Labour’s trans guidance ‘poses danger to women’

[IwantToRetire]

New transgender guidance approved by Labour risks putting women in danger, say campaigners.

The updated code of practice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) states that information about sex is “sensitive” and should be treated as “special category data”.

Women’s rights campaigners have warned that the guidelines misinterpret data protection laws and put women at risk of “unlawful harassment”. Special category data refer to personal information that needs more protection because it is sensitive.

Maya Forstater, the chief executive of Sex Matters, said in the letter that she was “surprised and dismayed” to see the guidance on special category data, claiming it went significantly beyond the EHRC’s mandate.

She wrote: “These statements are wrong in both fact and law. For the vast majority of people, information about their sex is not sensitive, and it is very rarely possible for anyone to keep their sex private over sustained periods.

“Sex is not special category data. It is ordinary personal data which can be used routinely, just like other personal information such as name or age that must also be used fairly, lawfully and transparently with appropriate scrutiny.”

On Monday night, the Government opened the door to rewriting the guidance within days of its publication, saying it was “looking into” the concerns raised by campaigners.

Full article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/05/25/campaigners-claim-labour-trans-guidance-risks-harassment/

Also at https://archive.is/J6Ttm

I think this was included on several of the many threads since "Guidelines" Published.

So posted as a new thread more for the last paragraph which seems to idicate Sex Maters has more than a little bit of influence!

Criticism post on 22 May, and response from Goverment on 25 May - a bank holiday!

I disagree that asking about sex doesn't qualify as special category data because gender identification is a philosophical belief (a special category) which could be exposed via a providers questioning.

Unless this is tested in court the EHRC are correct in applying caution to providers.

This is just another example of confusion & legal minefield private spaces has created for providers & patrons.

Special category data is already defined in law. The EHRC has no power to add to it.

Considering my DS has just down a whole Uni module on data processing (having covered it at college too) they are going to change not only the law but one hell of a lot of books if this is what they think.

Its not the EHRC that wants this. This was snuck in by the Government days before publishing.

So all this time they have delayed publishing what the EHRC proposed, and at the last minute comes up with this.

And what a surprise! As usual doesn't even know the law. I be they thought they had found a crafty way to make sex difficult to record accurately.

They've been trying to do this since they created the notion that someone's "legal" sex (via a GRC) was the same as biological sex.

They wont give in will they.

Not sure TRAs would say it is a philosophical belief, as they say it is a matter of fact.

But even if it was a pholosophical belief, it is inappropriate to say a matter of fact, ie a part of someone's reality, should be impinged on by a belief.

I don’t disagree, but putting into the guidance doesn’t give it legal power. I accept it may make some organisations fearful but hopefully they will take legal advice.

Any anyone with an ounce of cynicism will agree that no bodies seem to take much notice of the guidance anyway.

Not sure TRAs would say it is a philosophical belief, as they say it is a matter of fact.

I think what's more likely is the facts support gender identification beliefs (not unlike GC feminists who say facts support their position) so I can't see TRA's having a problem with that.

But even if it was a pholosophical belief, it is inappropriate to say a matter of fact, ie a part of someone's reality, should be impinged on by a belief.

That's irrelevant to the point of whether gender identification qualifies as a philosophical belief & as such requires special category data.

The discussion here is about whether sex is a special data category, not whether philosophical belief about gender is a special data category.

The problem is asking about sex violates another special data category: Philosophical beliefs. It's essentially the same thing.

The vast majority of the world's population, including most trans people, don't have the option of hiding their sex, even if they wanted to. No matter how many documents they alter, or are allowed not to produce, everyone will know quite well who they are, and pretending otherwise will just make them look silly or deceitful.

So all we're talking about is a minority of a minority - people who actually pass ( if they really do). Why should a small elite be privileged to withhold information which the rest of us can't?

If belief in gender identity is to be protected by privacy, then the belief-related thing that ought to be private is surely one's gender identification, (which everyone can conceal and nobody can prove), not one's sex ( which most people can't conceal, so making it "private" doesn't protect most believers in gender identity anyway.)

"Special Category" data is stuff that a criminal might use to impersonate you for fraud - like the data about your fingerprint or other biometric data. Making sex a special category makes no sense generally. It's a feature like hair colour - generally visible at a glance, possible to hide/disguise with some effort but when it's been hidden it doesn't take long to get the real info if you are looking at the actual person not a photoshopped image. This looks like an attempt to obfusticate the SC ruling - single sex facilities may be allowed to exist in theory but if the information about a person's sex is "Special Category" then no organisation can take any action to stop any person from using whichever facilities they choose - but I don't think the EHRC guidance has the power to make this change in law.

No it isn't.

If gender is some kind of innate internal feeling/belief, then you can't work out someone's gender by asking for their sex.

A woman may dress in a stereotypical 'masculine' way and be names Michael, but that doesn't mean she has a gender belief. It just means she likes wearing trousers and she/her parents thought Michael a good name (cf Michael Learned from The Waltons)

Knowing my sex is female doesn't tell you my views on my gender.

If gender is some kind of innate internal feeling/belief, then you can't work out someone's gender by asking for their sex.

A provider querying a patron's sex because they suspect they used the wrong sex facility possibly puts the patron in a position of revealing they are trans…a philosophical belief. Now one might say they had no right to be there if that was the case but its still an act of collecting special private data nevertheless. And let's not forget providers might be following up on complaints about incorrect facility usage that may or may not be justified so the person being forced to 'out' their beliefs may not have even violated usage.

Is this 'Protect the dolls' nonsense?

So if I am female but am masculine in how I present and someone asks me to tell them my sex, is my sex considered to be my personal special data? And if so is the person asking for the information entitled to that data? In a lot of cases a person's sex is obvious but not all.

So being trans is not an innate state, but a philosophical belief? Gotcha. So we are free to give it the same respect as any other philosophical belief and ignore if we want? Awesome!

Sex and gender identity are not the same thing.

If people want to keep their gender identity private, that's fine.

The important information is what sex someone is and that's no more a private matter than their age. Both sex and age need to be clear so that business (and people) can follow the laws that relate to them.

The context is if a trans person is queried by a provider because they fill be forced to reveal their philosophical beliefs.

Nobody needs to declare themselves to be trans in this situation. They simply need to be truthful about their sex.

What they are wearing, how they "present" and whether they believe themselves to have a gender identity are their own business. They don't need to explain their thoughts on this to anyone.

An individual who presents as female but is in fact trans is being forcibly outed by admitting their sex….& by extension their philosophical beliefs.

Very very few trans-identified males are being forcibly outed by having to declare their sex. People have eyes and ears.

"possibly puts the patron in a position of revealing they are trans"

There could be other reasons that the person is in the in incorrect sex facility - it doesn't necessarily mean that they consider themselves trans, and thus it doesn't "out them".

But the individual asking won't know if the person they are asking is trans or not. All they will suspect is they are not the sex aligned with the particular space they are attempting to enter. I am asking if seeking confirmation on ones sex is asking for personal data.

Good lord, now @EmilyinEverton is trying to tell us Trans is a philosophical belief. I was under the impression it was Reality, uncontested fact, lived experience, and the very nature of our existence. But give Emily a sniff* of a different method by which to obtain access to womens spaces, and suddenly a belief in gender ideology is a protected philosophical belief (so, not fact?) that must be protected by not asking about sex lest we reveal something about something our eyes would not otherwise be able to tell us 🙄

But surely if no one is allowed to record if anyone is trans, then services for trans people will not happen? Services will just say there is no need as no trans people are requiring them.