Houses of Parliament refuses to ban trans women from female lavatories

[IwantToRetire]

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

But that's illegal?

No comment; because they're almost certainly aware that it's both legally and morally indefensible. What sort of example do they think they are setting with this behaviour? It's only going to embolden the liars and grifters on the trans zealot side.

WTH? I don’t understand how they can do this. Are there any other cases where they’ve ignored the law just cos they felt like it?

What do they need to wait for ? How much clearer can it be? I don't understand how we got here in the first place. Madness

It isn't illegal.

The SC is a revision on the definition of a women; it does not directly legislate to ban trans-women and others who may identify as women from women-only spaces. You can absolutely argue it should, that's fine, but you are simply not correct in law.

The idea that this is a legal 'ban' has come about by people's interpretation, and execution of that interpretation, of the new ruling.

What the SC ruling does do is give organisations the legal right to make their own decisions on whether trans-women are welcome in their female toilets.

My guess is that the HoP, spineless as ever, are very wary about implementing an actual ban because of the backlash such an announcement might cause.

No, that’s incorrect.

The Supreme Court was very clear that is a space or service ya marked as woman-/female-only, it means single-sex. This is explicit in the judgement and easy to rationalise. What you mean is that places are free to replace women-/female- only with an explicitly mixed sex space (typically called gender-neutral).

I recommend you read the judgement, as there’s really no excuse for this misinformation being circulated given its clarity & simplicity.

Furthermore, it’s emphatically not a revision of the definition of woman, but a confirmation of the initial intent of the EA2010 - in other words, that woman has always meant what the SC is saying, & the EQ has been misinterpreted & misapplied at the expense of women for years.

Again, the “revision” claim is usually made by those unclear ob recent developments or, more cynically, those who are seeking trying to undermine the law. Again, the judgement itself is explicit on this.

Your last paragraph, at least, is spot-on! Totally agree.🙄

I’d add that the post above confidently misrepresenting the law shows the real-world consequences of parliament failing to implement it it themselves. The precedent being set is extraordinary, with such dangerous implications for the rule of law in our society.

Misinterpretations of the judgement are frankly unjustifiable if you take the time to read it or the interim guidance, but I’ve some sympathy with a citizen taking parliament’s conduct as a model of what to do, naturally assuming it’s adhering to the law & arguing as above on the basis of this.

I find what’s emerged since the judgement more frightening than the situation before, quite frankly. We needed it, of course - but I hadn’t realised we needed it to expose the utter misogyny in our society & associate vulnerability of women & our democratic structures to the loudest, most foolish & aggressive [male] voices.

Like the BBC, parliament itself now joins in to show me how fragile women’s rights & our democracy are. It’s astonishing what this ideology has revealed.

Have you read the judgment? It’s very clearly written.

Non-women (or non-men, in the opposite case) have always been banned from spaces that rely on a single-sex exemption. The question before the court was whether males with a GRC count as women for that purpose. The decision is that they don’t. Both sides’ lawyers already agreed that non-GRC males cannot count as women and thus that they cannot be permitted to enter a women-only space.

Other legislation such as workplace regulations require that single-sex provision be available. The intersection of these means that there must be women’s toilets that exclude transwomen, unless there are fully self-contained individual toilet/wash units instead.

There can also be mixed-sex spaces of course (including toilets, afaik) so long as these aren’t mis-described.

The SC of course doesn’t legislate (it never has). It clarifies or discovers the law as it has always existed (the declaratory principle of common law). So the SC’s decisions have effect immediately because the law is already in place.

Michael Foran drew an interesting parallel to the passage of UK race discrimination laws. It was some time before employers fully internalized that the law meant what it said. A long period of employers saying things like: “I understand I can’t be racist, and I’m not. But my customers won’t put up with an Indian staff member, and that’s the reason I don’t hire any, which the law surely permits”. Wrong of course, but it took a while to sink in.

People who think of themselves as good people balancing different needs find it hard to accept that sometimes the law has taken that decision from them and that their acts are straightforwardly illegal if they continue.

This is interesting. My employer is also ‘waiting for the full ehrc guidance’ before implementing new policy. And running a lot of ‘listening sessions’ and signposting counselling resources etc. There weren’t any of those when they brought in the policy making all the toilets and changing spaces mixed sex

It’s infuriating how very reticent institutions are being in granting women their rights. No flags, no lanyards, no parades for women, just lots of dragging feet and excuses.

Reticent? I’d say, rather, militant in resisting doing so in many cases…

It's an interesting parallel for sure. And as much as it showed up the rank racism in society at the time, this, as CatietteX points out, shows up the rank misogyny in the same way.

And really quite awful cowardice.

Interesting; I may have missed that in my reading.

Please can you reference the section(s) of the SC ruling that expressly state that that only 'women', as defined by said ruling, are permitted into female-only spaces?

Incorrect.

You cannot discriminate based on sex. Except in some instances, like loos, and when you do so, the criteria is biological sex.

It's very clear.

Anyone have an idea on when the full EHRC guidance is likely to be published?

Punts on the excuses misogynist organisations will use to try and ignore the full guidance also welcome

I agree with CatietteX and we're now in a more dangerous place than before, rather like a battered woman who has just escaped, assumed she'd be safer now but finds herself in more danger than previously.

I was in a court last week and their toilets had all been returned to women's and men's: maybe they understand the law. It's shocking that our parliament does not.

They understand but are deliberately choosing to break the law.

Even the Scottish Parliament has sorted their toilets, and they are both institutionally misogynist and generally incompetent, so it's clearly not that difficult

Keep copies of everything

Oh well the ladies will have to put up with piss over the pan for a little longer yet

Who is the senior person responsible for the decision?

Wait a minute, the Scottish parliament, who are completely batshit, have already changed their toilet arrangements , and Westminster won't??