consideration the fact that ERCC is a small third sector organisation, that the recruitment for the role in question has been completed and, if there is an unlawful act which is not clear, that the number of people who may have been adversely impacted in the recruitment process is limited [being men suitably qualified for the role and deterred from applying due to the advert specifying that only women need apply]. On balance therefore we do not believe that using our enforcement powers in relation to this matter is proportionate

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/12/fostering-good-relations/

Fostering good relations -

Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre’s appointment of a man to its CEO role is a shocking gesture of contempt towards traumatised women.

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/12/fostering-good-relations/

Original poster
IwantToRetire · 22/05/2025 15:57

Nameychangington · 22/05/2025 14:27

EHRC apparently didn't have capacity to intervene, when a man was appointed to a women-only job running ERCC. Maybe they'll find the time to act now.

Those who didn't intervene were the relevent regulatory organisations in Scotland who were told that the ERCC had falsely advertised a job as being women only under the EA SSE and chose not to act.

OP posts:
Original poster
IwantToRetire · 22/05/2025 15:55

Does anyone think this is the decision making group?
https://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/governance-of-the-house-of-commons-/house-governance-structure/

And if so "Nick Smith MP answers both oral and written questions on behalf of the Commission"

One of its responsibilities is:

  • To fulfil the statutory responsibilities delegated to it by the House of Commons Commission in relation to the employment of House staff.
OP posts:
Original poster
IwantToRetire · 22/05/2025 15:47

If the PCS is able to work out:

‘It is important to remember that, irrespective of our personal views, any breach of the Equality Act 2010 may give rise to legal liability and, on that basis, we ask all delegates to use the facilities in accordance with the above.’

then so can the HoC.

Am I right in thinking that the Speaker of the House has some sort of status in relation to how things are run. Or is that just "in the chamber".

If anybody knows or understands the hierarchy can you explain?!

In the meantime we need to be shaming all our MPs to do the right thing, otherwise if they feel entitled to break the law than what does that say about their ability to govern.

Its a complete disgrace. And I suspect that it is also about all the TRA MPs making it known they would challenge anyone who said they had to obey the law. And want to make their point that they think the Supreme Court's decision is wrong.

We need to challenge our MPs. Not wait around for the EHRC to have to take on even more work than they already have.

MPs are meant to be a bit more adult than truculent school children thinking they are being so clever by not observing accepted practices.

I wonder if the Parliament Petiton web site would accept a petition saying MPs should NOT break the law?

Probably not.

I just think that apart from a tiny handful, MPs just dont think upholding women's rights is of any importance.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread