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

And MyOliveHelper just so you know. If women are happy to share with trans women, and therefore advocate for unisex spaces, it is exactly that. Unisex. It would be all men, not just men who identify as women.

What this clarification means is that no longer can trans identified men demand that a space is called a woman's space, but they, and only they, get to use it. If they use it, it's unisex, and all men can use it.

Yes. What does it mean then? It's a bit naughty but it's up to you?

What IS wording that this bloody political position would find acceptable to be able to recognise that women and lesbian/gay people have rights too?

This is our government. It's our bloody government. It appears their main concern with the Darlington nurses for example would be that the nurses shut up and get their clothes off in front of the man with holes in his boxers demanding to know when the show starts. And they are ok with this. Because the law only was found to say he should not be permitted to do this to women, but it didn't say someone had to stop him.

It's not Britain's Got Talent

🤣🤣🤣

No men are 'eradicated' by being required to permit women to get undressed or to meet without them.

The guidance isn't ambiguous if you reach the end of the paragraph:

"In workplaces and services that are open to the public: trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex".

The natural reading of the word "should not" here is "must not", not "may if you choose". But even beyond that, the logic is laid out clearly. If you permit trans women to enter a women's single sex space it is no longer single sex, i.e. you cannot admit trans women into a women's single sex space. It's not only prohibited, it's legally speaking a logical impossibility.

(Now, I don't know how the law handles the case of young children, because men and women are defined as being males/females "of any age". But the position on adults is crystal clear both in the judgment and in the guidance).

Someone earlier on this thread said it was parliament who would be drafting the guidance. If so, I am quite worried about that guidance, given that they are flouting the SC decision.

Nail on the head.

The HoC is a workplace so don't those H&S regs also apply, perhaps not to the loos that visitors use although I suspect they'll be used by people whose work has brought them there.

Also who exactly has made this call? The HoC and the HoLs are buildings. On whose says so are these announcements being put out? I'm suspecting some post holder with an ancient title whose predecessors are turning in their graves.

Aha. That makes more sense.

Please follow the train of conversation if you expect me to comment

Yes, so we could expect an ET. I'm wondering of we could also expect a loss and an ETA to make it binding, although that would take an inordinate amount of time to prove the bleeding obvious, and of course it would be taxpayers paying to uphold the fecking law, again.

My understanding is they will have a debate and vote on the guidance.

So yes, it looks like the government plan at this point of process to try and wangle it to avoid their law protecting women and girls (trans identified ones included) and lesbian and gay people, so that a small demographic of men may force access to non consenting women and girls in a state of undress or vulnerability, and be able to use them to meet whatever needs and agendas they may at the time have in mind.

Words fail. They really do.

You don't have to call it unisex

Workplace providers do have to divide toilets by sex (unless there is a fully-enclosed individual toilet/wash arrangement instead). It's a requirement.

Services providers to the public are not required to. But if they admit trans men into a toilets then they must admit all females, and vice versa. They cannot do as you propose ("men and trans men / women and trans women").

They also cannot divide by meat eaters/veggies unless that's a proportionate means to a legitimate end (which for a toilet it is unlikely to be). As that would be illegal discrimination on the basis of a protected belief (ethical veganism is a protected belief, as is non-belief in the same thing. Interestingly, health-based veganism isn't protected in the same way. But any toilets that excluded vegans would be found to be excluding ethical vegans as well as health-based vegans).

Edited to add: the mistake you seem to be making when coming up with your scenarios is to think that there isn't already law in this area. There is plenty, and it applies.

This.
They want to embolden perverts and the captured elsewhere in the country

The law is clear.

No you could call it mens and womens or cocks and hens or cows and bulls but it still has to be clear that it is for ALL women and ALL men to use

no ambiguity

When you see this Humpty Dumpty lunacy in action you again realise (general you) that there never will be any way to reason or discuss this in a way that would achieve the acceptance that other people apart from trans identified men have rights and equalities.

I think many of these things are protected by a business' right to have whatever sort of themes and gimmicks they like. People will troll. And it all isnt going to make it to court. As I said, there isnt enough active support.

Femme and masc is what I know many TRA establishments are opting for and as they are queer identities, they very much feel it will work for them in terms of giving the feel of a single sex environment within the guidelines. Because that's what they are, guidelines.

It will be unisex tho. call it Mixed sex, gender neutral, whatever.

It won't be the ladies

Femme and masc, how quaint. Will we use according to what colour our clothes are?

What is the 'feel' of a single sex environment?

Actually no need to amswer

I’m actually laughing at MyOliveHelper’s efforts to make the ruling seem ambiguous. It’s really not, and even my super trans-supporting workplace has managed to respond appropriately to the ruling!

We have unisex toilets at work. Completely closed stalls, sinks in each stall, etc. These are legal because they are designed to be unisex.

However, in the basement where bikes are stored there are showers and toilets shared by all companies in our building. These are separated into men’s and women’s facilities, ie by sex.

Our HR dept has already let everyone know that the ruling means that there is no change to the toilet set up in the office, but trans employees need to use the shower in the basement corresponding to their bio sex when and if they ever use them.

It’s very straightforward.

Your Train of conversation is fondly imagining that most women want mixed sex toilets and changing rooms, and therefore that's what they will be, mixed sex.

That teens, women with their children, little girls, boys under eight, etc, are happy to share their changing rooms and toilets with men.

you believe that no one will challenge this as indirect sex discrimination.

The issue is, is that it will be indirect sex discrimination.

So even if you're right (you're not), the law disagrees.