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

Almost blinded! Crikey!!

It's not surprising is it? The reason things got so skewed in the first place is that a small, noisy minority got themselves strategically placed in key committees and then pretended that all "equality" initiatives were about increasing access for just trans people, rather than for everyone.

Now there's been clear guidance to the contrary, they're desperately trying to prevent changes, whether by misrepresentation or emotional blackmail.

In my organisation, I'm making a point of countering every question that starts "In light of the SC judgment, can we confirm we will protect trans rights by..." and pointing out the importance of women's rights, and that third spaces are the solution.

The challenge is spotting where all these conversations are happening and making it clear that someone is keeping an eye that they're following the actual law. They're less likely to push something through if they know they can't do it secretly, or under pretence its OK.

Interestingly, if I'm not mistaken, müssen and must mean the same, but not in the negative, so muss nicht means don't have to but must not means something quite different. I am remembering German lessons from the '70s so I'm open to correction!

I think there may be subtle differences in usage between sollen and should. Certainly in English the context and the tone of voice can make a difference, with the latter meaning that written communication can be easily misunderstood.

Reminds me of a female side character in Pat Barker's Regeneration trilogy, set during the 1st World War, who'd 'straddle her legs and piss like a mare' (or words to that effect. The context suggested it used to be a common way for women to relieve themselves. Helped by the voluminous skirts worn at the time.

I don't know if this was actually a thing or if it's something she made up. I'd doubt if it was the latter. I wonder if women who did this didn't bother with under clothes or if they found a discreet corner to remove and replace them.

Anyway, sorry for the derail.

I don't think a facility for women and "trans-women" is necessarily illegal if; a) there are single sex facilities for employees; b) it is not claimed to be single-sex; and c) the proprietors claim a proportionate means for reaching a legitimate aim. I could see this being justified in the very special circumstances of a club aimed particularly at trans-sexual people. It would at least be an arguable case in court?

Who is your MP?

Isn't there a danger it would run down one leg? 😮 And that's why we squat? (When out hiking, obvs.)

I can't believe I'm actually typing this ... 😳🫣

That's what I thought! Probably why it stuck in my mind. When all the useful stuff just dribbles out 🙁 like something I can't bring to mind at the moment.

I'm with you on a and b, but think there's no route through c. That's because the "women only" part is discrimination on the basis of the protected characteristic of sex. For that to be legal you must demonstrate "proportionate means to a legitimate aim". But that is impossible because if you let any males in, you give up that argument. That's what the EHRC guidance says anyway. For the same reason you can't legally discriminate on the basis of "PC 1 or PC 2" but you can do "PC 1 and 2" (i.e. 'gay women' yes, but 'gay or woman' no).

(That's also why I'm a bit puzzled about how the logic of the law squares with allowing young boys in, but in practice that isn't at issue here).

Single sex provision is legally required in work places and in schools.

Furthermore, where they already exist they cannot be made unisex without considerable re-organisation and expense - because they then have to be fully lockable individual cubicles with integral washbasins.

@DustyWindowsills
(looks guiltily at cobwebs on opposite windowsill)

There's nothing to say that you have to have single sex toilets or label them unisex. It says IF you have single sex spaces, it has to be labelled this way. Someone can just say that it isn't a single sex spaces, it's for women and transwomen. Nothing stopping it.

I know that most women don't care enough to actively support any campaigns or protects because I help run these campaigns and protects. Not just speak about it online

Because i work on initiatives around creating single sex spaces so I have more idea about what is actually being said by whom. I know people want it to mean certain things, but it just doesnt mean those things.

Schools & workplaces are required to provide single sex toilets & changing rooms. Single sex means biological sex i.e. sex at birth.

Not public spaces and there is also the question of policing. While it might be obvious that someone is a man in the woman toilets presenting as a woman, if the establishment say they don't think that's the case, then there's nothing you can do about it as a member of the public. A colleague doesn't have to share their trans identity with you either. You'd have to prove the person was trans to make your case.

These are all things those of us who are involved in creating single sex spaces are acknowledging and trying to work through atm. Not what we wish and what our mates on mumsnet think.

Schools? How do you explain these unisex toilets then? Secondary schools have had a variety of unisex toilet designs for a couple of decades now (not that they should but they have).

You can be NB and femme or masc. It just means you don't identify as a man or woman. If you're going to take part in these conversations, you need to be informed.

Just like a woman can be masculine. Or a man can be effeminate. Someone NB can be masc or femme so they'd be very much included and also be on board with this and so would their allies. That's even more people against single sex spaces.

Exactly. It's pointless talking about this here because people have no idea what theyre on about. Its disappointing.

There is. Regulations. You have to have correct signage.
Document T has a big section on it.

So very sorry we've disappointed you. Never mind, eh?

And where would a NB go if they don't identify as femme or masc?

Yes as I said, the labour party poll and the one in 2018 both show support to trans rights and self identification. The latest one says differently.
On the whole, people don't care much about the issue and won't be politically active about it. That's my point. The people most supportive of queer rights and trans rights specifically are women.

Wherever they want. If its a problem, they can have transmen/women, men/women, and NBs on each loo.

Trying to be tricky and clever isnt going to change reality. The ruling does nothing to enforce single sex spaces. It just makes it more unattractive to a lot of places to have them.

@Keeptoiletssafe
Schools? How do you explain these unisex toilets then? Secondary schools have had a variety of unisex toilet designs for a couple of decades now (not that they should but they have).

As you say they should be providing single sex toilets & I don't think you are saying that they are not providing single sex changing rooms.