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!

One thing that does concern me - if there are challenges to this guidance within the 40 days then does it have to go around the loop again? In other words could the government insert errors repeatedly so the guidance never comes into force? Left permanently in drafting or approval?

I can't imagine many people enquiring as to someone's sex; they are far more likely to state that : "this is the women's toilet/changing room" and/or" the men's is over there".

Indeed.

If they genuinely do "pass" and are trying to follow the law by using the right single-sex space (i.e. the one that matches their sex) then they might get challenged, granted.

But when they transitioned, having to prove their actual biological sex on some occasions (the ones where it mattered) was a natural consequence that they must have been aware of, even if they didn't fully understand what the impact might be.

Luckily for anyone trying to follow the law, very few transwomen actually do pass. Their gait is generally the biggest giveaway, even more so in combination with other factors such as their head shape and shoulders/frame.

Sadly some transmen will find that they look too convincingly like tiny-framed men, even when their gait is taken into account, owing to the powerful impact that testosterone has on a female body.

I feel a genuine compassion for transmen in this scenario, and also for the non-autogynophilic transwomen. However, they made a choice to transition and will need to navigate the world accordingly. The most logical way is to campaign for more "third spaces" if there aren't enough to accommodate them and other third space users, such as disabled people or parents using baby-changing facilities.

Which reveals the fact that 'trans' is a conceptual state rather than an actual state, one which exists only in the mind of the one that uses that term to describe a cross sex appearance or presentation.

It's fucking depressing that they've managed to spectacularly mangle this having sat on it for over a bloody year.

It appears you can ask someone's sex if you're sensitive whilst going about it, but that it would be inappropriate and impractical if it wasn't about the primary service?

Are they trying to say that rape refuges yes, toilets at the Old Vic. no. Prison and sport, of course, pubs, not really.

They're really trying to fucking have their cake and then gobble it up at lightning speed, too.

It's always about toilets for trans activists, because that's their dose of daily, if not hourly, validation.

And this is how they're attempting to swing it. Toilets are attached to something else, they're not the primary service.

It's an absolutely shit show of course, because it's dual and contradictory advice running concurrently depending upon the service. when it should be depending on whether it's bloody single sex or not.

These men, as Sex Matters points out, are never, ever the sort of men you want in your space. The simple act of desiring to access unconsenting women shows it.

They'll never stop.

What is wrong with being discomfited, offended or upset?

If GC's actually believed that they wouldn't be demanding single sex spaces on behalf of women who feel that way being around trans women.

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

There have been numerous incidents reported in the media of cis women being heckled, wrestled & demanded they leave public toilets for being men including cancer survivors. That some don't consider this as harassment is quite the tell of how much they actually really care about women's safety & well being.

Do the government have the power just insert sex into that category?

Not without due parliamentary and legal process, surely?

It does seem key to the fudging of the issue.

Primary services being single sex associations or services eg rape crisis centre.

However, it does say where toilets are “incidental” to the primary service.

If the primary service is mixed sex eg. Swimming pool, are they really trying to say that the toilets and changing rooms are “incidental” ?

It seems they have invented a new category of single sex services that are “only” incidental and somehow don’t count really.

It is a massive attempt at a fudge to avoid clear guidance on the obvious difficult situation of service providers needing to challenge an obvious male in the toilets or changing rooms.

More exaggeration, but even small incidents are entirely the fault of trans activism.

No women expected men to be in their spaces until TRAs tried to force their way in

Interesting point. I wouldn’t put it past this shower.

I personally doubt that these multiple cases actually exist. They tend to follow the logic and the fantasy of trans activism ( that many trans identified people actually pass as the opposite sex). I've never personally come across such an incident, anyway.

But for those women this has happened to, then they'd simply have to state correctly that they are women...their voice would also give this fact away.

Exactly.

You'd think I'll be reassured by that, wouldn't you! I'm not. This is transactivism at work.

I wonder if everybody who signed off on that stupid suggestion has actually seen many trans activists. Calling for women to be beaten and beheaded, walking around in basques and fishnets.

I agree. Depressing if FWS has to take the UK government to court as well as the Scottish one!

A good many people would be offended/upset that their sex wasn't obvious

Wouldn't most trans people be overjoyed at this?

Other people who had deliberately gone out of their way to look like the opposite sex would surely be unsurprised. It seems to me that to deliberately pretend to be something you are not and then complain when people are taken in would be a bit odd.

You’ve just knocked down your own argument! You don’t know and potentially they could be trans - which means that revealing their sex has not revealed any of their beliefs. So all good as Ian Fletcher would say.

It's rubbish.

It relies on the idea that for over a hundred years organisations have gone to the expense of providing single sex toilets, but that until now, nobody cared who used them.

Also that it's inherently difficult to judge sex, but that women have somehow been denied the ability to vote, and access education and work.

The letter from Sex Matters ended with the unequivocal sentiment that if you think we won't challenge this, you're completely wrong. All the way.

Honestly. You can't ever get around it if it's a single sex service, that's the criteria.

They're trying to say yes, yes we know, but you really shouldn't ask them if it's just a toilet.

There's absolutely no grounds for that, what so fucking ever.

Plus, talk about fucking stoke it right up. It's practically inciting violence.

Creating a situation where both sides think they're absolutely right.

It couldn't have been more fucking stupid and dangerous.

A man stands there, with a woman saying you shouldn't be here, the man says I should and there's fuck all you can do about it luv now piss off.

One of them, and I think the one the pp is referring to, is Claire Maugham - who a) is completely biased and b) looks nothing like a man unless you really need to get to Specsavers, so to say I’m sceptical regards her anecdote is an understatement.

Obviously there will be many Labour MPs who are pushing for this addition...but as with the Andy Burnham obession, it could well back-fire on them by drawing attention to the obvious fault-lines. Plus, there would be even more public scrutiny and questioning and it would open up the huge divide within the Labour party, and with the 'progressive left' more generally.

I see that there are now voices within the Labour party calling for an actual Left wing candidate to stand in Makerfield - because they don't trust Andy Burnham to actually follow through on many of their ideological demands. Should they do this then they will be handing the crown to Reform.

What is wrong with being discomfited, offended or upset?

If GC's actually believed that they wouldn't be demanding single sex spaces on behalf of women who feel that way being around trans women.

What do you mean by 'being around transwomen'? Passing them in the street, sitting in the pub with them, having them as work colleagues? In any of those situations then being discomfited, offended or upset would absolutely be my problem.

Being forced to use spaces that are specifically for women because of the potential for harm from men, sorry, transwomen, (notwithstanding the body of evidence that women do get harmed in these spaces)? Having opportunities taken away from me in the workplace or in a sports competition by a transwoman? I would have every right to be discomfited, offended or upset.

Having skim read that Sex Matters letter, I really do thank God that we've got Maya, Helen and Fiona on our side.

They're absolutely on it. They can quote chapter and verse of the law and other laws that this might affect, all the context and all the background.

Their brain power runs rings around the government.

Bloody rings.

'This never happens & I know this because I'm omni present AND its inconvenient to my narrative….'

There have been numerous incidents reported in the media of cis women being hfor being men including cancer survivors.

Reported in what media, though? Most of these 'incidents' sound very makey-uppy, and the cancer survivor one - was that the wife of a prominent figure in this debate who, despite not looking in the slightest bit like a man, was allegedly challenged because she had had a mastectomy?
That was so unlikely it was tasteless.

Please give a link to a verified incident in the UK where women were 'heckled, wrestled & demanded they leave public toilets'.

There are times where gender non conforming women like me are challenged - 'This is the ladies!' but a second glance reveals what women are very good at picking up, i.e. a person's sex regardless of how they present, so a second glance and a friendly 'It's OK I'm in the right place' from me, and all's well.

Any discomfort or distress barely lasts a minute, and is well worth it to make sure that men are not using women's spaces.

No wrestling, no heckling, no being driven out with pitchforks. Women have made sure that their women-only space is being respected. That's fine. The sky doesn't fall in. Nobody gets wrestled. Nobody threatens litigation, because the whole incident involved women, legitimately using a women-only space. Life goes on.

Stop catastrophising, EmilyinEverton, believe me, it's no big deal when it happens!