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!

Yes, she's trying it on and digging in, isn't she? I'd be very interested to know why she seems to feel that this is her hill to die on. It wouldn't win her enough future votes to run for School Governor, let alone leader or PM.

I would hazard a guess that whoever signed off on this particular amendment is an activist.

Also, if it's only a special category for trans people, how do you identify they're trans in order to provide them with the special category? 😁

Honestly, the entire concept of logic get gets annihilated by this ideology

The onus is on the person in question to prove this, and the service provider does not have to let them. They can be redirected to the gender neutral facility. So no actual need to 'prove',

Yes! Thank you, I remember now. The Supreme Court were fairly water tight with everything they looked at. Hence transmen looking too male. You can actually bar people, even if they are the right sex.

You can just say you look like a bloke to me, off you trot. And if he says he's a woman, you can say I don't think you are, off you trot again.

Plus, I don't think there is any restriction on the general public asking about the sex of a man in a female space, is there?

Service users can say I think you're a man, or are you a man? Is that correct, they are not bound by GDPR, and special categories.

Of course, there will be men who are emboldened by the conflicting advice. It's bloody dangerous, and it's going to be become very obvious. TRAs won't be able to help themselves. They will be bulldozing their way in clutching their laminated card of responses, before you can say plunging neckline.

It's an increasingly bizarre exercise in circular thinking, with arguments counteracting previous arguments that are no longer palatable, because reasons, which all come back to one, simple point: there is nothing to it except circular arguments and obfuscation because you can't actually force people to believe you are what you say you are. And other people have the right to not believe you.

Quite.

And the law is still that men can't come in.

Is Emily test driving the next Stonewall policy document?

The solution to that is for people, especially men who like to think they are women, to keep out of wrong sex facilities ie the ladies.

Then no one will challenge them.

Your claim that no one can be asked about sex because of a potential knock on effect on belief in ‘gender identity’ is spurious and extremely tenuous.

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.

This tends to be mainly confined to known activists, Stonewall employees and the wives of activist former barristers with unacceptable attitudes towards fox welfare (actually there may only be one if these)

It’s almost like it doesn’t happen to normal women….

Of course, there will be men who are emboldened by the conflicting advice. It's bloody dangerous, and it's going to be become very obvious.

Datun, If the guidance weren't so long-winded, but short, with clear bullet points, more people would read it and be clearer about their rights and responsibilities, especially service providers.

I understand that they were trying to be comprehensive, so that providers would have something to fall back on, but that is what the law is for. But service providers will not read 300 pages of guidance. They'll wait until someone complains, then try to work out what to do.

I do worry that it will only become clear to everyone when a man assaults a woman or any employee of a provider when they challenge him, because, as you mentioned, some men are very entitled and just can't help themselves.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that!

I looked at S13, S29, and Schedule 3 Part 7, and I'm by no means convinced that anyone needs to prove their sex in order to obtain something that they are legally entitled to in relation to a Schedule 3 service, unless they are a transman relying on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

It is not illegal sex discrimination to exclude from a women-only Schedule 3 service every person who looks like a man and this is indeed the informal basis on which such services always used to be run.

Of all the people who look like men...

all the actual men (including transwomen) must be excluded to retain the Schedule 3 exemption. They don't have proof they're female, obviously, and...

it is illegal discrimination, as to gender reassignment, to exclude a transman from a women-only Schedule 3 service unless exclusion is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. The worked example is a rape support service, which I think sets rather a high bar, but this seems unlikely to be a real world problem because IME transmen are not unreasonable bastards would self-exclude anyway if their presence was unwelcome.

That only leaves legal females who look male because, for example, they have an XY DSD. Their legal position is unchanged by FWS and is not wholly satisfactory (transmen have protection that they do not, for instance). But at least they can prove their sex, which may be a solution in many situations (to a problem they'll have grappled with their whole life, completely independently of the trans issue).

In short, when Willoughby rocks up, it's OK to say 'you can't come in because you look like a man' and his only recourse is to go elsewhere, because he can't prove he's a woman. But no-one will force him to reveal any information about himself at all.

In short, when Willoughby rocks up, it's OK to say 'you can't come in because you look like a man' and his only recourse is to go elsewhere, because he can't prove he's a woman.

As has been said by people "in the know" on MN (not me), the onus is on the individual to prove their status/right to use the service, not on the provider to prove s/he can't. (Please someone do step in if this is not correct)

However, in reality, this is predicated on said individual bring reasonable. Would Willoughby be reasonable if told no, or asked to prove his sex? His other recourse could be to kick up a fuss, or worse, so I hope providers are prepared for that. (They won't be, so they will cave, and then it will be for women, yet again, to sue the provider). Why would a provider get involved until they have to, when they know that most women won't have the resources to sue them?

This all assumes that the provider knows that the onus is on the individual.

Exactly. It's not a right to use the service; it's a right not to be illegally excluded from it (and not to be treated unfavourably by the failure to provide an alternative).

It's poorly explained, and not helped by the waffle about asking for proof. That makes it sound like the onus is on the provider.

It is, as one of my closest (male) confidants said after taking a look at the 300 page guidance, "a bloody useless mess that needs to be sorted!". My response? No shit sherlock, and a lot of women are doing their very best.

My sincere worry is that it won't be enough, soon enough, to stop a woman from being assaulted somewhere because she says no, knowing it is her right to do so. A lot of men who would try to get into women's spaces are not the most stable of individuals, as we have seen.

Some posters have suggested that the woman instead speak to the provider, which would be much more sensible, but, selfishly, I want men to have to get used to hearing the word no.

In short, when Willoughby rocks up, it's OK to say 'you can't come in because you look like a man' and his only recourse is to go elsewhere, because he can't prove he's a woman.

Trying to work out if the advice has any teeth.

If Willoughby refuses to to leave, is the escalation route for either party (or both parties) to then get the police involved? One party claiming 'transphobia' the other party claiming illegal use of a single sex space?
Does something like this ever get to court?
Or is the sanction that you regularly get called out for using the wrong facilities and eventually move to the gender neutral facilities for a quiet life?

Or is the sanction that you regularly get called out for using the wrong facilities and eventually move to the gender neutral facilities for a quiet life?

This. Or get banned from the gym/pub/whatever. Or provider gets sued for indirect sex-discrimination.

It really is a culture war. Some unsayable things need to get sayable.

So, as a business owner, you get staff to frog-march the person off the site, hoping that they don't struggle so much that they claim injury and try to sue.
Then you have to deal with a couple of weeks worth of the activists mates picketing your business.
Finally you have months worth of bogus reviews turning up online.

I am guessing that most business will do all they can to avoid doing anything until some high profile (expensive) cases of indirect sex-discrimination wind their way through the courts.
What sort of penalties do businesses risk for indirect sex-discrimination?

Even with the legislation and the advice it is going to be an uphill struggle

They risk a high profile court case where they look unhinged.

I am hoping (!) that a letter before action to the service provider might be enough in most cases, but if you complain in person (there is a man in the ladies changing room), and the staff do nothing, and you don't have proof (who's going to whip out their phone and photograph a man in the changing room and risk a broken phone, or worse), what's your letter going to say? All the provider has to say is "no there wasn't " and hope it doesn't become a regular thing.

I'm really not trying to be the voice of doom here. We have the law, we have the guidance, and if I'm in a situation when it really matters to me, I will certainly consider legal action. I just can't see how this is going to work in practice until every woman and every provider gets used to saying "no." How long will that take?

I think we’re on the right track but it will take a while.

Agreed, one of the best allies for this may be committed TRA themselves who need to make the point that they are going to ignore the legislation and advice.