Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
MyOliveHelper · 21/05/2025 07:46

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

I see some people making comparisons to race. If you're going to make the race analogy, then you have to understand the context from the other side.

For TRAs, it's like we just rolled back segregation laws. Because it seems like that to them, nobody is going to fully commit to changing it back. It's like they've reestablished white only areas, in their eyes, and reaffirmed that someone who is partly white or even mostly white (in their eyes) isnt white enough for admission.

So, people who essentiallybdon't think race segregation should be happening, and especially if it will harm their reputation, will get around it by simply not establishing any white only spaces. And anything that looks like one will be confirmed that it's not.

They'll just stop having single sex spaces and/or ensure segregated spaces are open to trans women. There's nothing to say you cant write women and trans women on the toilet door.

CatietteX · 21/05/2025 07:48

MyOliveHelper · 21/05/2025 07:46

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

I see some people making comparisons to race. If you're going to make the race analogy, then you have to understand the context from the other side.

For TRAs, it's like we just rolled back segregation laws. Because it seems like that to them, nobody is going to fully commit to changing it back. It's like they've reestablished white only areas, in their eyes, and reaffirmed that someone who is partly white or even mostly white (in their eyes) isnt white enough for admission.

So, people who essentiallybdon't think race segregation should be happening, and especially if it will harm their reputation, will get around it by simply not establishing any white only spaces. And anything that looks like one will be confirmed that it's not.

They'll just stop having single sex spaces and/or ensure segregated spaces are open to trans women. There's nothing to say you cant write women and trans women on the toilet door.

My understanding is that a four with that on would be permitted: clarity is what is required.

However, there is legal recourse for women in this context: such an arrangement could constitute (indirect?) discrimination by making spaces & services effectively inaccessible to them, & certainly less accessible than to men. Not least because the racial segregation analogy (obviously) doesn’t hold up: whereas racial segregation was discrimination in the sense of pure prejudice, single-sex spaces are ethical discrimination necessary for females to enjoy equal access to public. Males, not excluding trans-identifying males, commit 98% of sexual offences, with females
the majority of victims. Female physical differences necessitate particular accommodations in a way that (duh!) a white skin emphatically does not.

Cyclebabble · 21/05/2025 07:49

My employer similarly has not revised guidance. It also has a network of trans allies who are encouraged to support people in choosing the toilet/changing rooms they most align with. In short, the battle is not yet over and there is still considerable pushback.

Nameychangington · 21/05/2025 07:49

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

No, it's not 'you can exclude some men but not others if you wish ' it's 'if you're calling something 'womens' it can only be for women, not women plus men with certificates minus women with certificates. That is the question the court was asked to rule on and this is the ruling they made.

If something is marked for women it can only be for actual women. Businesses and services aren't legally required to provide single sex services; but if they don't then the service has to be fully unisex.

BeizenderKarneval · 21/05/2025 07:50

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

Thank you. That was always my interpretation of the situation.

But it's a problem, isn't it? If you have a ruling, and even guidance, based of can and should then the question is still open.
I ask again, does this mean they can be legally challenged? I know the GoodLawProject is challenging the SC ruling, but I believe that is being put forward on the grounds it breaches Human Rights Act and the European Convention of Human Rights, which isn't quite the same thing we're talking about here.

Datun · 21/05/2025 07:51

Nameychangington · 21/05/2025 07:49

No, it's not 'you can exclude some men but not others if you wish ' it's 'if you're calling something 'womens' it can only be for women, not women plus men with certificates minus women with certificates. That is the question the court was asked to rule on and this is the ruling they made.

If something is marked for women it can only be for actual women. Businesses and services aren't legally required to provide single sex services; but if they don't then the service has to be fully unisex.

Show quote history

This.

And if something has been single sex up till now, there's a strong case for sex discrimination towards women, if you suddenly change it to mixed.

TheOtherRaven · 21/05/2025 07:51

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".*

Argument that 'should not be permitted to' means in theory they can, it's not banned, it's just a kind of general suggestion and therefore means people can choose whether or not to respect women's protections in law, seems specious to the point of it being ridiculous.

MyOliveHelper · 21/05/2025 07:53

CatietteX · 21/05/2025 07:48

My understanding is that a four with that on would be permitted: clarity is what is required.

However, there is legal recourse for women in this context: such an arrangement could constitute (indirect?) discrimination by making spaces & services effectively inaccessible to them, & certainly less accessible than to men. Not least because the racial segregation analogy (obviously) doesn’t hold up: whereas racial segregation was discrimination in the sense of pure prejudice, single-sex spaces are ethical discrimination necessary for females to enjoy equal access to public. Males, not excluding trans-identifying males, commit 98% of sexual offences, with females
the majority of victims. Female physical differences necessitate particular accommodations in a way that (duh!) a white skin emphatically does not.

Edited
Show quote history

That would be the case if the vast majority of women agreed with the ruling and all wanted to advocate for single sex spaces. They clearly don't. Some of the most vocal advocates of trans inclusive spaces at the detriment of single sex spaces are heterosexual women. The truth is it would be a minority of women who would find it a worthy enough cause to actively do something about it. Probably not even a third of all women.

Datun · 21/05/2025 07:53

Totally.

You should not allow men into this women's space. Yippee, you didn't actually say I must not 🙄

Datun · 21/05/2025 07:54

MyOliveHelper · 21/05/2025 07:53

That would be the case if the vast majority of women agreed with the ruling and all wanted to advocate for single sex spaces. They clearly don't. Some of the most vocal advocates of trans inclusive spaces at the detriment of single sex spaces are heterosexual women. The truth is it would be a minority of women who would find it a worthy enough cause to actively do something about it. Probably not even a third of all women.

Show quote history

I'm guessing you've missed the polling.

PrettyDamnCosmic · 21/05/2025 07:55

MyOliveHelper · 21/05/2025 07:46

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

I see some people making comparisons to race. If you're going to make the race analogy, then you have to understand the context from the other side.

For TRAs, it's like we just rolled back segregation laws. Because it seems like that to them, nobody is going to fully commit to changing it back. It's like they've reestablished white only areas, in their eyes, and reaffirmed that someone who is partly white or even mostly white (in their eyes) isnt white enough for admission.

So, people who essentiallybdon't think race segregation should be happening, and especially if it will harm their reputation, will get around it by simply not establishing any white only spaces. And anything that looks like one will be confirmed that it's not.

They'll just stop having single sex spaces and/or ensure segregated spaces are open to trans women. There's nothing to say you cant write women and trans women on the toilet door.

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

Single sex facilities must be provided in workplaces. Many more people will be using toilets & changing rooms in workplaces than public facilities in shops etc

sanluca · 21/05/2025 07:56

So to summarise:

There is a law that states that employers have to provide single sex facilities to their staff such as toilets and changing rooms.
The EA says single sex means based on biological sex so a womans changing room or toilet is only for those of the female sex and for an employer this means not allowing any male person to use them.
Westminster have decided to break the law demanding they as an employer have to provide single sex facilities and only provide mixed sex.

Have I got that right?

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2025 07:57

Put it this way, I'm sure we will shortly have case law to make it extra extra clear.

Nameychangington · 21/05/2025 07:57

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

That would be unlawful discrimination against men who know they're men.

The ruling was clear that biological sex plus certificated sex is not a coherent grouping and cuts across different PCs. If a business is relying on the single sex exemptions, if they're dividing their provisions, they have to divide them by actual sex. Or if not, everything is open to everyone. Those are the 2 options.

SunnieShine · 21/05/2025 07:58

EweSurname · 21/05/2025 06:59

It’s infuriating how very reticent institutions are being in granting women their rights. No flags, no lanyards, no parades for women, just lots of dragging feet and excuses.

You got that right.

MyOliveHelper · 21/05/2025 07:58

Datun · 21/05/2025 07:54

I'm guessing you've missed the polling.

Show quote history

We don't know the breakdowns. It's one poll (opposed to a review of several). And the fact someone clicks yes or no certainly doesnt mean they care enough to be active about the issue.

WandaSiri · 21/05/2025 07:59

Deleted

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2025 07:59

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2025 07:57

Put it this way, I'm sure we will shortly have case law to make it extra extra clear.

Looks like Parliament have helpfully volunteered to provide an example.

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2025 08:00

MyOliveHelper · 21/05/2025 07:58

We don't know the breakdowns. It's one poll (opposed to a review of several). And the fact someone clicks yes or no certainly doesnt mean they care enough to be active about the issue.

Show quote history

Yeah but no but yeah

MyOliveHelper · 21/05/2025 08:00

Nameychangington · 21/05/2025 07:57

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

That would be unlawful discrimination against men who know they're men.

The ruling was clear that biological sex plus certificated sex is not a coherent grouping and cuts across different PCs. If a business is relying on the single sex exemptions, if they're dividing their provisions, they have to divide them by actual sex. Or if not, everything is open to everyone. Those are the 2 options.

But they don't have to divide them at all so how they might want to divide them after that is up to them. You could divide it by meat eaters and veggies/vegans if you want.

We haven't eradicated transwomen (or men) as a demographic.

Nameychangington · 21/05/2025 08:01

MyOliveHelper · 21/05/2025 07:53

That would be the case if the vast majority of women agreed with the ruling and all wanted to advocate for single sex spaces. They clearly don't. Some of the most vocal advocates of trans inclusive spaces at the detriment of single sex spaces are heterosexual women. The truth is it would be a minority of women who would find it a worthy enough cause to actively do something about it. Probably not even a third of all women.

Show quote history

It doesn't matter if you agreed. It's not Britain's Got Talent, there's no public vote. The supreme court were asked to rule on the meaning of the words in the Equality Act and they did.

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2025 08:01

Nobody is eradicating anyone. We are just segregating according to sex.

Datun · 21/05/2025 08:02

MyOliveHelper · 21/05/2025 07:58

We don't know the breakdowns. It's one poll (opposed to a review of several). And the fact someone clicks yes or no certainly doesnt mean they care enough to be active about the issue.

Show quote history

Well, if you think most women want to share their toilets and changing rooms with men, crack on.

We've currently got two ongoing court cases where women are suing on precisely the opposite basis.

CatietteX · 21/05/2025 08:03

MyOliveHelper · 21/05/2025 07:53

That would be the case if the vast majority of women agreed with the ruling and all wanted to advocate for single sex spaces. They clearly don't. Some of the most vocal advocates of trans inclusive spaces at the detriment of single sex spaces are heterosexual women. The truth is it would be a minority of women who would find it a worthy enough cause to actively do something about it. Probably not even a third of all women.

Show quote history

I don’t understand this. The right to challenge discriminatory practice through the law is in no way contingent on the numbers challenging it or popular support of the law.

Nameychangington · 21/05/2025 08:06

MyOliveHelper · 21/05/2025 08:00

But they don't have to divide them at all so how they might want to divide them after that is up to them. You could divide it by meat eaters and veggies/vegans if you want.

We haven't eradicated transwomen (or men) as a demographic.

Show quote history

No they can't that's the point! It's either unisex or divided by biology. Toilets divided by meat eaters and vegans would be unlawful, toilets divided by sex are only lawful under the single sex exemptions which allow discrimination on the grounds of sex. Similar exemptions on the grounds of age allow for housing developments for over 50s only, or sports teams for under 18s. The law sets out what is lawful discrimination, and toilets divided by sex are, and toilets divided by feelz aren't.

No one tried to eradicate anyone, or make anyone not exist, or deny anyone's blah blah.

Swipe left for the next trending thread