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

If you want the literal letter of the law, you'll need to go to the Equality Act itself.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/13

Chapter 2 Prohibited conduct

Discrimination

No, in English 'should not permit to' is not equivalent to 'it is suggested that'.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/part/7

Here's the section on single sex exceptions.

26(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing separate services for persons of each sex if—

(a)a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and

(b)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing separate services differently for persons of each sex if—

(a)a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective,

(b)the extent to which the service is required by one sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide the service otherwise than as a separate service provided differently for each sex, and

(c)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(3)This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

Yes, and the sooner reality is accepted the sooner people will realise that it isn't that bad at all. You can continue to privately 'identify as' you wish and you have certain protections if you do; but 'Sex' is real and has consequences which is why we have single sex facilities, services and categories.

Unisex facilities are available, or will be, if you require them.

(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).

The guidance issued for consultation includes an example which makes clear that young children of the opposite sex are allowed in single sex spaces and that wouldn't make them mixed sex.

That one demonstrating that the EHRC listen to Womans Hour. The loopholes have been beautifully pointed out to them.

I fear that this is the way things will go... single sex provision is not legally required.. therefore relabelling will be the way forward... the reasons why single sex provisions were originally created have been ignored and instead, women loose... great.

In some regulatory documents, "must" is defined as "primary legislation says this" and "should" is defined as "we, the regulator, say this". In those circumstances it's used to signal where you might want to go to court against the regulator to show they are wrong in law, or where there may be some unusual cases where you can argue that a different overriding principle applies.

In these cases, the documents typically define those two terms explicitly and bold them.

In the EHRC document there is no such key, so we interpret the word in context. The natural reading of "should not" in the document is "must not", not "may". That is then put beyond doubt because the EHRC goes on to explain the legal logic, which shows that at best, it means "may, if you wish to lose the legal protection that the law affords".

It is required in schools and workplaces.

but where will the non binaries go??? 😱

What hateful bigots, I hope you're boycotting?

As a direct translation, this is correct, although I understand „sollen“ to carry a greater sense of obligation than your above translation perhaps implies (not a native German speaker, though, so will defer to you on this!) Certainly, in English, „should“ very much does. It represents a moral imperative that is starkly distinct from eg. „could“. This latter conditional is very much an either/or, whereas the former requires a particular response.

Fundamentally, though, I‘d suggest that, in many contexts, in English at least, „should“ „must“ have become fairly synonymous in many contexts. A possible analogy is the words „may“ and „can“. Ultimately, the outcome of the below -

One should not steal.
One must not steal.

should (ha!) be the same either way. The difference between the two is primarily in tone: one is an ethical directive; the other, a didactic imperative. The latter feels rather pedantic & patronising, more suited to children than adults, & this is, essentially, because the assumption is that the former suffices to set a clear standard for adults.

Democracy is founded on consent. Our policing is by consent. To focus so closely on the distinction between the “should“, with its focus on right versus wrong, as opposed to „must“, with its focus on can versus can’t, is to further degrade our social contract. It’s akin to the argument that there’s no point in single-sex facilities because there’s no way to enforce this: the staring point is a depressing assumption that people will not behave appropriately.

Yes - but I'm not sure how that can be squared with the law's definition of men and women (i.e. that makes practical sense to me, but seems inconsistent with the wording of the law). But I haven't studied this so am only flagging up my puzzlement here.

I am aware of specific technical standard environments where MAY, SHOULD and MUST are clearly distinct non-overlapping meanings, and where SHOULD does mean "not compulsory, but advised".

But those documents specifically call them out in capitals to make clear they're using those specific technical definitions, not general English, where "should" absolutely can be a synonym for "must".

Particularly in law, where there really is no "should".

The law is not a technical standard - it only rules on what is permitted and what isn't - there's no "advice" component, meaning the binary legal/illegal line pushes "should not" into synonymous with "must not".

The Supreme Court clearly went to a good deal of trouble to make this judgment as accessible and readable as possible. I wonder if they're tearing their hair at the fuckwittery being applied.

' to require the exercise of certain functions to be with regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and other prohibited conduct'

front of the Equality Act.

Discrimination is prohibited.

Excluding males from female spaces is permitted, if proportionate means/legitimate aim.

Failing to exclude males from female spaces by including those males who identify as 'trans' would therefore be indirect discrimination. And is therefore prohibited.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/introduction

It is a bit of a round-about-the-houses way of setting up single sex spaces. But there you go.

We also need to refer to the HSE legislation:

https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/workplace-facilities/index.htmwww.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/workplace-facilities/health-safety.htm

'Employers have to provide facilities suitable for any worker, including those with disabilities, which includes:

• enough toilets and washbasins for those expected to use them – find out how many
• agreed reasonable adjustments for workers with disabilities, for example, a worker with prostate cancer
• separate facilities for men and women, except where each toilet is in a separate room lockable from the inside'

My bold.

'have to' = 'must' = 'this is the law'

From my admittedly partisan perspective isn't all this hedging, delay, attempted obfuscation and prevarication just making it worse for everyone, especially transpeople? When the SC decision came out everyone (except the ones who called them bigots who'd taken a bribe) thanked them for the judgements clarity. To then immediately pivot to...this! There's been so much, imo, unwarranted catastrophising(sp?) that i can understand why tp must believe there's an axe hanging over their heads. Waiting for it to fall must be agonising. People maintaining this state are being cruel. Although telling folk, mostly children, that everyone hates them and wants them to die has long been a feature of this ideology and its supporters.

This is stopping solutions being found and implemented that work for everyone. And the axe won't fall. It doesn't even, and never has, exist.

The judgement highlighted that if employers chose to make everything mixed sex then women would have a case for sex discrimination because of the lack of single sex changing rooms, toilets etc. Have a read of this from solicitors Irwin Mitchell:

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

The guidance issued for consultation includes an example which makes clear that young children of the opposite sex are allowed in single sex spaces and that wouldn't make them mixed sex.

Not quite - young children of the opposite sex are not allowed to just enter. You can't have mobs of young boys mucking around in female toilets due to some sort of loophole.

But women are allowed to bring them in, accompanied.

I am a bit bothered about the kids thing, I must admit, because it's not covered explicitly in the law, is it? That is, there isn't a stated exception saying that young children of the wrong sex can be in a single-sex-exemption-using space without making it mixed sex. To us, it's obvious that they are a common sense exception, to which nobody with any sense would object. The trouble is, it's not clear to me what makes that legally different from what TRAs would say is a common sense exception to which nobody with any sense would object, viz, allowing men who attempt to pass as women in.

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

ChateauMargaux
I fear that this is the way things will go... single sex provision is not legally required..

HM Government disagrees.

Part T 2024 of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 states very clearly
The objective of this requirement is to require toilet accommodation in non-residential buildings to be separate single-sex toilets, with single-sex shared or individual hand-washing facilities.

Couldn't be clearer - single sex toilets AND hand washing facilities are required.

Unisex, or 'universal' toilets, as they are officially called, are optional unless there is no space for the required single-sex toilets
Universal toilets can be provided in addition to single-sex provision and where space allows. Where there is not sufficient space to provide single-sex toilets, fully enclosed universal toilets should be provided.

[Note 'can', not 'must', or 'should', though a pedant like me would have preferred 'may be provided in addition...' - lots of fun there for BeizenderKarneval ]

Unisex toilets have a specific definition:
fully enclosed room which contains a water-closet and washbasin and hand-drying facilities, and is intended for individual use by persons of either sex.

so just taking all the signs off the women's and men's toilets and sticking on a new sign and declaring them 'unisex' does not make them a building regs compliant unisex toilets.

Oh and building regs have even something to say about signs :
All toilet accommodation should have clear and appropriate signage.

Toilet accommodation: Approved Document T - I'm sure there's a copy in the HoC library...

The trouble is, it's not clear to me what makes that legally different from what TRAs would say is a common sense objection to which nobody with any sense would object, viz, allowing men who attempt to pass as women in.

They will need to get their mum to bring them in, for starters.

I think you have a good point in that this political movement has effectively ended common sense, shared meaning and good will being possible to rely on any more. Rather like vexatious complainants have to be recognised in legal processes because of the abuse of process: similar boundaries will be required.

Yes, NecessaryScene, it's the "accompanied" part that makes taking kids in seem reasonable to us (btw, you copied part of what I wrote before I corrected the typo, I wrote "objection" for "exception"). But does anything legal say that? It would need to be in the EA, as it relates to provision for service users, and I think it isn't.