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!

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

I'm fairly sure we've had advice on various threads from people who say they are legal bods, that the onus is on the providers. If you want to take legal action for harassment, for example, you sue the service provider. Perhaps someone else legal can clarify?

Anyway, I thought the discussion was going well, but I guess that's all in the eye of the beholder.

Shortshriftandlethal
The woman ( in the swimming pool changing room) was just aggressive and prejudiced.

Also ignorant. Men have nipples too. So not having them doesn't instantly suggest "man!"

I honestly don't know how that quote got there after I had carefully deleted most of the post to which I was replying. Sorry.

Also, yes, sorry Chaibiscuits, as you say, it is about a bunch of people that "them" was being used. I think my problem may have been that I simply didn't believe in that plurality.

I think these are two different onuses (onera?). The provider has an onus to ensure single-sex only use, in order to avoid indirect sex discrimination against female users. If an individual seeks access on the basis that their exclusion would be illegal discrimination as to gender reassignment, the onus is on them to prove their (female) sex.

You've skipped over the bit where I said the providers put signs.

Just as you say not smoking, no dogs or whatever.

Then is someone contravenes this the providers is covered.

But the onus is on people behaving decently.

Setting out to deceive isn't being decent, and is making additional work for the provider.

As to whether the thread was going well, I did point out that after the first two pages of whatabouterry because one person thinks philosophical beliefs as more important that women's sex based rights, it may well have managed to escape this.

It's a good thread. The belief argument didn't really go anywhere, because it was just a proxy for the 'outing' issue. But the debate about that was fruitful, because we concluded that people will only get outed if they try to do what they aren't legally entitled to, which they therefore shouldn't bother with in the first place. 'I was outed as a thief because the security guard followed me instead of just ignoring me.'

This is a bit off topic, but not sure we need another thread as it is related.

This bit of the new guidance did seem to be me to do away with that old chesnut of proportionate on a "case to case" basis (which was never true but a Labour rerail of their own wording under pressure from TRAs.

Proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

13.54 The requirements for showing that a restriction is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim is discussed in general terms at paragraphs 5.52 to 5.57.

In the case of a body with charitable status, the restriction would need to promote, or in any event not inhibit, the fulfilment of one of its stated aims. A charity is permitted to apply a clearly defined rule to those who will and will not receive its benefits, and the reduced administrative cost associated with such a rule is relevant when considering the proportionality of the restriction.

13.55 To be proportionate, the impact of the restriction in furthering the aim in question should be balanced against its effect on those who are excluded from receiving benefits. This should be assessed on a group basis rather than an individual basis, by comparing the advantages for groups covered by the restriction with the disadvantages for groups that fall outside it .

Preventing or compensating for disadvantage linked to the protected characteristic

13.56 To show that restricting its benefits to people who share a protected characteristic is for the purpose of preventing or compensating for a disadvantage linked to that protected characteristic, the charity will need to demonstrate a reasonable connection between the past or current disadvantage experienced by this group and the benefits provided by the charity.

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

But I am sure some funders and many TRAs will use the case by case arguement to try and stop services from saying they are women only, (as defined by the supremem court) and that is that!

Excellent analogy. Likewise the 'rude and harassment' (to challenge a man being rude to, harassing and depriving women of their needed space) that Bridge has slipped in and is not backed up in law.

Now wondering if they just meant you don't have to stand at the door of the loos and ask everyone going in what sex they are because you trust them to follow the rules.

Not that you can't ask questions if they go into what's clearly the wrong facility.

I get offended every time I've asked for my gender as if it is sex. It is not sex and I don't believe in gender.

This is so true. As women, I think we are all able to suss out someone's sex, however well they think they "pass".
I was watching "Monsieur Spade" last night and the actor in that series set off my feeling of unease as to whether the woman he was playing was genuinely a woman, so eventually I googled and discovered that "she" was in fact Rebecca Root, a transwoman. He "passes" quite well, but there was just something about him that made me wonder and feel uncomfortable, and when I found out I felt conned.
So yes, most people do not have the ability to hide their sex - it can usually be easily, or not so easily observed.

I agree, I think all forms who have the gender question should be made to have a Not Applicable box to tick, may be then they'll get the message.

In fairness, I have to point out that the Pope is actually thoroughly GC, so on this topic, the Pope is on our side🙃

Unusually amongst the major Christian churches [I think] the Catholic church opposes transgenderism, gender reassignment surgery, surrogacy, as well as violence against women, sexual abuse, human trafficking, assisted suicide, abortion etc. on the basis that they are injurious to the dignity of the human being as created by God.
Declaration “Dignitas Infinita” on Human Dignity (2 April 2024)

I'm an atheist, so I'm just sayin'

Good for the Pope! The difference is that, unlike in 19th Century Prussia, the Pope cannot impose his beliefs by rule of law, for example by decreeing that all Irish people must be sex realist. The difference between them and us isn’t that they are wrong and we are right, but that they are authoritarian and we are liberal. We don't mind them having their beliefs, as long as we are not forced to join in.

Unfortunately, reinstating secular pluralism in this area may involve some trashing of their beliefs. But they are pants, so...

I have been asking this question for years. I’ve never seen an answer that makes sense, and I suspect there isn’t one.

GR is the only protected characteristic that depends on the holder’s desire to successfully conceal another protected characteristic that they hold. It’s bizarre.

Imagine if I had a club for Polish people - permitted by the EA2010. And there was a cohort of people who weren't Polish, but were desperate to be Polish, and they managed to convince a section of society that the knowledge of whether they actually were, or were not Polish was of such a sensitive nature as to need to be hidden and never acknowledged.

Then some not-from-Poland-but-wanting-to-be-Polish people come to my club for Polish people and tell me that I can't tell if they're Polish or not, and that I'm forbidden to actually ask if they're Polish, because of how upset they'll be if anyone finds out they're not Polish.

Make it make sense. You can't.

It's very simple. People with penises, however they ID, must stay out of spaces, places, refuges, sports, changing rooms and toilets, prisons and sleeping places which are designated for biological women (there isn't another kind of woman so all of above should be simplicity itself).

There isn't anything wrong, but to answer the question honestly means acknowledging that they haven't changed sex.

And that is the whole masquerade.

It is like the emporer's new clothes.

The winning is for other people to go along with the charade.

Essentially it is about coercing people to take part in your pretence.

ie why else is there the never ending TWAW mantra.

When they had once got it by heart, the sheep developed a great liking for this maxim, and often as they lay in the field they would all start bleating “Four legs good, two legs bad! Four legs good, two legs bad!” and keep it up for hours on end, never growing tired of it.’

So much concern for the gender-nonconforming women being "harrassed" in the ladies, but less concern for those being sexually assaulted. Must admit, I have doubts about the seriousness of those incidents of "harrassment". I imagine they go something like this "um, (nervously polite) you do realise this is the ladies?", and the gender non-conforming woman says, perhaps irritably, "yes, thanks, I am in fact female", and the original enquirer says "oh gosh, I'm so sorry, but you never can tell these days, apologies". Seems pretty run-of-the-mill-stranger-interaction to me. In most cases, I imagine the gender non-conforming women just recieves a couple of glances, and some passive aggressive body language. But really, they have boundary-crossing men to thank for that, not safety vigilant females.

Yes, and frankly I am grateful that some men are stepping up and challenging men in women's spaces, false positives are an unfortunate side effect of insistent female boundary violation.
Interesting, the second example is the from the founder of the Good Law Project, who if I'm not mistaken are very trans-activist, and he was very taken aback by the "empowered" way a woman questioned his wife. That was quite telling to me. He also stated that it was not a traumatic experience.
Prihartini, whose experience was first shared on social media by her husband, Jolyon Maugham, founder of the Good Law Project, is at pains to make clear that this was not “a massively traumatic experience”.

Can't help noticing though the absence of any Guardian articles on very real examples if sexual assaults against women, girls and children in changing rooms, toilets and jails.
You'd have to read more widely than the Guardian and the BBC/ABC (in Australia) for truthful reporting on that.

So much concern for the gender-nonconforming women being "harrassed" in the ladies, but less concern for those being sexually assaulted

Well they're not providing a possible manipulative lever to get men into spaces where non consenting women are taking their clothes off.

People are only ever relevant to this movement at all when they provide something useful to use. Seen as 'things' rather than people.

Surely asking everyone having an xray if they could be pregnant potentially becomes problematic because you are indirectly asking them to disclose special category data (only biological females can be pregnant), often in earshot of other patients?

I hadn't realised before how fishy that tale from JM's wife was.

In May, Prihartini was in the women’s changing room area of her local pool. “I was standing with my top off in front of the mirror putting on my swimming cap. Another woman walked in, gasped audibly and said: ‘There’s a man in here!’ I said: ‘Oh I’m not a man …’ in a friendly way, then she said aggressively: ‘You look like a man, there aren’t meant to be men in here’ and continued to look at my body. I didn’t want to engage with her any further so I just walked off into the pool.”

I've never in my life put a swimming hat on before my cossie. Or seen anyone else doing so. Not to mention from that narrative she apparently then charges off to the pool still without her top.

It's written like a male fantasy, women standing around half naked in the changing rooms. I have never, ever seen a woman adjusting her hat while top less 😁