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

North East council votes to support transgender residents over single-sex facilities

13 replies

IwantToRetire · 18/05/2026 21:17

Cross-party councillors in Darlington have voted in favour of supporting transgender residents while rejecting a proposal calling for single-sex spaces throughout council facilities and services.

The contentious motion, put forward by Conservative and Reform councillors, sought to safeguard women's "privacy, dignity and safety", yet faced fierce criticism from activists who branded it "anti-trans and discriminatory".

Members were warned that approving the opposition's proposal would leave Darlington's transgender community at "increased risk of harm".

Article continues at https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/north-east-council-votes-support-33678842

Council votes to support transgender residents over single-sex facilities

Labour and Green councillors voted to support transgender residents

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/north-east-council-votes-support-33678842

OP posts:
Daisymug · 18/05/2026 21:46

Never about women and girls privacy and safety etc is it.

JellySaurus · 18/05/2026 22:01

‘Increased risk of harm’ from whom, from what?

Oh, and how about acting according to the law? Not opinions or ideologies, UK law.

It beggars belief. 🤦🏻‍♀️

LeftieRightsHoarder · 18/05/2026 22:23

This is the kind of nonsense that may well put a spotlight on the favouritism shown to, particularly, men who say they are women. I hope it does.

I wonder if the influx of new Reform councillors (likely to despise gender-woo) and Green councillors (likely to follow the current Green TWAW party line) will lead to the kind of conflict that gets into local newspapers?

I’d welcome anything that opens people’s eyes to genderist misogyny. It may be more noticeable at local level than nationally. For example, local newspapers/radio/websites will often back campaigns against loss of a well-known named facility, and that can include loss of a women-only service that people generally sympathise with.

Bigboldfont · 18/05/2026 22:24

why can't the council do both, and have single sex facilities AND a mixed sex/any gender toilet for the trans and non binary crowd and all the people who are in favour of non single sex toilets and change rooms. Then there's something for everyone.

RedToothBrush · 18/05/2026 22:26

Well they are fucking stupid and liable for breaking the law if they do this then aren't they?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 18/05/2026 22:29

Especially when just up the road the NHS Trust took a beating in court on this issue.

murasaki · 18/05/2026 22:32

I was going to say, have they not heard of the Darlington Nurses?

IwantToRetire · 18/05/2026 22:33

Justme56 · 18/05/2026 22:20

It’s a bit weird because this was reported in March. Same people saying the same words but the Chronicle have missed a chunk out.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1eqn6xyv0qo?app-referrer=deep-link

Well I suppose it is a new Council (not sure of the results).

So suppose it shows continuing committment to sex based rights - or just opposing the Council to flex their muscles as the oppositions?

OP posts:
IwantToRetire · 18/05/2026 22:36

I wonder if it is the old story because the results suggest Reform have the majority.

But maybe (trying to do the sums in my head!) even with Reform and Conservatives voting together the other parties would have more votes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2026/england/councils/E08000024

No - I am adding votes together. In terms of councillors Reform easily has more seats.

So maybe it is an old story.

In which case sorry.

BBC News

Sunderland election result - Local Elections 2026

Get the latest news and election results for Sunderland council in the 2026 Local elections from BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2026/england/councils/E08000024

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 18/05/2026 22:37

IwantToRetire · 18/05/2026 22:33

Well I suppose it is a new Council (not sure of the results).

So suppose it shows continuing committment to sex based rights - or just opposing the Council to flex their muscles as the oppositions?

This is not relevant. It just shows they are fucking incompetent and exposing the council to risk cos they are too illiterate or lazy to read up on a local case.

IwantToRetire · 19/05/2026 00:04

Okay - this is my error. Many apologies. Blush

I would blame google but as I have said on other threads it is totally useless I should have checked the date on the actual article not assumed google can actually work out that if you asks for results for the past 24 hours that is what it will give you. Angry

So can ask MNHQ to delete thread.

Or could leave it as a reminder that now that Reform has an easy majority to get new Council guidelines passed, to check that they actually do it.

And not that they just made an empty gesture back in March.

OP posts:
POWNewcastleEastWallsend · 19/05/2026 05:50

The Evening Chronicle is 100% TWAW and has failed to correct its article as the BBC has done.

Both articles are dated 28 March but the BBC article includes this correction at the bottom:

(my bolding)

"Correction 07 April: An earlier version of this article stated that the council had voted against single-sex spaces motion. It has been updated to say that after an amendment by the Green party the motion was accepted. We have also updated the article to give more details about the amended motion, including that the council voted to implement the April 2025 Supreme Court ruling across Darlington Borough Council but said it would not "introduce blanket exclusions of transgender individuals from services". On 30 April we amended the article to make clear that the Supreme Court ruled the legal definition of a woman should be based on biological sex under the Equality Act 2010, as this was not sufficiently clear before.

(This next bit is the BBC editorialising, pushing the usual TRA line that the EHRC Code of Practice matters more than the actual law 🙄)

The article also said that "The ruling also makes it clear that if a space or service is designated as women-only, a person who was born male but identifies as a woman does not have a right to use that space or service." This has been amended to make clear that this was referring to interim EHRC guidance, since withdrawn, which said that "…where single sex facilities are required under the law, access should be based on biological sex." The article also now makes clear that the EHRC's full guidance or code of practice is still being considered by the government."

+++

The original motion and the Green Party amendment are both lengthy:

https://democracy.darlington.gov.uk/documents/s27994/Item%20No.%202%20-%20Draft%20Minutes%20of%20the%20Ordinary%20Meeting%20of%20the%20Council%20-%2026th%20March%202026.pdf

Page 11-13 Item 108 - the Original Motion (unamended)

Page 13-14 The Amended Motion (Passed)

They have (obviously) misunderstood that they already need to obey the law.

Also that the EHRC Code of Practice for service providers is not the "guidance" that is sitting on Bridget Phillipson's desk because that is for Employers, not service providers, etc. (I cannot 🙄 enough!)

This is the full text of the Resolution as amended - missing out the lengthy pre-amble. The Council seemed determined to waste as much time and money as possible stalling on order to try to delay the inevitable as long as possible. . . . However . . . see Agenda for May 14th Council Meeting below the text of the resolution.

This Council resolves:

  1. To fully implement the Supreme Court ruling across all Darlington Borough Council buildings, services, policies and commissioned activities, once the Government issues the final, legally binding EHRC guidance for public bodies, to ensure that the council complies with the law. The Council will make use of the existing Equality Advisory Group to assess the implications, review appropriate policies, make recommendations and ensure that our approach complies with our Public Sector Equality Duty.
  2. Recommendations from the Equality Advisory Group will be presented to the Communities and Local Services Scrutiny Committee. This committee may call on councillors, staff, a wide range of stakeholders and legal expertise to review and improve these recommendations.
  3. The Council will not introduce blanket exclusions of transgender individuals from services. Any restriction must be justified on a case-by-case basis as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, in line with the Equality Act 2010.
  4. Any proposed changes to access to services must be subject to an Equality Impact Assessment, including specific consideration of impacts on transgender and nonbinary individuals.
  5. To reaffirm the Council’s commitment to women’s rights as foundational, while equally affirming its commitment to the rights, dignity and inclusion of transgender people. Protecting women’s safety and respecting the rights of others are not mutually exclusive.
  6. To support the government's national ‘Violence Against Women And Girls Strategy’ and work in partnership towards halving violence against women and girls by 2030 with a focus on prevention and support for survivors through a whole systems approach by the following:

a) championing women’s safety;
b) thereby promoting respectful and inclusive public spaces;
c) working collaboratively with partners; and
d) supporting early intervention and prevention.

  1. That any cost implications will be met from existing resources, subject to normal, financial governance processes and clarity of requirements.
  2. The Council will act lawfully and responsibly to achieve these aims, ensuring that the dignity, privacy and safety of all individuals, including women, transgender, intersex and non-binary people, are upheld. We will move forward with clarity, compassion and a firm commitment to equality, ensuring our approach is compliant with the law and informed by best practice.

Members entered into discussion on the Amendment and subsequently took a vote.

The Amendment was Carried.

The Amendment became the Substantive Motion and was put to the meeting.

Resolved – The Substantive Motion was carried.

+++

The next Council meeting was on 14 May.

Agenda:
https://democracy.darlington.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=136&MId=3028&Ver=4

Members of the Public have been asking questions! 😎

https://democracy.darlington.gov.uk/documents/s27996/Questions%20submitted%20on%20Notice%20-%20Ordinary%20Meeting%20of%20the%20Council%20-%2014%20May%202026%20-%20FOR%20PUBLICATION%20AND%20.pdf

Q from wor Leigh!

Mrs. Leigh Taylor

Q1 The passing of the Cllr Snedker (Green) and Cllr Layton (Labour) amended motion on 26th March 2026 created the illusion that this council had not and would not introduce the blanket exemption that men could not access women-only services. We know this because the men in this chamber’s gallery, who wanted to access women’s facilities based on their ‘gender identity’, cheered. We also know it because on 02.04.2026 the council had to perform a U-turn. It had to issue a Facebook statement to clarify the reality: ‘To be clear, the Council is not changing how single sex spaces are currently managed – that use is determined by biological sex.’ It turns out that the council was following the law for the current provision of single sex provision with the ‘blanket exclusion’ of ‘biological sex’ as the operational criteria. Not the ‘case by case basis’, Green & Labour Cllrs wanted. Until that statement was issued it seems that information was not known by the public.

Cllr Harker, the chronology of recent events is confusing. Before you took part in the motion’s debate, we heard you reply to questions 5 & 7 that you had already decided to vote against the original motion. It showed that as council leader you are out of touch with ordinary people - polling show that single sex provision is overwhelming preferred (regardless of age or political persuasion) alongside single user provision for people who do not want to use shared facilities. And the decision to not involve residents and experts in a new EDI working group ready for the new EHRC Code of Practice showed amateurish shortsightedness.

Even more bizarrely though was six days prior to March’s meeting, you attended the TVCA (Tees Valley Combined Authority) cabinet. At that meeting Lord Houchen added a clause to the Procurement and Commercial Strategy*. It committed all five councils, and any organisation, entering into contracts with the TVCA to prove adherence to the Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act 2010's definition of sex. Residents might not realise that this council directly benefits from TVCA funding, such as the free car parking, our revamped railway station, and cultural projects like the S&DR 200 festival. Therefore, not agreeing to the added clause was not an option.

Cllr Harker, I have a two-part question:

1a. Please specify the date for exactly when Darlington Borough Council decided it was following the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of sex

1b. And in the light of the motion passed on 26.03.2026, exactly how has the council communicated this to the TVCA, that it is actively adhering to the definition of sex so Darlington can continue to receive TVCA monies?

Note: ‘Tees Valley Mayor requested the addition of a clause relating to the Supreme Court judgement on women only spaces be included in the Procurement & Commercial Strategy. This would require anyone contracting with the Combined Authority to ensure they follow the law, relating to this ruling, and any deviation from this would result in breach of contract. This was unanimously agreed by the Cabinet. RESOLVED that Cabinet: APPROVED the
Procurement & Commercial Strategy’ https://teesvalley-ca.gov.uk/about/wpcontent/uploads/sites/2/2026/04/TVCA-Cabinet-Agenda-Papers-24-April-2026.pdf

+++

I haven't spoke to Leigh since the Council meeting so don't know how Councillor Harker responded.

The minutes of the May 14th Council meeting will be interesting!

ps. I don't think there were any local elections in Darlington on May 7th.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page