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

My point isn’t to say I agree with the guidance. Just that the guidance is equally open to interpretation. People pick out single phrases and claim that’s what the guidance is saying. Others pick out other single sentences.

it’s a typical ‘non directive directive’ that just isn’t helpful. It is an interim guidance so does that mean there will be a definitive guidance? I am very much hoping it is black and white with no space for people on different sides of the argument being able to haul out fragments to use to support their narrative.

It’s not a new law. The question that was asked is “This law (that already exists), when it says women does it mean women, or can it also mean trans-women?”. And the answer from the SC was, “It means women”
No new legislation, just clarification of what already existed.

I think many of these things are protected by a business' right to have whatever sort of themes and gimmicks they like.

I'm unaware of this right. Where can it be found?

There are plenty of restrictions on what sorts of themes and gimmicks a business can have in controlling access to facilities ("Whites or unicyclists only", "Left-handers and straights only", "To enter here you must moo as a cow"). Two of those are illegal, one of those is almost certainly not.

What is beyond doubt is that "women and trans women only" is in the illegal category.

It will make it to court because plenty of people care very much about this topic (on all sides). A case about "women and transwomen only" won't make it very high up the court system now, because the supreme court has clarified the GRC case, and the non-GRC case was already clear. The decision will be in the lower courts and will be in line with the law.

Olive, perhaps you could directly reference more of the replies, citations & commentary posters are providing. These seem quite wide-ranging & thorough to me. If you addressed earlier evidence etc. more directly to clarify why, despite this, you still hold the views you do, perhaps we could then drill down even more deeply into the fundamentals of our disagreement.

That is what it would be. So that is what it should be called...so that everyone understands what it means. Words have meanings. Without common agreement they have no meaning whatsoever.

The purpse of the ruling was to bring CLARITY.

That was inevitable.......gradually they'll come round. All of this is simply bravado along with a big dose of denial and continued wishful thinking.

Yes. And that was its first mistake

😁

The ruling, and the guidance, so far, is very clear. Which bits do you think are open to interpretation?

For handy reference: @NecessaryScene ’s posts at 07.20, 07.31 and 07.33.

@BeizenderKarneval you asked for signposting to the relevant sections but forgot to acknowledge @NecessaryScene, while engaging with subsequent posters.

All employers have to provide single sex facilities, and all schools need to have separate facilities for children from the age of 8 years old.

Businesses have to abide by laws and rules if they are to exist, and survive.

Legal action will be taken because there are plenty who are committed to doing so. How do you think this definitive ruling was achieved in the first place. Plus the many others before it?

@BeizenderKarneval

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 understand your confusion now, I think.

The SC case was about public appointments reserved for women, and whether a male with a GRC counts as a woman for those purposes under the EA.

To answer that question, the SC had to clarify the general legal principle. Having clarified that principle, it is clarified wherever that principle arises.

It was already settled and legally uncontroversial law that if you are relying on a single-sex exemption under the EA, you cannot legally permit people of the other sex to access the facility (if you do, you lose the protection of the EA single-sex exemption). We now know that "sex" in this case means "biological sex". The rest of the logical structure of the law is unchanged, so the SC doesn't need to cite and explain every possible case where this applies ("and also single-sex provision in clothes shops, and caravan parks, and on Wednesdays, and in Glasgow"), etc etc ad infinitum, in order for it to apply to those.

You mentioned not being a native English speaker, so perhaps you are familiar with a different legal system. But in a common law system the above approach is not confusing.

That said, this SC judgment does go a long way to explain how it applies, beyond what lawyers would need, because it's been written for a wide audience.

I wonder if some people think that as the SC judgement doesn’t explicitly say “you must ban transwomen from female toilets”, then it isn’t law. A bit like when a parent at school protested her son’s exclusion for bringing alcohol to school because the school rules did not explicitly state “pupils must not bring cans of beer to school to drink with their lunch”.

First of all I admit I have never read David Copperfield, probably never will. Me and Dickens just don't get on. But all these people and organisations who claim to be waiting for the final guidance don't half put me in mind of Micawber. Hoping 'something will turn up' and they won't have to deal with the trantrums from the activists. For Gawds sake just rip the plaster off, get it over with, it's the law and it's perfectly clear.

This guidance from Irwin Mitchell is a very useful summary of the general responsibilities that employers and businesses have in complying with the law about sigle sex spaces. Written by a lawyer and answers some of the questions posed upthread:

www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b3975d75-3502-42e9-a31a-7a5836f1b1c7

I think you are spot on with this, yes.

Plus maybe not being a native English speaker, the implication of the word should is lost.

I'm not lawyer, but even to me, it means that you should do this, and if you don't and get sued, you'll lose.

So we really need s plan of lobbying MPs and holding them to account.

And yet polling suggests that the vast majority of people - male and female, all ages and political persuasions - agree.

I think this person is the mouthpiece for the HoC, should have guessed it's the Privy Council 🤣

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/lucy-powell

Eta Just googled her. She's the woman who made the tin earred remarks about grooming gangs recently.

Honestly, I find that a little disingenuous in the light of how this thread has developed.

I’m very confident that the whole ruling & associated guidance is very clear; I don’t really see the scope for different “readings” across its hefty pile of consistent, well-reasoned pages.

However, since others aren’t as confident, & have therefore explicitly asked for snippets & fragments as evidence exemplifying what I understand the whole is saying, I & others have provided these. There’s a certain irony to then use this to suggest we’re being selective in our readings!

At risk of being a bit cheeky, I think a better example of selective use of fragments may be your focus on the adjective “interim” here. The common understanding of this would be (clumsily), “guidance to keep us going in the meantime until more detailed equivalent guidance is provided”. The interpretation of “interim” as signifying “guidance that [even if while clear in itself] may be compromised in its final version” strikes me as dubious. I’d say if that were the case, “provisional” would have been the adjective used.

But here, again, I’m feeling pressured into a kind of nit-picking I just don’t seem as necessary or rational in the light of the eminently clear whole.

Pathetic. Very detailed breakdowns here. And how rude to suggest that people are so dim and unthinking.

yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51545-where-does-the-british-public-stand-on-transgender-rights-in-202425

A very good analogy.

And how rude to suggest that people are so dim and unthinking.

I think that's what's known as the triumph of hope over experience

I understand should to be the same as our Sollen; this is something recommended or suggested. Is this not right?

This is different from our Müssen - your must - which is a clear instruction to do something. In Germany, most legal documents will use Müssen when the law is clear and not open to being interpreted.