Labour’s trans guidance ‘poses danger to women’

But you would only know their sex and what they looked like. There are some men who identify as men who have long hair and makeup and look very feminine. So you wouldn't know if the individual in front of you was a trans woman or a feminine styled man, or non-binary etc.

That's the point. You don't know & they potentially could be trans.

Otherwise asking the preferred pronouns of someone who was clearly biologically male or female would definitely 'out' their gender id.

It certainly has the potential to out them that's why people shouldn't be asked & they can volunteer them if they want to.

A good many people would be offended/upset that their sex wasn't obvious & regardless whether that's unreasonable doesn't change the fact they would be offended/upset. That this needs to be said is indicative of the social ignorance of those defending this kind of harassment.

You would think gender critical people would have some empathy to claims of discomfort from women given this is often presented as a valid reason for trans exclusion.

This little addendum will not hold and will be challenged going forward. It was clearly a late addition to appease activists.

Not without due parliamentary and legal process, surely?

It's fucking depressing that they've managed to spectacularly mangle this having sat on it for over a bloody year.

It appears you can ask someone's sex if you're sensitive whilst going about it, but that it would be inappropriate and impractical if it wasn't about the primary service?

Are they trying to say that rape refuges yes, toilets at the Old Vic. no. Prison and sport, of course, pubs, not really.

They're really trying to fucking have their cake and then gobble it up at lightning speed, too.

It's always about toilets for trans activists, because that's their dose of daily, if not hourly, validation.

And this is how they're attempting to swing it. Toilets are attached to something else, they're not the primary service.

It's an absolutely shit show of course, because it's dual and contradictory advice running concurrently depending upon the service. when it should be depending on whether it's bloody single sex or not.

These men, as Sex Matters points out, are never, ever the sort of men you want in your space. The simple act of desiring to access unconsenting women shows it.

They'll never stop.

What is wrong with being discomfited, offended or upset?

If GC's actually believed that they wouldn't be demanding single sex spaces on behalf of women who feel that way being around trans women.

Can you back up this assertion that women are being harassed and being made to feel uncomfortable to an unacceptable degree?

There have been numerous incidents reported in the media of cis women being heckled, wrestled & demanded they leave public toilets for being men including cancer survivors. That some don't consider this as harassment is quite the tell of how much they actually really care about women's safety & well being.

One thing that does concern me - if there are challenges to this guidance within the 40 days then does it have to go around the loop again? In other words could the government insert errors repeatedly so the guidance never comes into force? Left permanently in drafting or approval?

What is wrong with being discomfited, offended or upset?

If GC's actually believed that they wouldn't be demanding single sex spaces on behalf of women who feel that way being around trans women.

Can you back up this assertion that women are being harassed and being made to feel uncomfortable to an unacceptable degree?

There have been numerous incidents reported in the media of cis women being heckled, wrestled & demanded they leave public toilets for being men including cancer survivors. That some don't consider this as harassment is quite the tell of how much they actually really care about women's safety & well being.

I think this is the part of the guidance that seems contradictory:

13.170 It is unlikely to be either practical or appropriate to approach any particular individual to make enquiries about their sex in relation to facilities, such as toilets, which are incidental to the primary service.

Can one ask if the toilets are the primary service?

What if somebody walks into the wrong toilet by mistake?

Is "I think you might be in the wrong toilet..." an enquiry?

Can one approach a group of people and just vaguely ask "are there any men here?", being careful to avoid eye contact.

Is the suggestion that it would be reasonable to provide a single sex service because "only people of that sex require it" but as soon as those people use the changing room, all bets are off and it's a free for all?

I think this is the bit that has been inserted at the last minute and it doesn't make sense.

Do the government have the power just insert sex into that category?

"This is wrong in law.
Article 9(1) of UK GDPR defines special category data as “personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.” It does not include sex."

What is wrong with being discomfited, offended or upset? If you are so hugely distressed at being mistaken for the opposite sex that you think that nobody should ever be questioned, then it is you that has the problem, not society.

Can you back up this assertion that women are being harassed and being made to feel uncomfortable to an unacceptable degree?

But you would only know their sex and what they looked like. There are some men who identify as men who have long hair and makeup and look very feminine. So you wouldn't know if the individual in front of you was a trans woman or a feminine styled man, or non-binary etc.

That's the point. You don't know & they potentially could be trans.

Otherwise asking the preferred pronouns of someone who was clearly biologically male or female would definitely 'out' their gender id.

It certainly has the potential to out them that's why people shouldn't be asked & they can volunteer them if they want to.

All this presupposes that if a trans person is challenged for using opposite-sex services, then they must out themselves. No they don't (and what's the point? They're not entitled to use the service anyway). All they need to do is use the gender-neutral services.

It's ridiculous to suggest that providers cannot make access to a single-sex service conditional on providing proof of sex.

If gender is some kind of innate internal feeling/belief, then you can't work out someone's gender by asking for their sex.

A provider querying a patron's sex because they suspect they used the wrong sex facility possibly puts the patron in a position of revealing they are trans…a philosophical belief. Now one might say they had no right to be there if that was the case but its still an act of collecting special private data nevertheless. And let's not forget providers might be following up on complaints about incorrect facility usage that may or may not be justified so the person being forced to 'out' their beliefs may not have even violated usage.

A good many people would be offended/upset that their sex wasn't obvious & regardless whether that's unreasonable doesn't change the fact they would be offended/upset. That this needs to be said is indicative of the social ignorance of those defending this kind of harassment.

You would think gender critical people would have some empathy to claims of discomfort from women given this is often presented as a valid reason for trans exclusion.

This little addendum will not hold and will be challenged going forward. It was clearly a late addition to appease activists.

It does - but the quote is somewhat cherry picked.

13.170 It is unlikely to be either practical or appropriate to approach any particular individual to make enquiries about their sex in relation to facilities, such as toilets, which are incidental to the primary service.
13.171 Where it is necessary to ask about a service user’s sex, the measures involved in doing so must be no more than necessary to accomplish the aim of establishing eligibility.
13.172 Such measures may be proportionate if implemented in response to clear evidence of the opposite sex accessing the single or separate-sex service or association membership. Where an individual is asked to confirm their sex, this should be done as sensitively as possible, and must respect their privacy.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026#:~:text=single%2Dsex%20services.%C2%A0-,Asking%20about%20sex%C2%A0,-13.161%20Personal%20data

Can't see sex. Can't see sexism.

If we don't record data relating to sex, we can not give evidence of sexism. It disempowers women in very crucial ways if sex is invisible. Default human is male.

There's an award winning book on the whole subject called 'Invisible Women'. Perhaps copies of this book should be sent to the Labour Party.

A good many people would be offended/upset that their sex wasn't obvious & regardless whether that's unreasonable doesn't change the fact they would be offended/upset. That this needs to be said is indicative of the social ignorance of those defending this kind of harassment.

You would think gender critical people would have some empathy to claims of discomfort from women given this is often presented as a valid reason for trans exclusion.