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

If it were more popular to sacrifice women's rights to please men, then I can assure you, Keir Starmer would be all over it like a rash.

I hope that when you do post this evidence, that you please post where it shows conclusively that the women questioned were directly asked about single sex spaces, sports and other single sex provisions and whether any male people should be included or not.

Because "women don't care or are supportive of trans rights" is a meaningless claim unless it is substantiated.

For example, most of us on this board "are supportive of trans rights". That doesn't mean that we don't care about female single sex spaces etc.

But you are a shark. So does that mean you need more of them?

It wasn’t known whether he has a GRC, which was what might have made a difference then (it wouldn’t now) so it is relevant.
The point of relevance is that he was a man in a space that should have been single sex.

I'm a shark. I'm not particularly fussy.

Sharks will eat humans that stray into their natural habitat.

👏👏👏

If you want to change the law you need to get MPs to rewrite the law

This is so important. This is honest.

What is dishonest is trans women trying to make a moral and then legal claim on biological women's rights and protections not by making a first principles case for why they have the same needs despite sharing none of the physical and social consequences of biology, but covertly, through the back door, by claiming the word "woman" itself doesn't mean what we all know in reality it always has, and then claiming since this new meaning means trans women are women, trans women have always had a de facto right to everything that exists for women without having to ever justify that or check actual women agree.

What kind of shark, Red?

I think I would like to be a Greenland shark.

Is Greenland the kind that lives for up to 300 years?

I like wobbegongs! They don’t eat people though.

Wow! Just googled the woebegones 😂 - cool!

Are you trying to out me?

The funny thing is, that Starmer doesn't need the votes of young women in the 18-25 group to stay PM at the next general election.

He can take most of those votes for granted.

The votes he needs are middle aged women. They are more likely to be swing voters.

Sucks to be Starmer.

I just did a quiz to find out what kind of shark I am.

Basking shark.

WOAH!!! I love those things!

Yes! Possibly over 500!

oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/greenland-shark.html

So have caught up with thread, and see there are no plans to contact MPs and ask that they direct the jobsworths at the HoC to abide by the law.

And to ask what sort of precedent its sets that the HoC of all places is indicating if we dont like a law we can just ignore it.

Sometimes I wonder if the number of times thread deviate off or rather revert to well worn discussions is because one we are faced with maybe having to do something, we dont really know what or if its worth it.

When you think of it in terms of what was happening for us all the while they’ve been quietly doing their sharky thing, it’s mindblowing. Shakespeare, the French Revolution, WW1 & 2… And them, just blissfully oblivious.

Guys, c'mon.
It's V.v. inclusive of the all important 0.2% of visitors, staff and MPs. The HoC and the HoL obviously don't need to be so bothered about the needs of the other 99.98% of the population.

And as for all that clarity that Starmer expressed on the SC judgement? Look, the parliamentarians who made the law in the first place acksherly need the EHRC to help them understand it because otherwise they would be lost trying to remember whether the ones with the penises are the women or not...

I’ve been thinking about how best you’d challenge this one. I want to write about it but couldn’t decide to whom. It’s so big…

Patience my friend. Patience.

Doesn't the HoC have a security guard who identifies as trans? I seem to recall there was something about that ...

I thought perhaps an earnest letter thanking them for offering a model for how my workplace should now act? Could it shock someone out of their complacency or shame them? Or maybe it would just serve as self-soothing satire…

I’m still mulling over how to reply to my MP’s infuriatingly irrelevant references to the #toxicity of the debate in response to one about the SC ruling. Maybe I could weave it into that.

Well at the very least some sort of innocent question to whoever our MP is asking what are the implications for the purpose of the EHRC if the HoC, were they work, says it is going to ignore their guidelines.

And if it is okay what other areas of the law can we as ordinary member of the public take this attitude to, as well.

And what is the risk to their reputation as rule makers who tell rule takers to accept what they have put in place, when they dont think they have to be rule takers.