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!

Both points are under discussion in the article: 1) that sex is a private matter but not special category data (it's a shame it doesn't use the analogy of someone's age to explain this) and 2) everything you mention above.

The part you've quoted is particularly interesting. I've not read the guidance in full but I'm intrigued if it really does say this. If it does, that's utterly mad. Service providers can only operate single-sex spaces if they are allowed to challenge anyone who appears to be in the wrong one. If that person can then prove that they are in the right space (the only way to do so would be to show an original full birth certificate), no problem and they can go ahead and use it. Everyone involved in the interaction would feel a bit embarrassed, but no more so than when people guess someone's age incorrectly.

I see there is a new definition of 'harassed', aka being calmly asked if you are in the right place. I do wonder how often this actually happens IRL rather than being a set up that can be splashed all over SM as 'proof'?

If the TRAs hadn't been so aggressive with violating boundaries in the first place then nobody would be getting 'harassed' now because women wouldn't be hyper-vigilant about men being in their spaces. The small number of men who really did just want to pee and quietly used women's toilets and maybe got no more than a bit of a side eye, have lost out too.

So in such an unlikely scenario, what problem would there be with asking them their sex?

Do you think those women would be distressed at being "outed" as women, not transwomen?

Apologies for going off topic but my jaw’s on the floor after reading Emily’s comments on pronouns.

Many MN FWR posters have been saying for years that the practice of demanding employees put their pronouns in email footers and declare them at the start of every meeting was outing. Yet that was the received “be kind” doctrine. Now Emily is saying people shouldn’t ask for pronouns because it could be outing. You couldn’t make it up.

Anyway, not to derail but I couldn’t let that go without comment.

Quite.

Can't see sex. Can't see sexism.

If we don't record data relating to sex, we can not give evidence of sexism. It disempowers women in very crucial ways if sex is invisible. Default human is male.

There's an award winning book on the whole subject called 'Invisible Women'. Perhaps copies of this book should be sent to the Labour Party.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026#exceptions-1

Is this the right section?

I agree that the framing of sex as special category data in itself is misleading, but even if it is I can't think of a situation where it wouldn't be justified to ask somebody's sex if one were providing a single sex service or running a single sex association.

Have I missed something?

That's hilarious 😂😂😂

Not off topic at all, as preferred pronouns relate completely and solely to someone's belief in gender identity. Asking about pronouns is indeed asking them to "out" their belief.

Emily, I agree with you. Nobody should ever feel obligated to tell someone that they have a gender identity or (if they do) to tell them what that gender identity is. I don't have one but I fully support anyone who believes they do keeping theirs private.

Any information about the sex of individuals which is obtained and held by a service provider should be held securely and not be retained longer than reasonably necessary for the purpose of dealing with admission of each individual or for ongoing legitimate purposes. Legitimate purposes may include, for example, equality monitoring or service planning reasons, in which case thought should be given to anonymising data, where possible. Access to any personal information should be restricted to people who legitimately need access to it for those purposes. This should be done with regard to the constraints of the relevant systems and resources.

From the guidance.

Is there another part of the guidance that contradicts this?

A good many people would be offended/upset that their sex wasn't obvious & regardless whether that's unreasonable doesn't change the fact they would be offended/upset. That this needs to be said is indicative of the social ignorance of those defending this kind of harassment.

You would think gender critical people would have some empathy to claims of discomfort from women given this is often presented as a valid reason for trans exclusion.

Thank you for admitting that all this gender identity stuff is a belief and that no one can change sex. Refreshing to now get to the truth

That's what I'm finding confusing too. As has been quoted upthread, the article says that...

"It says trans people should not be asked what sex they are before using lavatories or changing rooms. It also warns firms it would not be “practical or appropriate” for staff to challenge individuals they suspected were using the wrong facilities."

.... but I'd be amazed if it does.

If this is how the government want to play this then let’s do it!

If im asked about sex from now on I’ll point to the EHRC guidance and say they’re not allowed to ask me. If we all do this let’s see how long it can last?

All sorts of services will struggle or grind to a halt - what is wrong with these public servants?

It does - but the quote is somewhat cherry picked.

13.170 It is unlikely to be either practical or appropriate to approach any particular individual to make enquiries about their sex in relation to facilities, such as toilets, which are incidental to the primary service.
13.171 Where it is necessary to ask about a service user’s sex, the measures involved in doing so must be no more than necessary to accomplish the aim of establishing eligibility.
13.172 Such measures may be proportionate if implemented in response to clear evidence of the opposite sex accessing the single or separate-sex service or association membership. Where an individual is asked to confirm their sex, this should be done as sensitively as possible, and must respect their privacy.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026#:~:text=single%2Dsex%20services.%C2%A0-,Asking%20about%20sex%C2%A0,-13.161%20Personal%20data

I’ve always thought it was weird to force pronouns because that was automatically “outing” of beliefs whether GI or GC.

So will organisations that have a record of sex where it’s not really relevant have to remove it?
eg, I’m in a sport club that is regulated by the governing body. It has my sex (or “gender”). But I’m not an athlete - just on the committee so my sex is irrelevant.

I think this is the part of the guidance that seems contradictory:

13.170 It is unlikely to be either practical or appropriate to approach any particular individual to make enquiries about their sex in relation to facilities, such as toilets, which are incidental to the primary service.

Can one ask if the toilets are the primary service?

What if somebody walks into the wrong toilet by mistake?

Is "I think you might be in the wrong toilet..." an enquiry?

Can one approach a group of people and just vaguely ask "are there any men here?", being careful to avoid eye contact.

Is the suggestion that it would be reasonable to provide a single sex service because "only people of that sex require it" but as soon as those people use the changing room, all bets are off and it's a free for all?

I think this is the bit that has been inserted at the last minute and it doesn't make sense.

Most people fill in forms to answer this question rather than the “toilet police” you seem to have in mind. In person, people just use their eyes and ears which will work more than 99.5% of the time

All this presupposes that if a trans person is challenged for using opposite-sex services, then they must out themselves. No they don't (and what's the point? They're not entitled to use the service anyway). All they need to do is use the gender-neutral services.

It's ridiculous to suggest that providers cannot make access to a single-sex service conditional on providing proof of sex.

Indeed. Fucking idiots.

Ah, OK. Thank you.

Yes, that's definitely a case of cherry-picking and creative paraphrasing all rolled into one. What a daft, misleading and irresponsible thing to have put in the article.

I would have expected far better from the Telegraph on this, given how good they normally are on gender identity stuff.

@BonfireLady

But as @nicepotoftea said - it looks like it may have been inserted last minute, and contradicts the rest.

Is it too much to ask for guidance that is actually helpful?! 🙄

This little addendum will not hold and will be challenged going forward. It was clearly a late addition to appease activists.

"This is wrong in law.
Article 9(1) of UK GDPR defines special category data as “personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.” It does not include sex."

What is wrong with being discomfited, offended or upset? If you are so hugely distressed at being mistaken for the opposite sex that you think that nobody should ever be questioned, then it is you that has the problem, not society.

Can you back up this assertion that women are being harassed and being made to feel uncomfortable to an unacceptable degree?