5 August 2026 - how are they reporting on EHRC "guidance enforcement day"?

C4 news has done 2 segments. First really biased. Second at least has MAS answering question, but slant of questions and attitude really hostile.

Again, the absence of recognition that trans identifying women are necessarily included in 'women' is striking.

https://x.com/Channel4News/status/2084922659729469678

"'I will never be safe in a man's toilet', says Isabella who is a trans woman."

I am also willing to bet today that there will be an absence of recognition of the vulnerability of women with he/they pronouns who are disproportionately young.

The EHRC makes it clear that they cannot be excluded from women's provision without very, very good reason, and that they must have alternative provision. But that kind of protection is not valuable to people who can only prioritise men.

Again, the absence of recognition that trans identifying women are necessarily included in 'women' is striking.

https://x.com/Channel4News/status/2084922659729469678

"'I will never be safe in a man's toilet', says Isabella who is a trans woman."

I am also willing to bet today that there will be an absence of recognition of the vulnerability of women with he/they pronouns who are disproportionately young.

The EHRC makes it clear that they cannot be excluded from women's provision without very, very good reason, and that they must have alternative provision. But that kind of protection is not valuable to people who can only prioritise men.

I am willing to bet a large amount of money that the guidance does not include the word 'cis'.

This seems misleading:

"It is particularly concerning that this analysis has been ignored by the EHRC and the government, given that the High Court judgment remains the highest judicial consideration of this area of law following the Supreme Court judgment last year."

Presumably because the High Court didn't find that the EHRC were wrong?

And even if you get over that hurdle, you have two more hurdles:

1). It's very difficult to demonstrate that the service meets the proportionate/legitmate criteria for being a single sex service if it includes men.

2). Lack of single sex provision may also discriminate against women.

I don't know where to start with this:

"If you exclude cis men from a trans-inclusive women’s service, it’s not because their sex was recorded as “male” at birth. This is, in fact, proven by the admission of trans women, whose sex was also recorded as “male”, but who are allowed to use the service. It is a person’s lived gender – not their “sex” under the Equality Act 2010 – which is the reason for their exclusion."

Do we think this was written by a lawyer? It doesn't even seem up to the calibre of some of our regular vistors.

I do however note that there is a 'chip in' button immediately below this paragraph.

One of the panellists thought the guidance was ridiculous as she didn’t want to share a changing room with a hairy trans man

Is the assumption that trans identifying women are somehow safe from the kind of man who would attack a trans identifying man?

From The Good Law Project:

(to be read along with a HUGE pinch of salt, a brain extraction, and while on your fifth martini)

How the Code of Practice gets the law wrong | Good Law Project

'Good Law Project have helped a trans person and a trans-inclusive organisation take the first step towards legal action against the code of practice. The claimants have written a pre-action letter (PDF) to the government and the EHRC explaining why it is unlawful.

The challenge focuses on the elements of the guidance which tell service providers they can no longer operate on a trans-inclusive basis. The code of practice says that any service provided for both cis and trans women must also be provided to cis men – or else it is “very likely” to be discriminatory against them. It states that any service which is not a single-sex service (a service operating strictly on the basis of sex recorded at birth) “must be open to all service users”. This includes facilities such as toilets. These parts of the guidance only apply to service providers. They do not apply to associations, like Girlguiding, which the guidance says can remain trans inclusive.

When the code suggests that a trans-inclusive women’s service is “very likely” to unlawfully discriminate based on sex, it implies that this would be direct sex discrimination. But an inclusive service provided to women – based on their lived gender – doesn’t directly discriminate based on “sex” (now defined as “biological sex” under the Equality Act) at all. If you exclude cis men from a trans-inclusive women’s service, it’s not because their sex was recorded as “male” at birth.

This is, in fact, proven by the admission of trans women, whose sex was also recorded as “male”, but who are allowed to use the service. It is a person’s lived gender – not their “sex” under the Equality Act 2010 – which is the reason for their exclusion....'

Well, one can rely on Channel 5 Jeremy Vine show to only present one side of the argument. Again. As ever, they had one guest - a fully transitioned TIM who, on screen at least, did a fair job of passing. There were 3, possibly 4, callers, all of whom were against SSS. All callers in to the show are screened, so their position would have been known. One of the panellists thought the guidance was ridiculous as she didn’t want to share a changing room with a hairy trans man - which ‘confused’ Jeremy Vine. His faux naivety is ludicrous and annoying, as well as biased. The token right winger, Carole Malone, just shrieked the weakest defence possible that was so easily batted away even by the idiots on the panel. Another shit show.
I don’t know if Channel 5 have any responsibility to be fair/present both sides of an argument; I’m guessing not. It’s just predictably infuriating.