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

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

Austerity means that enforcement of the law is lax in lots of areas and industry.
I'm not clear at all who, if anyone, is going to enforce the interim guidance and suspect many organisations will wait for consultations and final guidance to be issued ( also partly due to limited resources).

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

Who?

If the EHRC has such limited resources that it cannot intervene early in any lawbreaking under the EqA, then the obvious answer, especially now with the TRAs actively grouping to sow confusion and opposition to the SC - is vastly increased resources!

Who do I write to about this. Probably some Department ruled and funded by the HoC!

It appears that the EHRC operates independently of Government, fair enough, but it is funded by the Government Equality Office, now called the, wait for it..... the Women and Equalities Unit. It is part of the Cabinet Office.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/about-us/how-we-operate/how-we-work-governments#:~:text=Our%20funding%20is%20provided%20by,business%20or%20perform%20its%20functions.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/government-equalities-office

A ‘trans identified woman’ is a woman who identifies as trans - maybe as a ‘transman’ or something else.

A ‘transwoman’ is a man and I realise you are super desperate for men to be in women’s spaces but they are not women so the law says they can’t be allowed into women’s spaces. HTH.

Th vast majority of women (and men) DO agree with keeping female only spaces for women only. The numbers supporting it over the years have increased as more women understand what they were actually proposing to give away.

Women who want to prioritise men over women are an extremely vocal minority. And getting more minority by the day thanks to charmers like Jamie the abusive MP and IWs incoherent rants.

As I remember at the time you supplied the correct names and contact details for various institutions in Scotland, such as the Charity Commission.

I agree the last stop is the EHRC, but the reality is, is if the institutions who monitori charities, funders and politicians had acted correctly if wouldn't be looking to the EHRC to sort out.

What is the point of the EHRC if they create guidelines and everyone ignores them?!!

"What is the point of the EHRC if they create guidelines and everyone ignores them?!!"

Many workplaces and institutions are adopting a wait and see approach I suppose hoping that the final guidance provides more clarity on circumstances where it is appropriate to exclude transmen from women's facilities
For instance, and what provision should be made if 3rd spaces cannot be accomadated

I was just trying to remember the time line of when ERCC appointed MW in breach of them advertising the role under the EA SSE.

Because whether or not the EHRC should have stepped in rather than the immediate organisations set up to monitor the charity sector in Scotland, there is also the fact that prior to the appointment of Baroness Falkner the EHRC was, if not captured, operating with employees who were very TWAW.

She started working there from 2021. There was a lot of internal strife, and formal complaints against her. Wasn't she suspended, and had lots of public abuse.

So lack of resources have also been taken up with this internal, but quite public, struggle to restore the EHRC to some more "balanced" position.

But based on what is going on now, I am beginning to suspect that even if the EHRC took whatever formal means they have to act against those breaching guidelines, they would be ignored. And politicians would just shruck.

The stance of the HoC virtually makes the EHRC irrelevant and signals to others they dont need to listen to them.

Part of EHRC's explanation of not intervening at ERCC is that they considered it to be too small to justify, which surely cannot be the case here. I'd also argue that the discrimination is directly against women in this case, as opposed to in the ERCC case.

In fact intervening in such a blatant refusal to follow the law in protecting women's spaces from a prominent employer would be a great use of resources given it would serve as a warning to others thinking of following suit.

You are engaging in double think. The reason I know the TW in my organisation is a man, is because he has fathered children and I also knew him as Steve, and not just Steffie. And that’s usually the case. You are trying to make it the law that women have to pretend that something which is a lie, is the truth.
The onus is not on women to be obedient to his whims.

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/2025.05.21-124836/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/21/ban-trans-women-female-lavatories-says-equalities-watchdog" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.is/2025.05.21-124836/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/21/ban-trans-women-female-lavatories-says-equalities-watchdog/

The EHRC have stated that parliament should follow the law.

That link doesn’t work for me. I’d like to see it

Try these links:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/21/ban-trans-women-female-lavatories-says-equalities-watchdog/

archive.is/bkd45

I want to know who it is in parliament that has stated the intention to flout the law? Is there a particular office or officer who has issued this statement?

Seems to be the Privy Council.

@alsoFanOfNaomi thanks, the third link worked. I need to stop myself getting agitated!

😂Is that a piss-take?

(apologies = toilet humour)

It genuinely seems to be the Privy Council. I might be misunderstanding but I'm not making it up. Leader of the House, Lucy Powell MP* seems to be in charge, don't know if she's also responsible for the Lords though.

*love this ad.

From earlier in this thread. This maybe the group / MP to contact.

But also contact your own MP and why they are not ensuring that their workplace complies with the guidelines provided by the body they set up to implement equality laws.

But also contact your own MP and why they are not ensuring that their workplace complies with the guidelines provided by the body they set up to implement equality laws.

Have just seen on facebook a post (I think from LWD) that MPs are most likely being inundated with emails etc., from TRAs saying how outrageous the Supreme Court ruling was for trans people. And like it or not, MPs are more than likely to take this as an indication of how the "public" or at least their constituents feel.

So any sort of message saying how important for women the Suprememe Court ruling is, what a relief to see the interim guidelines from the EHRC, and by they way do they know why the HoC isn't implemting them, could help balance out the picture they may be getting.