Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Houses of Parliament refuses to ban trans women from female lavatories

395 replies

IwantToRetire · 21/05/2025 01:14

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
Joyunlimited · 21/05/2025 07:15

BeizenderKarneval · 21/05/2025 05:47

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.

Show quote history

No. If they choose to call it single-sex, it has to be single-sex.

TheOtherRaven · 21/05/2025 07:18

CatietteX · 21/05/2025 06:23

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.

Edited

All of that.

It's been staggering and grim to watch.

Women (including trans identified ones), and gay and lesbian people, have legal protections onf paper and in theory but in practice apparently, the law is just kind of rough guidelines that let you make 'choices'.

Of course the game plan is getting obvious now that if you ignore the actual law and wait for the guidance which will be discussed in parliament, you not only have a long time to continue doing what you want, you also have a hope that a bunch of stupid and fantastically misogynist MPs will somehow find a way to destroy those very inconvenient protections to those groups and enables a small group of men to access non consenting women in a state of undress or extreme vulnerability, including for sexual purposes, and ensures lesbians can't escape those men either.

Honestly, what is the point of MPs if the law is meaningless and so is any kind of ethics? Why bother?

TheOtherRaven · 21/05/2025 07:19

BeizenderKarneval · 21/05/2025 07:04

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?

Show quote history

The ruling is easy to read. So is the EHRC guidance. Both easily availabe on line

NecessaryScene · 21/05/2025 07:20

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?

You could start by reading the summary.

265. We are aware that this is a long judgment. It may assist therefore if we summarise our reasoning.

[...]

(xiv) There are other provisions whose proper functioning requires a biological interpretation of “sex”. These include separate spaces and single-sex services (including changing rooms, hostels and medical services), communal accommodation and others (paras 210-228).
...

And then go back to paragraphs 210-228 as indicated.

Creating something "female-only" is something that is legislated by the exemptions in the equality act - however "female" would be defined. The only legal way of excluding "men" to do it is to meet the "single-sex" exemptions, and they've now clarified that those are based on biological sex - with the reasoning for your female-only spaces in paragraphs 210-228. So the only legal "single-sex" discrimination to create such spaces is based on biological sex.

If your space isn't female-only, the EA exemptions and ruling on "female" don't affect you. But other regulations do require female-only facilities, eg workplace toilets. Which then means they must be biologically-female-only to be legal by the EA.

CatietteX · 21/05/2025 07:22

BeizenderKarneval · 21/05/2025 07:04

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?

Show quote history

I would… but am on my phone, ill & subject to lots of interruptions, so please don’t take a subsequent silence as an admission it’s not there (apologies for pre-empting this possibility, but we get a lot of cynical posters unwilling to engage meaningfully here). I’ll try to get it onscreen & paste, but if I struggle or go quiet, & if you’re more free, you’ll be quicker yourself! A quick skim will get you there. Or someone else will help.

CatietteX · 21/05/2025 07:23

Aha! Thank you, @NecessaryScene. 🙏

BeizenderKarneval · 21/05/2025 07:24

TheOtherRaven · 21/05/2025 07:18

All of that.

It's been staggering and grim to watch.

Women (including trans identified ones), and gay and lesbian people, have legal protections onf paper and in theory but in practice apparently, the law is just kind of rough guidelines that let you make 'choices'.

Of course the game plan is getting obvious now that if you ignore the actual law and wait for the guidance which will be discussed in parliament, you not only have a long time to continue doing what you want, you also have a hope that a bunch of stupid and fantastically misogynist MPs will somehow find a way to destroy those very inconvenient protections to those groups and enables a small group of men to access non consenting women in a state of undress or extreme vulnerability, including for sexual purposes, and ensures lesbians can't escape those men either.

Honestly, what is the point of MPs if the law is meaningless and so is any kind of ethics? Why bother?

Show quote history

Women (including trans identified ones), and gay and lesbian people, have legal protections onf paper and in theory but in practice apparently, the law is just kind of rough guidelines that let you make 'choices'.

That was my original point. I'm very, very happy to change that interpretation based on new facts if they can be supplied, but I could not find anywhere in the SC ruling any clause that states it is a requirement to ban trans-women from female bathrooms. I know you want it to be there, we all do, but I don't think it is.

I'm very open to being proved wrong on this if anyone can please direct me to the section of the ruling that actually states this.

Until then, I will say again, SC ruling is on the definition of a women. It is up to organisations, institutions, and individuals to then interpret that ruling; hence the EHRC issuing interim guidance stating that trans women should not be permitted to use women's facilities in workplaces and public-facing services like shops and hospitals.

BeizenderKarneval · 21/05/2025 07:25

CatietteX · 21/05/2025 07:22

I would… but am on my phone, ill & subject to lots of interruptions, so please don’t take a subsequent silence as an admission it’s not there (apologies for pre-empting this possibility, but we get a lot of cynical posters unwilling to engage meaningfully here). I’ll try to get it onscreen & paste, but if I struggle or go quiet, & if you’re more free, you’ll be quicker yourself! A quick skim will get you there. Or someone else will help.

Edited
Show quote history

That's perfectly fair and I'm very happy to wait. In fact, I'll re-read the SC ruling again whilst I do as I'm genuinely curious to learn if I did miss something.

BeizenderKarneval · 21/05/2025 07:26

I should also make it clear, if it's not already, that I do not support trans-women coming back into our spaces; but with so much misinformation flying about right now, I just want to be accurate in my understanding

MrsOvertonsWindow · 21/05/2025 07:27

Interesting that even on this board we get the incorrect, over confident misrepresentations of the law. The guidance that's now out for consultation goes through numerous scenarios but there's no consultation about the ruling that single sex spaces are completely legal.

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2025 07:31

Nomoreidea · 21/05/2025 07:12

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

Yep. Turn up for the books!

NecessaryScene · 21/05/2025 07:31

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?

Another point is that this is tautological. A female-only space is a female-only space.

And then the actual real text about female-only spaces isn't in the ruling.

It's in the Equality Act itself. The SC ruling didn't say what organisations have to do - it said how to interpret the EA2010, which does.

Summarised on this particular point it says:

  1. Sex discrimination is not permitted.
  2. Except to bar one sex from a single-sex space.

And we've just clarified the definition of sex - GRCs don't count.

Simple.

IButtleSir · 21/05/2025 07:32

NecessaryScene · 21/05/2025 07:20

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?

You could start by reading the summary.

265. We are aware that this is a long judgment. It may assist therefore if we summarise our reasoning.

[...]

(xiv) There are other provisions whose proper functioning requires a biological interpretation of “sex”. These include separate spaces and single-sex services (including changing rooms, hostels and medical services), communal accommodation and others (paras 210-228).
...

And then go back to paragraphs 210-228 as indicated.

Creating something "female-only" is something that is legislated by the exemptions in the equality act - however "female" would be defined. The only legal way of excluding "men" to do it is to meet the "single-sex" exemptions, and they've now clarified that those are based on biological sex - with the reasoning for your female-only spaces in paragraphs 210-228. So the only legal "single-sex" discrimination to create such spaces is based on biological sex.

If your space isn't female-only, the EA exemptions and ruling on "female" don't affect you. But other regulations do require female-only facilities, eg workplace toilets. Which then means they must be biologically-female-only to be legal by the EA.

@BeizenderKarneval Read the comment I have quoted.

IButtleSir · 21/05/2025 07:32

NecessaryScene · 21/05/2025 07:31

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?

Another point is that this is tautological. A female-only space is a female-only space.

And then the actual real text about female-only spaces isn't in the ruling.

It's in the Equality Act itself. The SC ruling didn't say what organisations have to do - it said how to interpret the EA2010, which does.

Summarised on this particular point it says:

  1. Sex discrimination is not permitted.
  2. Except to bar one sex from a single-sex space.

And we've just clarified the definition of sex - GRCs don't count.

Simple.

@BeizenderKarneval And this one.

NecessaryScene · 21/05/2025 07:33

Until then, I will say again, SC ruling is on the definition of a women. It is up to organisations, institutions, and individuals to then interpret that ruling; hence the EHRC issuing interim guidance stating that trans women should not be permitted to use women's facilities in workplaces and public-facing services like shops and hospitals.

I get the sense you fundamentally misunderstand.

You do understand that the EA2010 is existing law, right?

If you want to understand the effect of this ruling you need to be reading the Equality Act. Not just looking for magic words about what organisations can and can't do in the text of this judgment.

The relevant law is the Equality Act. Read that.

Datun · 21/05/2025 07:34

BeizenderKarneval · 21/05/2025 07:24

Women (including trans identified ones), and gay and lesbian people, have legal protections onf paper and in theory but in practice apparently, the law is just kind of rough guidelines that let you make 'choices'.

That was my original point. I'm very, very happy to change that interpretation based on new facts if they can be supplied, but I could not find anywhere in the SC ruling any clause that states it is a requirement to ban trans-women from female bathrooms. I know you want it to be there, we all do, but I don't think it is.

I'm very open to being proved wrong on this if anyone can please direct me to the section of the ruling that actually states this.

Until then, I will say again, SC ruling is on the definition of a women. It is up to organisations, institutions, and individuals to then interpret that ruling; hence the EHRC issuing interim guidance stating that trans women should not be permitted to use women's facilities in workplaces and public-facing services like shops and hospitals.

Show quote history

Until then, I will say again, SC ruling is on the definition of a women. It is up to organisations, institutions, and individuals to then interpret that ruling;

they're quite explicit that sex is biological sex, and woman means biological woman.

And it's my understanding that if you use the single sex exceptions in the equality act to exclude men, this includes transwomen, because they're men.

If you don't use the SSE, then you are not excluding men. Any of them.

But if you do exclude any man, it includes transwomen.

Conversely, if you include transwomen, you have to include all men. For the purposes of the equality act, they are the same.

So you can have a mixed sex space that includes men and women, but if you call it a single sex space, by invoking the SSE, it is exactly that.

edited to correct the numerous typos that made that absolute gibberish

BeizenderKarneval · 21/05/2025 07:34

MrsOvertonsWindow · 21/05/2025 07:28

Thank you, but that's the EHRC guidance ruling, which has already been mentioned and isn't the same thing as the SC ruling I was asking about.

Of course, it does raise an interesting second question of "at what point does guidance become the standard interpretation of a law that does not expressly state what the guidance does".

I think the crux of the point here, which is very much worth considering, is this: Is there a legal basis for the SC ruling to be challenged. I'm not legally qualified so don't know the answer, but for obvious reasons would like to be certain of whether or not our interpretation of the SC ruling can actually be challenged.

CatietteX · 21/05/2025 07:36

Tbh, your questioning of the self-evident implications of the judgement seems to be based on a need to see these implications expressed precisely as you wish, in particular phraseology, as opposed to multiple equally clear alternatives.

I’m still struggling on my phone, but quite frankly, this sub-heading from the HOC Library should be enough.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that references to “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act refer to biological sex (a person’s sex at birth).”

Nameychangington · 21/05/2025 07:39

BeizenderKarneval · 21/05/2025 07:24

Women (including trans identified ones), and gay and lesbian people, have legal protections onf paper and in theory but in practice apparently, the law is just kind of rough guidelines that let you make 'choices'.

That was my original point. I'm very, very happy to change that interpretation based on new facts if they can be supplied, but I could not find anywhere in the SC ruling any clause that states it is a requirement to ban trans-women from female bathrooms. I know you want it to be there, we all do, but I don't think it is.

I'm very open to being proved wrong on this if anyone can please direct me to the section of the ruling that actually states this.

Until then, I will say again, SC ruling is on the definition of a women. It is up to organisations, institutions, and individuals to then interpret that ruling; hence the EHRC issuing interim guidance stating that trans women should not be permitted to use women's facilities in workplaces and public-facing services like shops and hospitals.

Show quote history

If facilities are for women, no men can use them . It's really not complex. You cannot have 'women and transwomen only ' because that unlawfully discriminates against other men.Everything is either totally unisex, or divided by biological sex.

https://www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/expert-comment/post/102kb9l/do-retailers-have-to-provide-single-sex-toilets-and-changing-rooms-for-their-cust

Do retailers have to provide single sex toilets and changing rooms for their customers and staff?

Do retailers have to provide single sex toilets and changing rooms for their customers and staff?

https://www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/expert-comment/post/102kb9l/do-retailers-have-to-provide-single-sex-toilets-and-changing-rooms-for-their-cust

blubbyblub · 21/05/2025 07:40

CatietteX · 21/05/2025 06:09

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.

@GenderRealistBloke
@BeizenderKarneval is not wholly incorrect.

sadly the guidance is only slight less ambiguous than the ruling.

Based on the interim guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) following the UK Supreme Court's ruling, the situation regarding trans women and women's toilets in the UK is that organisations can ban trans women (biological males) from using women's single-sex facilities, and in many cases, the guidance suggests they should not be permitted.

It is not a Universal Ban, but a Strong Recommendation/Legal Basis for Exclusion: It's not a universal legal "ban" that automatically prohibits all trans women from all women's facilities everywhere. Instead, the guidance clarifies that organisations now have a clear legal basis to exclude trans women from single-sex women's spaces if they wish to maintain those spaces for biological women only. The previous legal understanding was more ambiguous.

The new guidance says that, in places like hospitals, shops and restaurants, "trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities". It also states that trans people should not be left without any facilities to use.

This means, for instance, that transgender women, who are biologically male but identify as women, can be excluded from women-only spaces.

The guidance also states that "in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men's facilities, and trans men (biological women) not to be permitted to use the women's facilities".

When asked to clarify this, the EHRC pointed to a section of the Supreme Court ruling stating that trans men could be excluded from women's facilities "where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken" in the context of a women-only service.

it is a guidance based on ‘cans’ and ‘shoulds’ and ‘in some circumstances’

BeizenderKarneval · 21/05/2025 07:41

CatietteX · 21/05/2025 07:36

Tbh, your questioning of the self-evident implications of the judgement seems to be based on a need to see these implications expressed precisely as you wish, in particular phraseology, as opposed to multiple equally clear alternatives.

I’m still struggling on my phone, but quite frankly, this sub-heading from the HOC Library should be enough.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that references to “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act refer to biological sex (a person’s sex at birth).”

Edited

That, I suspect, is my German upbringing. I want things, and especially rules, to be very clear!

Thank you @CatietteX and @IButtleSir for referencing other relevant parts of law and legislation, and most importantly for being polite. Time to read up on those.

CatietteX · 21/05/2025 07:41

Press summary: final page, a few paras in. Can’t paste it for some reason.

supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_press_summary_8a42145662.pdf

PrettyDamnCosmic · 21/05/2025 07:42

TopographicalTime · 21/05/2025 07:07

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

The draft of the full code of practice is already published. That is what the EHRC are consulting on. The final version is not going to differ much from this draft version.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-consultation-2025-changes-apply-across-code

CatietteX · 21/05/2025 07:44

blubbyblub · 21/05/2025 07:40

@GenderRealistBloke
@BeizenderKarneval is not wholly incorrect.

sadly the guidance is only slight less ambiguous than the ruling.

Based on the interim guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) following the UK Supreme Court's ruling, the situation regarding trans women and women's toilets in the UK is that organisations can ban trans women (biological males) from using women's single-sex facilities, and in many cases, the guidance suggests they should not be permitted.

It is not a Universal Ban, but a Strong Recommendation/Legal Basis for Exclusion: It's not a universal legal "ban" that automatically prohibits all trans women from all women's facilities everywhere. Instead, the guidance clarifies that organisations now have a clear legal basis to exclude trans women from single-sex women's spaces if they wish to maintain those spaces for biological women only. The previous legal understanding was more ambiguous.

The new guidance says that, in places like hospitals, shops and restaurants, "trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities". It also states that trans people should not be left without any facilities to use.

This means, for instance, that transgender women, who are biologically male but identify as women, can be excluded from women-only spaces.

The guidance also states that "in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men's facilities, and trans men (biological women) not to be permitted to use the women's facilities".

When asked to clarify this, the EHRC pointed to a section of the Supreme Court ruling stating that trans men could be excluded from women's facilities "where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken" in the context of a women-only service.

it is a guidance based on ‘cans’ and ‘shoulds’ and ‘in some circumstances’

Show quote history

Yes, there may be some subtle, nuanced exceptions to a clear overall standard. This argument is akin to the “sex isn’t a binary, because intersex” argument. It is a binary, insofar as anything is in nature. It is the law, insofar as it’s practical & possible to apply.

Swipe left for the next trending thread