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

Doesn't it?

How can I make single sex toilets sound like they are single sex, when I add the opposite sex to them.

How can I market something as nut free when I add nuts? What could possibly go wrong?

It's Humpty Dumpty speak - "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less".

See if your job is 'using iniatives around single sex provision' if you admit that the SC ruling is clear as day and that it's dead easy - females use female facilities and males use male facilities, you literally put yourself out of a job.

Your only way to try and save your job is to pretend it's actually really complicated. Otherwise you are redundant.

And here we are.

There are people who literally make a living out of selling women's privacy and dignity out to men.

Depends. Your employer can also say you're harassing them and their personal and medical information is none of your business.

One poll.

This isn't my job. Its just something I care about politically, so I made sure to be involved.

And we're finding out that the ruling means very little for most spaces.

Translation I talk bollocks on the internet.

🙌

OH RLY.

Translation: I'm not so invested in my position that I can accept reality and adjust my actions to achieve my goals.

If the Supreme Court judgement means so little why are so many TRAs complaining about it.

Its simultaneously the worst breach of trans people's human rights whilst also being meaningless as it doesn't prevent trans people using opposite sex services

You should have given Beth Upton the memo on that.

Oh god we got one of these

War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength

🙄

This is the poster who posted a 2016 study this in defence of them saying

You see most of our research showed that the women of the general public do not fear mixed sex toilets and don't mind transwomen using them. So that's why we concluded that the whole toilet thing really wasn't going to change any minds.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12147-016-9181-6

Which uses this methodology

"The author searched the Australian version of Google News (sourced between April 29 and May 16, 2015) for news and blog articles for phrases such as transgender bathroom and manually inspected a large number of web news articles and opinion pieces for comments made in relation to safety and/or privacy in female bathrooms."

"Of the articles inspected, 190 contained suitable comments, from which the author collected 1035 comments. All articles were dated between 1 December 2014 and 10 May 2015 (inclusive)."

and

"In this section, we describe how we collect comments from online news articles pertaining to the safety and privacy of patrons in female bathrooms, dividing them according to
(a) the gender of the user who made the comment,
(b) whether or not the comment is a negative comment,
and (c) in the case of a negative comment, whether the comment describes a causal or incidental link between transgender females and safety and privacy in female bathrooms (or neither)."

And this paper has drawn this conclusion which is remarkable.

"Therefore, we surmise that they did not consider transgender females in female bathrooms a serious concern for their constituents (unlike 50% of the men opponents)."

Who the fuck analyses public comments to news articles with the view to establish how many women and girls have been harmed by male inclusion based on whether the victims of harm mention it in their public comments? Of course women and girls are not going to be making public their instances of harm in public comments.

It is a rarity to do this even now. Yet, this paper drew this conclusion based on that criteria.

I would also check out the author as I suspect that this particular mathematician is very motivated to find the conclusion that they did.

Sorry haven't had time to read thread, but will try to do so later, so this may have already been said.

WtF is the HoC playing at.

The EHRC has issued interim Guidelines including about toilets based on Supreme Court ruling.

The EHRC is appointed by the Government, ie by those whose workplace to HoC is, to provide guidelines on how laws should be implemented.

The total and utter disrespect of the EHRC is blatant.

I suspect that this is part of the underlying disdain for the EHRC under Baroness Falkner, by Labour who have created this atmosphere.

I think they cant wait for her to go.

Of all institutions they should be acting in accordance with procedure.

Why such any of us ordinary people take any notice of such legal guidance if the HoC doesn't.

Although of course the much simpler explanation is that because it is about giving women back their rights they dont think it is important enough to act on.

Although you can bet that if it had been the other way round, ie "guidance" to open up women's toilets to me, they would have immediately leaped into action.

Women know your palce. You aren't even important enough for the Government to enforce laws that are in place to protect you.

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.

You are wrong.

If trans women are allowed in them then they are not female toilets and should not be labelled as such.

And workplaces must have single sex toilets. They cannot just make all their toilets unisex (which is what a toilet used by both women and trans women is).

So yes, they do have to have female only toilets which are not used by male people, even the ones who really believe they are women.

Because on websites like this, you'll find a range of views from people who don't contribute to other forms of research. And these views are unprompted. This is how one day the things you write on here might actualy count for something.

Oh I am fairly sure it's pretty relevant.

As is the SC ruling.

Y'know the law.

I refer to previous my post at 17:58.

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.

That situation is almost perfectly relevant, and it’s you that apparently has no understanding of the law and that case in particular.

No because everyone knew the doctor is trans. Thats why it is irrelevant

Ok. Whose going back to look at that?

Which is why so many places have listened to it and said "yeah we won't be doing that".