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

Or how disappointing it is that after their claims to rebuild post-Partygate trust they’re demonstrating that, once again, it’s one rule for them and another for us.

Although I guess there’s a depressing consistency in that I suspect Johnson was more than happy for us to follow his example & party Covid away, just as they’d be happy to see organisations fail to implement the law here…

Anyway, I’ll include it. Somehow.

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1925263218902995223?t=00uu7uGnSzWi5UTbOZ6_mQ&s=19

Sex matters have just posted a thread up about Article 8 (that's the privacy one).

It makes the point about the exemptions to this.

Basically for the purposes of Health and Safety it is an exemption...

It's a good thread. I'm out ATM so not in a position to CP in full.

Ok home now:

Sex Matters AT SexMattersOrg
Lets talk about Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and toilets It is sometimes argued that Art 8 gives trans people the human right to use opposite-sex facilites. Is that right?

Article 8 concerns the right to respect for private and family life. It is quite wide ranging.

(1) Everyone has the right to respectfor their private and family life, their home and their correspondence.
This includes:
your information privacy
your autonomy
your bodily privacy
your personal identity

Everyone has the same protection for their human rights, whether they are male or female, trans or not-trans.

Article 8 is a qualified right.
It is important to read 8(2)... there are lots of situations where it is lawful to put limits on a person's privacy and their freedom to do what they want.
Those limations should be in line with the law.

(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society
For reasons of:
national security
public safety or the economic well-being of the country
preventation of disorder or crime
the protection of health or morals
the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The Equality Act 2010 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 are laws that limit people's freedom. The Equality Act outlaws sex discrimination but allows single-sex services.

The HSWA includes responsibilties related to toilets at work.
This engages Art 8 and Art 8(2)

Providing a single-sex space requires excluding members of the opposite sex. The sex-based rule is lawful as it is justified as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

The Supreme Court confirmed that when the Equality Act says "sex" it means what it has always meant: the biological fact of being male or female. Having the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" does not change a person's sex (and does not require surgery etc...)

Other people can often tell, or have a right to know whether they will be sharing a space with people of the sam sex or both sexes.

Unisex (single-user) facilities avoid this question. They protect everyone's information privacy. But many people (particularly women) prefer more privacy from the opposite sex. Separate sex facilities protect bodily privacy and autonomy. Different configurations of options are all within the bounds of Article 8.

Some trans people argue that they need to use the opposite sex facilities or they will be "outed". But using opposite sex facilities infringes on the rights of the people they are intended for.

The EqA addresses the conflict of rights. Her rights v his rights and says "no". There is no positive obligation for the state to force, trick, or pressure people to share a "single sex" space with individuals of the opposite sex.

In order for laws and rules to be justifiable under Art 8(2) they need to be clear. Foreseeable rules protect everyone's rights.

This is core to the Supreme Courts judgement.

You just see the scale of mysoginy in society. And how dumb so many people are.

Wrong on several counts

"There's nothing to say you cant write women and trans women on the toilet door."

The Supreme court explains that you can't do that. This might be a good time for you actually read it.

You can have two protected categories providing all those in there are in both of them.

There's nothing to say that single sex facilities must be provided.

Yes there is. I won't list all the regulations here (it will give you something to do) but in very many cases that is exactly what the law requires.

For TRAs, it's like we just rolled back segregation laws

Only in your head because this was the law all along and you are not disadvantaged by this. Men who wish they were women can still use the men's facilities alongside other men like me. It's good enough for me, yes?

I hope you're not suggesting that you're ok withe me being disadvantaged

As for 'partly white' men are not partly anything ,but are in fact men. Science says so, 300,000 years of human existence and reproduction says so and the law in this country says so.

btw TRA stands for trans-activist not trans.

The same law says you should not put up a sign saying NO BLACKS so I think it will have some force behind it.

I’m ready to write to my MP or anyone else who is relevant. For all the suggestions made by @MyOliveHelper that women, especially those on MN, are not willing to be activists, how do you explain terf island?

Regarding signage (pictured). This is the sign for a universal toilet (mixed sex/ gender neutral). It has to conform to regulations.

If you wanted a toilet for both sexes then this is the sign.

This is interesting but not the point.

The point is that the HoC is NOT following the guidance given by the ERHC re toilets.

This mean the HoC is ignoring the Supreme Court ruling.

The HoC is ignoring the guidelines of the EHRC the body designated by MPs to provide guidance.

Both of which give ammunition to those who want to challenge the High Court ruling, and those who are campaigning against the EHRC saying they dont need to be listened to.

MPs need to answer why whichever department it is in the HoC which is there workplace has taken this decision and implicitly (unless they challenge it) made MPs party to:

• ignoring a Supreme Court Ruling
• ignoring guidelines issued by the EHRC

They are behaving with complete double standards.

Commons risks legal action if it refuses to follow guidance on women-only lavatories, says equalities watchdog
https://archive.is/bkd45

My point was that our visitor yesterday was saying shite about article 8.

I am aware the HoC is ignoring the law. The story here is about political gamesmanship and labour not wishing to look like the bad guy...

Am I right in thinking that there appears to be no oversight body who will force places like HOC to observe the law as clarified by SC?

I don't know, but it seems to me that if there isn't an immediate order by some such body, then observance of the law relies on individuals to challenge it, and that is quite an intimidating task for most isn't it?

I'm wondering what your views are, as I'm a bit shocked TBH at the stance taken by HOC about this.

My, that's a fine tumbleweed you have there Helleofabore.

EHRC are supposed to enforce. They do have certain powers.

Crickets are loud tonight. But I am confident that it will come though.

Because if it is peer reviewed, then it is linkable. Obviously, if we have not seen this convincing evidence, and perhaps you know the Houses of Parliament has seen it and been convinced that it should be prioritised above the EHRC interim guidance, then of course we will disagree with olivehelper.

Perhaps though, the evidence is as convincing as it has been presented and none of us have seen it yet. I would like to see it before I look at the consultation though, because it might be something I need to consider to adapt my thinking.

Oh please let them use their powers, please, please

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/our-work/our-legal-work/our-legal-powers/our-litigation-and-enforcement-policy-2022-2025/our-0

'We have a range of enforcement powers, set out in the Equality Act 2006, which include:

• investigations (Section 20)
• unlawful act notices (Section 21)
• action plans (Section 22)
• agreements (Section 23)
• injunctions (in Scotland, interdicts) (Section 24)
• public sector duty assessments (Section 31)
• public sector duty compliance notices (Section 32)'

This bit might be worth a read:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/our-work/our-legal-work/our-legal-powers/our-litigation-and-enforcement-policy-2022-2025/types

'Types of cases and issues we are interested in hearing about'

'We are interested in cases and issues involving:

• serious sexual harassment, including where employers might have failed to protect a worker, and particularly involving insecure workers and those with other protected characteristics (for example, ethnic minority, disabled or LGBT workers)
• serious harassment related to sex, race, disability, sexual orientation, gender reassignment and religion or belief, including where employers might have failed to protect a worker
• balancing competing rights (such as sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment and religion or belief) at work'

(my bold)

'Playing a leading role in public debates about equality and human rights issues, including by balancing rights
The primary focus of this work stream is to exercise influence. However, where it would promote our overall aim to foster good relations, we may consider formal engagement in cases that raise a balance of rights issue (such as the interaction between the protected characteristics of sex, religion or belief and gender reassignment) and that seek to clarify the Equality Act in these and other areas.
...
In cases involving the balance of rights we may seek to intervene in cases where this is likely to promote the fostering of good relations. Generally we will intervene rather than fund cases because this allows us to best fulfil our role as an independent and impartial regulator.'

EHRC apparently didn't have capacity to intervene, when a man was appointed to a women-only job running ERCC. Maybe they'll find the time to act now.

If the PCS is able to work out:

‘It is important to remember that, irrespective of our personal views, any breach of the Equality Act 2010 may give rise to legal liability and, on that basis, we ask all delegates to use the facilities in accordance with the above.’

then so can the HoC.

Am I right in thinking that the Speaker of the House has some sort of status in relation to how things are run. Or is that just "in the chamber".

If anybody knows or understands the hierarchy can you explain?!

In the meantime we need to be shaming all our MPs to do the right thing, otherwise if they feel entitled to break the law than what does that say about their ability to govern.

Its a complete disgrace. And I suspect that it is also about all the TRA MPs making it known they would challenge anyone who said they had to obey the law. And want to make their point that they think the Supreme Court's decision is wrong.

We need to challenge our MPs. Not wait around for the EHRC to have to take on even more work than they already have.

MPs are meant to be a bit more adult than truculent school children thinking they are being so clever by not observing accepted practices.

I wonder if the Parliament Petiton web site would accept a petition saying MPs should NOT break the law?

Probably not.

I just think that apart from a tiny handful, MPs just dont think upholding women's rights is of any importance.

Does anyone think this is the decision making group?
https://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/governance-of-the-house-of-commons-/house-governance-structure/

And if so "Nick Smith MP answers both oral and written questions on behalf of the Commission"

• Nick Smith is the Labour MP for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, and has been an MP continually since 6 May 2010.
• https://members.parliament.uk/member/3928/contact

One of its responsibilities is:

• To fulfil the statutory responsibilities delegated to it by the House of Commons Commission in relation to the employment of House staff.

Those who didn't intervene were the relevent regulatory organisations in Scotland who were told that the ERCC had falsely advertised a job as being women only under the EA SSE and chose not to act.

EHRC could and should have intervened and didn't due to 'limited resources' :

The EHRC’s answer to an inquiry about any action it intended to take in relation to the appointment of Wadhwa to the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre post was (after delay of over 12 weeks) as follows:

“The Commission has a number of regulatory powers. However, as you will appreciate, the Commission has limited resources and we must use our powers strategically. We consider our litigation and enforcement policy when deciding when to take legal action. The policy can be found here

We have considered carefully whether taking formal action in relation to ERCC would be a proportionate and effective use of our powers. We have taken into consideration the fact that ERCC is a small third sector organisation, that the recruitment for the role in question has been completed and, if there is an unlawful act which is not clear, that the number of people who may have been adversely impacted in the recruitment process is limited [being men suitably qualified for the role and deterred from applying due to the advert specifying that only women need apply]. On balance therefore we do not believe that using our enforcement powers in relation to this matter is proportionate

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/12/fostering-good-relations/

EHRC could and should have intervened and didn't due to 'limited resources'

Exactly the point I am making.

Everyone sitting round seeming to think the EHRC should do everything.

This happened in Scotland, where there are regulatoring authorities who should have intervened.

Is it any wonder their work load is beyond their resources.

Far too late to wait for the remote final point of contact, when there exists bodies that regulate charities, finances, funders.

Anyone of them could and should have intervened. And indeed MSPs.

Not forgetting RC Scotland!