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!

Let's hope the police remember their jobs. This has not been a given in recent years, as we all know.

They can turn up and sympathise, they can de escalate, they can pat shoulders.
They won't allow ranting, raving and shouting or threatening behaviour towards staff. They also can't facilitate the tantrum thrower to get what they want.

The women's single sex space will probably need to be closed while all this is going on. If it's not on CCTV then it's very likely to be on people's phones as most public performances generally get filmed these days.

Gosh, I’d love to do that pointy finger in the face thing back at India! “I AM A WOMAN!” he shouted, waving his finger in someone’s face.
“NO YOU ARE NOT”, I’d point back.

I think the risk for business is that after something bad happens, its established that they didn't do enough to keep men out.

If women have raised the alarm and they haven't taken action in the past, it doesnt matter what the gender identity of the perpetrator is, they've allowed men to enter womens spaces.

So business have to balance the risk of being known as 'inclusive' with the risk of something bad happening. It makes sense for the business to be seen as maintaining single sex spaces to the best of their ability.

Most likely they won't kick up the fuss there and then, but do it publicly and retrospectively.

The tack will be that most insidious of arguments - "Ok yes in this instance I am a trans woman" - (they won't say male but basically Yes Ok I am male) - " but you didn't know that for sure, so you could have been ejecting a cis woman, and that is why this is unworkable". In other words, the fact that a man has been ejected will be twisted as "proof" that women are at risk of being ejected.

This will be supported by a chorus line of useful idiot "allies" who actually are female trying to get themselves challenged in women's spaces then refusing to provide any simple proof of their sex to defuse the situation so they get ejected "for not being women" even though they are, and so can shout about it to all and sundry.

And to be clear, by any simple proof of their sex I obviously do not mean a physical display, just an undoctored driving license / passport if they have one or a simple doctors' letter / photo of their GRC if they don't, not because they have to carry such a thing but because knowing their sex is sometimes misread for their own convenience they may choose to, just as people with medical or other conditions that can trigger security questions often travel with suitable proof to quickly pass anticipated questions.

The above shouldn't need saying really, but we know how quickly some TRA minds jump to the idea of forced physical inspections <-- not envy

Kulturkampf: this is just the start.

They're the Pope: we're Bismarck. They impose mandatory unfalsifiable metaphysical beliefs on everyone: we stand for Enlightenment values.

I can't believe they managed to become the Establishment, and turned us into insurgents, in just a few decades.

Humans just love religious authoritarianism, I guess.

Sorry, I digress. Just saying, it's not enough to win court cases. But the wins in court make it easier to see the truth. And public attitudes have changed already.

Well, one thing we know for sure, if they can try it, they will!

It will all be proven groundless though, I don't see how it couldn't be.

There is no proof required, the onus is to provide and protect a single sex space and provide a gender neutral alternative, not to wangle endlessly with someone obsessed with gender and genital inspection fantasies.

The publicity afterwards - 'I got really angry they meanly didn't let me break the law'.

General public largely: 'whatever'.

The women who want to support these men can use the gender neutral space in solidarity.

Per previous poster

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.

Is the basis of the exclusion not knowledge of a person's actual sex but the fact that on balance they do not present as a woman?

Will police footage of a person kicking off be sufficient evidence of male pattern behavior?

It's certainly going to trample the poor vulnerable oppressed image, yes. I'm thinking of the 'call me ma'am' guy terrorising some poor shop assistant, that opened a lot of eyes.

TP would not be forcibly outed, they just think they will be. Maybe that's a philosophical belief? We all have eyes. And ears.
What is being 'sexually ambiguous'? Sounds like someone who doesn't know who they're attracted to? Does not sound like anything to do with dressing!!
Emily has outed themselves by using the nonsense that is CIS
(Yes I know what it means)

Some TW who think they pass will be in for a rude awakening, I think. I do hope that there are enough Dreadful Middle-aged Women to go around all the toilets and changing rooms of the Nation.

Is the basis of the exclusion not knowledge of a person's actual sex but the fact that on balance they do not present as a woman?

Yes, the TRAs are correct that we organise society based on superficial appearance, but draw the wrong conclusion as to what this means for the definition of a woman.

They forget that most humans can quickly tell, on meeting another, exactly what external genitals they were born with. There's no need for faffing around unless people start adopting really elaborate sex-disguises.

Member of staff has a word, asks you to leave - no one is outed, you have just quietly been asked to leave

Member of staff has a word, asks you to leave - you kick off and start shouting about transphobia, you are responsible for outing yourself

How is someone’s sex supposed to be proved? A man can walk into women’s toilets without changing their presentation at all and when challenged simply say my sex is female. What does anyone do about that?

As said a number of times in the thread, it does not have to be proved.

The duty is to provide a single sex space, it's not about whether or not an individual is a woman. It's irrelevant. If a service provider has suspicions, or women complain and report, then they can refuse that person access to the single sex space and offer the gender neutral.

The person in doubt CAN take legal action, and prove via DNA sample they are in fact a woman if they are, but it still makes no odds; it is reasonable to protect the space for the purpose for which it was created, and there was a perfectly reasonable alternative freely available.

I'm having trouble understanding how something that must not be revealed is a philosophical believe.

How does someone who doesn't want anyone to know they're 'trans' claim to believe in 'trans' as a philosophy.
How do they live their life according to their philosophy if they won't admit they are 'trans', aren't they denying their own philosophy if they do.

It's not a philosophy it's a cult, and therefore not protected characteristic.

My philosophical belief is that what's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine, so I have the right to take and use for my own purposes whatever I know to be mine that happens to be in your possession.

This larcenous behaviour is protected in law because it is a philosophical belief.

I should think anyone with half a braincell can see that this is fallacious.

Are you able to produce any examples of this? Accredited ones, it has to be, because you've been mistaken about so many facts so far that your unsupported word isn't really enough.

I wear jeans as a general rule, have a deep voice, and apparently don't mince like a Proper Laydee, and during the past fifty-plus years have occasionally been told (always by men trying to be helpful to or protective of women) "oy, mate, the gents is over here" as I go towards the ladies – in a pub for instance. I turn, I smile, he says "oops, sorry, love", and that's the extent of the harassment.

I have never during those years come across a single instance of any ordinary (if "sexually ambiguous", which presumably means wearing jeans, having a deep voice and failing to mince in the accepted manner) female person being harassed by women in a ladies lavatory. Not one single time. I can only assume women don't: if in doubt, they say nowt.

Maybe jazz pubs and folk clubs and other music venues are less damn silly than the imaginations of trans apologists.

EmilyinEverton
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.

I think someone being offended and/or upset and someone being the victim of sexual assault are in a completely different category of seriousness.

Also, I am reasonably sure that what might offend or upset these people is not that their sex isn't obvious, but that it is.

"Men are afraid women will laugh at them; women are afraid men will kill them."

Claiming that asking someone’s sex is invalid as it might reveal that they have a GI is as ridiculous as trying to argue that requesting someone’s dietary restrictions isn’t permitted as it could reveal someone’s religious beliefs.

But if the member of staff does not know the person is trans, as it has not been disclosed, how can they be guilty of transphobia. Tge member of staff could just say they didn’t know the person was trans, just that they were the wrong sex for the facility. The only way the trans person could claim transphobia is if they, as Emily puts it, “outed themselves” by claiming transphobia.

EmilyinEverton
There have been numerous incidents reported in the media of cis women being heckled, wrestled & demanded they leave public toilets for being men

(citation needed)

I can find examples of transwomen being asked to leave ladies' lavatories, but I haven't found an example of a woman being "heckled, wrestled & demanded she leave" (not "they" if it is a woman we are talking about).

It's tedious, isn't it? 99.9% of the time it's someone who's either a gnc man or a transwoman. You don't need to know which, and he hasn't got any proof he's female, so nobody gets outed. He says he left it in his other handbag and buggers off to the gender-neutral facilities. If they're genuinely female but look male, they're a transman, or have unusual physiology. You don't need to know which, and she has got proof she's female, so nobody gets outed. If it's a unicorn man who passes, he doesn't get challenged in the first place.

Why such snowflakes??

Sorry, but have been quite busy to day (and too hot) and starting reading responses to the OP I started late last night and just couldn't believe it has been hijacked.

A ruling or guidelines that is based on reality is just that.

As has been said before on many threads, it is quite obvious that the onus isn't on the providers but on users.

If something is single sex, all it needs are clear signs saying this facility is single sex, any one attempting to contravine this will be prosecuted. (And a sign to gender neutral facilities.)

As usual the argument (well in the first 2 pages before I gave up) was about those with philosophical beliefs have priority.

The issue is, as the article implies, that at the last moment the Government (not the EHRC) insert this proviso.

So first off, they have had months of not doing anything to say this is what they want to add.

And Sex Matters have pointed out that what the Government is saying isn't even legal.

So:
Labour exposed again as trying to prioritise trans over sex
Labour thinking that dont have to follow legal convention when it doesn't suit them
The ERHC being blamed for what the Government has done.

Has the EHRC made any sort of comment?

They is being used a plural here 🙄