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

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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
theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 21/05/2025 09:44

All this talk about 'should' and 'must' ignores that behind the words lie implied sanctions.

If you provide sex-segregated spaces, you will lay yourself open to a sex-discrimination claim (against which you will have no defence, to the annoyance of your insurers) if you do not keep them strictly sex-segregated.

Some sex-segregation is mandated by law.

And there's case law that says that a failure to provide sex-segregated spaces can also lay you open to a sex-discrimination claim, which the guidance alludes to.

It's not rocket science.

borntobequiet · 21/05/2025 09:44

NecessaryScene · 21/05/2025 09:40

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.

Or someone who identifies as their mum, perhaps. I can actually imagine someone trying this on.

TheOtherRaven · 21/05/2025 09:46

It will be a case of someone in a court room saying 'yes, by law I should not have permitted this to happen, but....<Reasons>'.

It's not going to go well, is it?

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2025 09:52

TheOtherRaven · 21/05/2025 09:46

It will be a case of someone in a court room saying 'yes, by law I should not have permitted this to happen, but....<Reasons>'.

It's not going to go well, is it?

As I said upthread, I'm sure we will be seeing court cases and ETs soon.

What is also clear is that the majority of the public want and expect facilities to be single sex. So as well as legal risks, businesses will also need to consider the branding risk and financial implications of the public taking their business elsewhere.

Datun · 21/05/2025 10:04

Wouldn't it be nice if the EHRC issued the guidance, and then issued a piece of paper that said

this means transwomen are not allowed in women's toilets unless you call them unisex, and admit all men. In which case the women can sue. If you don't get it, please see the dry, legal document above.

ERthree · 21/05/2025 10:09

It would seem the respect they want to show to everyone that works or visits the House of Commons doesn't extend to women. At least we know what these fuckwits think of us.

Keeptoiletssafe · 21/05/2025 10:13

MyOliveHelper · 21/05/2025 08:19

You don't have to call it unisex

Building regs do.

The term now accepted is ‘universal’.

Though I know that Parliament currently say they have gender neutral.

Keeptoiletssafe · 21/05/2025 10:16

I know some fun facts about Parliament loos. They have an interesting history.

RayonSunrise · 21/05/2025 10:19

@BeizenderKarneval “Should” in this case is equivalent to “ought to”, which links to obligation and duty around expected action. Not a suggestion.

FarriersGirl · 21/05/2025 10:20

@MyOliveHelper Link to the latest YouGov Polling on the SC ruling [and previous polls on transgender issues]

https://yougov.co.uk/(popup:search/transgender;type=surveys)

Search | YouGov

https://yougov.co.uk/(popup:search/transgender;type=surveys)

OvaHere · 21/05/2025 10:22

ERthree · 21/05/2025 10:09

It would seem the respect they want to show to everyone that works or visits the House of Commons doesn't extend to women. At least we know what these fuckwits think of us.

It begs the question why they are not adding some unisex facilities in addition to the male/female? Is it because the HoP is a very old (presumably listed) building so they have a lot of limitations?

I imagine for a long time there were no female facilities in the building and presumably at some point in the latter 20th century they had to adapt for that - maybe repurposing what at one point would have been all male facilities. Do they have disabled facilities in the building now?

The most practical solution for a very old building like the HoP would be to just have the M/F facilities they already have but that would upset the TRAs in the building. So perhaps in absence of having the space and planning permission to create extra unisex space they think it's a good idea to flout the judgment.

TheOtherRaven · 21/05/2025 10:26

It would be perfectly simple to re designate a population proportionate number of those m/f spaces as gender neutral, and signpost them.

They are not acting because they do not want to respect women's protections in law.

TheOtherRaven · 21/05/2025 10:28

Datun · 21/05/2025 10:04

Wouldn't it be nice if the EHRC issued the guidance, and then issued a piece of paper that said

this means transwomen are not allowed in women's toilets unless you call them unisex, and admit all men. In which case the women can sue. If you don't get it, please see the dry, legal document above.

Edited

But 'not allowed' might mean.......

<wangle wangle wangle wangle somehow this means women cannot have boundaries that men don't like>

My MP says it. The most important thing about women's rights is that they are respectful to men.

Keeptoiletssafe · 21/05/2025 10:35

Whilst we are talking about legislation I would like toilets in schools to have floor to door gaps so any children that have epilepsy or diabetes or any other condition or event (spiked vapes etc) that may cause them to collapse without warning, are able to attend school safely. The positive side effects of this would be that toilets would have to be single sex, and less sexual assaults would happen in toilets. It would be the best way to reduce the number of children who die in school toilets, as all schools should have a defibrillator now.

Keeptoiletssafe · 21/05/2025 10:36

OvaHere · 21/05/2025 10:22

It begs the question why they are not adding some unisex facilities in addition to the male/female? Is it because the HoP is a very old (presumably listed) building so they have a lot of limitations?

I imagine for a long time there were no female facilities in the building and presumably at some point in the latter 20th century they had to adapt for that - maybe repurposing what at one point would have been all male facilities. Do they have disabled facilities in the building now?

The most practical solution for a very old building like the HoP would be to just have the M/F facilities they already have but that would upset the TRAs in the building. So perhaps in absence of having the space and planning permission to create extra unisex space they think it's a good idea to flout the judgment.

They already have.
https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/venue-hire/commons/planning/accessibility/toilets/

Datun · 21/05/2025 10:40

Keeptoiletssafe · 21/05/2025 10:16

I know some fun facts about Parliament loos. They have an interesting history.

Do tell!

Datun · 21/05/2025 10:40

TheOtherRaven · 21/05/2025 10:28

But 'not allowed' might mean.......

<wangle wangle wangle wangle somehow this means women cannot have boundaries that men don't like>

My MP says it. The most important thing about women's rights is that they are respectful to men.

True

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2025 10:42

Maybe we need to be doing some more protestin in the HoP.

There's a good long history of it.

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2025 10:47

https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/women-parliament-and-political-space/

'Facilities for women in Parliament

This change in the law was swiftly followed by debates about the need for female facilities in Parliament, as the structures and surroundings of Westminster ‘were largely man-made’, and at the time, did not adequately cater for women (see footnote 4).
Discussing women’s admission to the House of Commons in 1918, a memorandum produced by the Office of Works stated that:
‘In connection with the Motion which has been passed that women should be eligible as Members of Parliament, it is necessary to make certain arrangements, which are rather difficult at the present time owing to the fact that the numbers of women who are likely to be returned to the House are not known.’
Memorandum titled Houses of Parliament. Admission of Women to the Legislature, 1 Nov 1918, WORK 11/237

Various proposals were submitted concerning provisions for female bathrooms and a woman members’ room. The idea of a woman only dining room was also discussed, although it was suggested that ‘perhaps in many cases the women members would use the same Dining Room as the existing members of the House’, although this did not materialise (see footnote 5).
It was proposed that a woman’s bathroom could be provided where the blue coloured room is on this diagram, as ‘all that would be necessary would be the taking out of the urinals in the lavatory and making provisions on further W.C.’ (see footnote 6).

Furthermore, a woman member’s room was suggested and is coloured in pink at the bottom of the diagram, its name highlighting the perceived strangeness of MPs who were not male. This space provided a place for women MPs to work in between Parliamentary debates.
As more women entered the House of Commons during the interwar period, female MPs across the political spectrum shared the woman members’ room. The room became known as the ‘tomb’ as it was cramped and poorly furnished (see footnote 7).

Nonetheless, the woman members’ room helped to foster a degree of solidarity between women MPs, especially as they were excluded, both directly and indirectly, from other spaces open to male colleagues such as the Strangers’ Dining Room, the smoking rooms, and the bars, all places where informal political work took place which disadvantaged women.
...

Over time, women MPs began to challenge the masculine structure of Parliament. When the Labour MP Ellen Wilkinson was elected in 1924, she decided to enter the smoking room, but was stopped by a male police officer who told her that ladies did not enter such a space. To this she replied, ‘I am not a lady – I am a ‘Member of Parliament’, before opening the door’ (see footnote 18).
Wilkinson continuously drew attention to the limited accommodation for women MPs in the House of Commons. This, she told the press in 1928, was because ‘women MPs are regarded as a mere political accident’. She went on to say that ‘the authorities really ought to face up to the question of providing permanent and satisfactory accommodation’ (see footnote 19).
The passing of the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act marks an important moment in history for women’s rights. However, rather than Parliament trying to adapt to integrate women into Parliamentary spaces, separate spaces were created for women, which had a significant impact on how female MPs would experience Parliament. Nonetheless, the challenges that women faced brought about a sense of solidarity between women MPs across the political spectrum.'

Women, Parliament and Political Space - The National Archives blog

How did women’s admission to the House of Commons impact the masculine structure of Parliament?

https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/women-parliament-and-political-space

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2025 10:50

This from 2020:

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-2020-0056/

'Women-only facilities have been subject to debate in recent years. For example, the Royal Society for Public Health, in a report on public toilets, called for “equality of access to toilets”, noting this was important “particularly for women who take longer and cannot use urinals”. This, it added, “leads to the long queues familiar in many public toilets”. The report called for ‘potty parity’ to ensure equality of access, with more unisex toilets, more toilets for women and taking into account the needs of transgender individuals.

Some critics maintain that gender-neutral toilets, and also changing facilities, are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities. Others have said that while gender-neutral toilets should be commended, labelling single-sex toilets as gender-neutral, even if they contain urinals, may ultimately mean fewer facilities are available for women to use.

A report by Stonewall showed that almost half of trans people asked (48 percent) do not feel comfortable using public toilets. Stonewall defines ‘trans’ as being an umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth. Proponents of more gender-neutral facilities note that gender-neutral toilets can be used by anyone and would stop trans people feeling isolated and distressed about going to the bathroom.

The issue of toilets in public buildings was subject to a series of parliamentary questions tabled by Lord Lucas. He asked about changes to toilet facilities in the Department of Education’s London offices to make them unisex. The Government responded that changes were to “make the office environment as inclusive as possible” noting visitors who do not wish to use, or may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral facilities, are able to use other toilets in the building.

The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination, for example in employment or the provision of public services, on the basis of protected characteristics that include age, disability, sex, and gender reassignment. However, the Act allows providers to offer single-sex services in permitted circumstances. It also outlines the limited circumstances where gender reassignment discrimination might be permissible, but it must be a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.'

Keeptoiletssafe · 21/05/2025 10:59

Datun · 21/05/2025 10:40

Do tell!

😬 hmm I better not.

However safety and privacy have always been an issue.
Women = needing safe toilets to be part of working life.
Men = doing things in toilets other than what toilets are meant for.

This quote makes me laugh but it must not have been great at the time: “some Gentlewomen in our gallery, not being able to hold their water, let it run on Mr Dodington, and a Scots member who sat under. The first had a white duffel frock spoiled, the latter almost blinded”.

It’s from this:
historyofparliament.com/2024/01/16/the-smallest-room-the-house/

Shortshriftandlethal · 21/05/2025 11:02

Who is the 'Houses of Parliament' in this instance? Who has put out this message about ignoring the ruling?

SinnerBoy · 21/05/2025 11:07

Posie

This is interesting. My employer is also ‘waiting for the full ehrc guidance’ before implementing new policy. And running a lot of ‘listening sessions’ and signposting counselling resources etc. There weren’t any of those when they brought in the policy making all the toilets and changing spaces mixed sex

Unfortunately, all organisations claiming to be waiting for the full guidance and allowing TIMs to use the women's facilities are breaking the law, as it stands.

If a gang of unqualified Internet spoons are able to discern this, with a modicum of research and reading, organisations with legal departments are acting very strangely.