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!

Actual letter

Sex Matters

NEW: We have written to the Minister for Women and Equalities Bridget Phillipson, calling on her to withdraw the “asking about sex” section of the EHRC code of practice for service providers because it is legally wrong.

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/2058965883372847133/photo/1

Blog on the guidance:
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/sex-is-not-special-category-data/

Yeah but intentions aren't relevant. It's the outcome of potentially outing philosophical beliefs that does.

But you would only know their sex and what they looked like. There are some men who identify as men who have long hair and makeup and look very feminine. So you wouldn't know if the individual in front of you was a trans woman or a feminine styled man, or non-binary etc. Otherwise asking the preferred pronouns of someone who was clearly biologically male or female would definitely 'out' their gender id.

How would anyone know that they "present as female"?

People either are or aren't female. How they "present" is irrelevant to their sex. Just at it would be for their age:

I could "present" as a child by wearing a school uniform or as an old lady, like Caroline Aherne did as Mrs Merton. If I tried to go in somewhere based on how I was "presenting" (e.g. if I tried to pay a lower ticket price to enter a place that offered child/pensioner prices) I would expect to be challenged. I don't need to out myself on whether I actually believe I'm a child/pensioner.

TERF deep cover double agent Emily doing Stirling work as always in allowing us to set out all the reasons why they're wrong - and in such detail!

keep up the good work agent Emily

So again @EmilyinEverton if providers are not allowed to record trans status, how can services for trans people be provided. How can someone claim “transphobia” if they have not declared they are trans? That gives the provider the perfect out to say “I didn’t know they were trans so I can’t have been transphobic”.

Nope. Let’s assume we’re in a world where people can’t really tell other people’s sex. A male, who appears (ETA at first glance) to be female, enters a female only space. They are asked their sex. They confirm they are male. They have outed themselves as nothing more than a man who doesn’t respect women’s boundaries. No one has any idea what ‘belief’ has led them to ‘appear female’. They could just be a very ‘feminine looking’ man. Or are you saying it is only ever trans people who would be in the position of violating women’s boundaries like this?

To be fair, Emily has just eliminated transphobia and made trans services unworkable in one fell swoop.

How does admitting what sex they are say anything about their philosophical beliefs?

Is "I'm male but I like to wear dresses" now a philosophical belief which should be hidden from the rest of the world, when the man in question is quite obviously male and wearing a dress?

We all live in a society where our right to live according to our own personal preferences and beliefs have to be balanced with the right of other people to also live according to their beliefs and for them not to be deceived.

Your posts indicate that you appear to believe that people who identify as trans should have special rights not accorded to others, and that they should also be free to impose their beliefs on others.

but it's not what's under discussion in the article.

It's exactly what's under discussion in the article.

But you would only know their sex and what they looked like. There are some men who identify as men who have long hair and makeup and look very feminine. So you wouldn't know if the individual in front of you was a trans woman or a feminine styled man, or non-binary etc.

That's the point. You don't know & they potentially could be trans.

Otherwise asking the preferred pronouns of someone who was clearly biologically male or female would definitely 'out' their gender id.

It certainly has the potential to out them that's why people shouldn't be asked & they can volunteer them if they want to.

"What appears to be being asserted is that because trans status is special category data, that sex must be treated as special category data too or else else trans status would be revealed."

But it doesn't necessarily follow that the reason someone's sex does not match their dress / behaviour is because they are trans. They could simply be gender non-conforming. Or a myriad of other reasons.

Therefore it is not a reason why sex should be treated as special category data.

FFS sex is pretty much the most common data field to hold apart from your name and address. If it was intended to be special category, data protection law would say so up front not via some twisty back alley reasoning.

This

Quite often TRAs are arguing for the merging of trans people with the sex they identify with. Which amounts to erasure of the trans community.

Not the topic if the thread I know but I've always found interesting that the recent, most vociferous wave of trans activism decided not to campaign for trans-specific services and spaces.

The point is moot anyway. The EHRC does not have the remit to change GDPR.

What's wrong with being outed? Do TRAs feel that being trans is something to be ashamed of, something to be concealed?

This is going to end up in court again isn’t it? Why does every little step back towards sanity have to be a battle. It’s so tiresome.

Organisations are legally allowed to ask about special data categories for some reasons like for health reasons, but only under specific conditions.

Whether qualifying loo users isn't clear.

Indeed.

Hopefully the utter stupidity of trying to do so within the guidance will have a Streisand effect on all of it.

Businesses can choose to follow the guidance if they want and start treating sex as if it's special category data... and then get sued when they can't find a law to justify their actions (if their actions relate to single-sex spaces or provision of healthcare etc). Meanwhile lots of people will be talking about how simple it is to know someone's sex and how ridiculous it would be not to record it accurately, given it's needed for compliance with the law.

Edited for clarity.

That's the point. You don't know & they potentially could be trans.

Well, they might be, but they might not. Knowing their sex only tells you their sex, not their philosophical beliefs.

But surely, if other people noticing that someone's sex doesn't match their "gender presentation" is outing a trans person, then trans people are outing themselves every time they are seen in public.

Wouldn’t the philosophical belief in trans have to pass the “WORIADS” litmus test though?

Not necessarily lots of cis people are sexually 'ambiguous' in surface presentation that's why some are getting harassed in the ladies now as a result of the 'trans panic'.

Haha no. You’re going a good job though. So can you explain if sex and a belief in gender identity are not recorded how this will help providers of trans services. To get funding, they need to show there is a need for those services. If they can’t record the data on him want trans people there are and of which sex, how can they claim there is a need. So no funding for them. So no services for trans people.