I will protect trans people in single-sex spaces row, new human rights chair says

[IwantToRetire]

Meanwhile, Stephenson said the commission had, under her predecessor Kishwer Falkner, given “legally sound” guidance to the UK Government on single-sex services and were awaiting ministers’ responses.

The Government has said it will not be rushed in publishing an updated code of practice which will be used by businesses and other organisations to inform their provision of single and separate-sex services such as toilets and changing rooms.

The guidance requires ministerial approval and would only come into force 40 days after the Government had laid the draft code in Parliament.

Asked if she would be prepared to accept changes to the draft, Stephenson said: “We’ve made the draft, and we think that it’s legally sound on the basis of extensive legal advice, and we provided it to Government.

“Government obviously has to assure themselves that they’re confident that it’s legally sound, and they’re doing that, and we’re really happy to provide them with any evidence that they need in order to do that.

“We’re waiting to hear back from them about their views on the guidance.”

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/protect-trans-people-single-sex-050000412.html

This is just one of the many articles that have been written based on an interview by PA. Each one has a slightly different slant depending of which paper it is published in.

She said it was “important to make sure that there are services provided for people who can’t or don’t want to use the services for their biological sex. It is about recognising that everybody has rights in this situation, but where you are providing single-sex services, the supreme court has said those have to be on the basis of biological sex.”

From the Guardian report of the same interview. Seems clear to me, and explains why TransActual think she's against inclusivity. (They think it means forcing women to share with men: she thinks it means not forcing men to share with men if they don't want to.)

If the code of practice ever gets released, third spaces is the route that many organisations will go down.

My own large employer has single occupancy gender neutral facilities alongside single sex and accessible ones, but people (men) are still using the facilities for the opposite sex because the policy, which hasn't been updated yet, allows it.

Third spaces, if it is practical for the business or service, are a reasonable solution. And all the allies can use them too so there will be no "outing". We know TRAs hate them because it means compromising and considering other people's rights, but the BBC won't be able to do pity pieces about trans people having no facilities to use when there are solutions in place.

So TRAs will have to explain why third spaces are unacceptable. That TIMs don't really feel scared being in with the other men, they want to be in with the women for validation, or in some cases for other, even less acceptable reasons. And they don't want single occupancy facilities that both sexes can use, they want to be in a women's space with women in it.

She has to appear to be fighting for BOTH transpeople and women. That's her job.

She can not change the law.

The EHRC previously had guidance which was bollocks and it took the supreme court decision to review it.

If she comes up with illegal bollocks for guidance, it WILL get challenged in court.

She can therefore only do what is within the limits of the law.

But we could see the end of single sex spaces and having to fight for them all over again using health and safety, direct discrimination and the indirect discrimination routes...

And the TRAs sure do love that Denton’s document, which tells them not to be honest about what they want as the truth about their requests is ugly; and normies would be horrified.

But women are the only ones who've had rights taken away. They were reinforced by the SC judgement but people seem to be doing their hardest to avoid implementing the law.

I imagine there will be lots of "be kind" nonsense to be spouted again.

Exactly. Things became impossible to resolve properly the day the concept of wanting, pretending or believing yourself to be something you’re not was given any credence in law, because it can’t be distinguished from faking it and it harms the rights of the group you’re imitating. Even if it wasn’t also about safety and dignity , if you take anything that is for a group you don’t belong to, someone in that group loses out. But with sex categories the safety and dignity argument is overwhelming too.

And it’s anomalous as this doesn’t and wouldn’t happen with ethnicity, disability, age, height etc - even though they are more spectrum-like than sex is and in some cases harder to prove, we understand the need for proof even if it’s not always a perfect system.

Trans-identifying people still do have rights and protections though - I don’t think it’s ok to assault someone because they think they’re not the sex they are, they should be kept safe in prison, they deserve the relevant medical care for their sex and for the complications arising from SRS and hormones. But there should be no right to require anyone else socially or legally to join in the pretence. And there are trans people who understand and manage this fine.

In fact, technically I think if trans people were or are given the right to claim to be something they’re not in law, and to force others to comply, as is happening in some places, that’s discrimination against everyone else, who face prosecution for fraud if they fake their identity or physical attributes to get access to a different group’s rights.

Yes, she does....that headline is wilfully emotive and distorted. She is very clear about sex based rights, but is also responsiible for all equalities.

I don't think she is being vague. She is being concillatory towards the government process, as laborious and unnecessary as it may be.

She stuck her neck out during the committee stage, and had most of the committee rally against her...but the government went ahead with her appointment, anyway.

A third space could simply be an additional unisex space. Anyone could use it, and it wouldn't necessarily be 'outing' someone with a trans identity - because it would not be meant solely for their use but for anyone comfortable with that facility.

Single sex spaces aren't compulsory. They may be claims against providers who dont provide single sex services for women in certain circumstances. But to make a claim, a woman has to already have faced discrimination.

We know lots of mixed sex spaces are dreadful for women snd they still exist without single sex options.

The solution is going to be - single sex services may be offered as before, and unisex will be compulsory to avoid discriminate against the men who claim to have gender.

Its the men who claim to have gender that will have the the right to space, women will not.

Men with gender are exactly the same as men without - they are happy and safe using unisex spaces.

Promoting a third space for these men isnt a compromise, its priotising men.

The argument TRA are making is that going to a unisex toilet when they have been using the womens previously will out them, especially at work.

The 'right to a private life' has been used to before to hide a mans 'trans history'.

This is going to go on for years unless someone in government starts prioritising women.

That's because they're men....

Oh god!
Will it never end?...

I wasn't actually thinking about them being 'outed'. My comment was about the TIMs who insist on using women's spaces (because they have women in them) even when everyone knows that they're TIMs. There was one incident where India Willoughby made a big show of refusing to use the unisex toilet which was right next to him and walking miles to a women's loo.

They don't want unisex spaces because they're not validating and they're not full of unconsenting women who think they're in a women-only space. It's nothing to do with being outed.

Then we have to keep pointing out that they're not being 'outed' because everyone knows. They are, however, being reminded that what they claim to be is a lie and a fantasy, but that's their problem not ours.

Yep. They want it because they can.
It's as simple as that...

But it is our problem if the solution is compulsory mixed sex and voluntary single sex. The priority will be mixed sex.

While the GRA exists and the government think its necessary to issue men with female id, its irrelevant that we say we can tell, the government are pretending that we cant.

I wonder when the idea of the right to keep your sex private crept into policy and legislation. We don't get to conceal our age when it is relevant, and it's often relevant multiple times a day.

Even within the GRA there are multiple examples of when a GRC can be ignored. The recent decision that a woman's intent to become pregnant does not preclude her obtaining a GRC also demonstrates that the purpose cannot be to conceal sex.

I think the idea comes from the belief that being trans or gender non-conforming is so shameful that it must be concealed - but surely that isn't a foundation on which to build policy and law?

I suppose it's also because LGB and T have been linked, but sexuality doesn't make much material difference to everyday life, so it is a private matter in a way that sex isn't.

The biggest advance society could make in 2026 is to drop the idea that it's 'toxic' to talk clearly about somebody's sex.

’third spaces’ are detrimental to women, children and anyone having a medical emergency. Adding them as the blanket solution will come with additional risks to these groups.

Rod Liddle wrote about the Russell Brand case: ‘It is also alleged that he frequently used the disabled toilets for reasons other than those for which the BBC intended them to be used. Hmm. As far as I can remember from my time at the BBC, the disabled toilets were used almost exclusively for amorous trysts of a semi-clandestine nature. There were loads of these installations and very few disabled people, you see..’

It’s not as simple as adding a private enclosed toilet in a mixed sex space and not risk assessing the costs to health and safety. A man was found in a council office toilet after 6 days recently. That’s unusual but a day of so isn’t. Several young people have died in private toilet designs in very public places recently.

Adding ‘third spaces’ isn’t something that is wanted by men who want to use the women’s and women who don’t want to use the women’s realise in certain situations they don’t want to use the men’s or the ‘gender neutral’ as they are scared and/or disgusted.

Third spaces can be an ‘unreasonable’ solution. It’s an enclosed sound resistant mixed sex space that has to be able to be opened from the outside for safety purposes. Is that really what people need? My research shows it is not.

All this for 6,500 men who have GRC.

I agree with your points, and I don't want gender neutral facilities as the default.. However, thinking of organisations like the one I work for (very large, public sector), third spaces is what they are going to propose if they ever get around to updating their policy. They are another one that can't follow the law until the EHRC spells it out for them.

Alongside (supposedly) male/female facilities, most of our offices also have some single occupancy toilets. This is what they will tell trans-identifying people to use. They are not going to tell TIMs to use the mens. It's just not going to happen. And I think that most people (except for TRAs) think this is a reasonable solution.

I understand. Toilet designs have been a free for all for a while. Back when the 1992 work legislation was introduced, the standards for factories, offices etc was single sex cubicles within a single sex room. The cubicles had door gaps - it was stated for ventilation, cleaning, prevention of misuse and supervision (for things like medical emergencies). That’s why mixed sex toilets were stipulated to be enclosed in a separate room. There weren’t supposed to be the main design.

All of the above was for health and safety. Mixed sex design is for privacy, and health and safety is reduced.

I don't see any issue with what she's said. Obviously there has to be measures to protect people from discrimination due to a protected characteristic. And while GR is a PC, there will need to be measures to protect people from discrimination on the basis of it. Nothing new there. And certainly no suggestion the protection will involve allowing people to access facilities intended for the opposite sex.
This interpretation has been manipulated by the headline.
Her comment that a GRC will not be useful in gaining trans people access to opposite sex spaces, but could be useful 'in other ways' is important too.

Likely less than that because a fair few of the older original ones will have died.
(Tribunal data only lists certificates issued, not those still extant)