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!

The two groups that are most likely to be challenged in women's changing rooms are men and allies acting strangely.

Women acting weird should be as well, who secures her hair before she secures her tit's, even if she's flat chested 🤯

It's completely incomprehensible. Who in the world thinks that a flat chested woman is a man? It's such nonsense.

And did I read that it was after a mastectomy? A uniquely female presentation.

True, she must have scarring

Indeed. And looking at her picture in the article, she looks absolutely nothing like a man.

An entirely fictional scenario imo.

Stillamum3
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.

Conned. Yes. LIED TO. And that is very often what becomes the last straw for women when their marriages are falling apart: yes, he is off-hand and dismissive of her, yes, she discovers he is playing away, but the thing that drives her to smashing up the family unit by going to a lawyer to get a divorce is the realisation that he has been lying to her, for months or years. She has been being made a fool of.

I know four women who have had mastectomies. Not one of them would wander around getting changed and putting on a swimming-hat with her scars on show; they are extremely sensitive on the subject, and cover their chests as much as possible (if only to avoid pity).

Back in the real world it would have been:

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. 'Oh, sorry!' smiled at me and then got on with changing into her swimming costume.

What happens if you question a transwoman and he lies and says he is a female or shows you ID which says female, what then? If you request he gets removed, do the service providers have to deny him entry?

What happens if they remove or deny entry to someone who they think is a transwoman but it turns out it was just a manly looking woman, can they be sued for discrimination (or at least dragged through the mud in the press)? I imagine they would want to be extremely certain the person was a man before denying entry to someone.

I think that has already been answered. According to the Supreme Court, it's not discrimination if you genuinely think they're a man. Even if they're not.

Hence the example of transman looking so like like a man they would make the women uncomfortable. (which is a far more likely scenario).

They can be asked to leave without it being considered discrimination.

It's not illegal (and is sometimes necessary) to make access to women-only services contingent on providing proof of sex. A transwoman will not have that proof. A woman who looks masculine will likely be used to the problem and prepared to carry proof with her. Such women are rare: I've encountered a handful. They usually have a DSD and live with the problem their whole life: FWS has made no difference to their legal position.

Thanks to the GRA, the only reliable proof now is a birth certificate issued in childhood. This is one reason why digital ID with data pulled from the birth register would be useful.

ETA to add PP mentioned transmen. They can be excluded, but only if it's a proportionate means to a legitimate aim, because they have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

A transwoman will not have that proof.

Not true. A transwoman can get all his ID to say he is female. Unless that is changed, asking for ID means almost nothing when it comes to verifying sex.

They can be asked to leave without it being considered discrimination.

They doesn't mean they can't attempt to bring a case or at least a lot of bad publicity. If I were a service provider I would be very cautious unless I saw signs they were 100% male (adam's apple, receding hairline, deep voice etc).

It is special category data for anyone because pregnancy is a medical condition.

The only reliable ID is a birth certificate issued to a minor: a transwoman will not have that/will only have one with a male sex marker.

Providers can turn away anyone they like with or without proof of sex, and illegal discrimination really only applies in the case of transmen. Providers need educating and empowering. Obviously TRAs will kick off, and their best weapon is misinformation.

The wording of the guidance about this is quite poor.

If an obvious man hands over female id, wouldn't that prove that he is either trans or has fake id and therefore can be removed?

I'm not convinced there are women who look like men by accident, that is, not transmen. Maybe detransioners may have problems.

But if they bring a case -

why were they kicking off about it unless they were a bad actor and looking to cause trouble?

the judge can I suppose suggest a DNA test if the person wants to prove legally and conclusively to the court they are female, but it doesn't matter. The duty is to provide and protect a single sex women's space, in order to meet the inclusion/access and equality needs of women who need this, and not to split hairs with individuals who want to be difficult about it, largely because they want women to not be able to escape men when they are undressing and make single sex provision for women impossible - that's not likely to look good in court - and there's a perfectly accessible gender neutral option they could use.

I don't think a service would have any legal trouble saying no, you may not use our single sex service because I have reasonable doubt, but please feel welcome to use our gender neutral service. And I can't see a judge thinking it's ok to risk the inclusion of every woman in a single sex space because one person felt like being a PITA.

I do hope people are not going to start bringing fake ID into the mix! The only reliable option is an extract taken from the birth register before the person reaches the age of eighteen. Faking one of those is seriously criminal.

The only legal females who genuinely look male without testosterone treatment have XY DSDs and are rare. If someone can prove they're legally female, providers are going to let them in unless their appearance is very extreme/the service is of a sensitive nature. They have a discretion to turn people away, irrespective of whether proof was provided, and the only thing they are risking is that turning away a transman will be ruled illegal because the situation wasn't quite extreme/sensitive enough. The chances of mistaking a transman for a transwoman with fake ID seem low, particularly as transmen commonly exclude themselves from women's services, for various reasons.

(This is potentially sad for women with XY DSDs, who don't have the same legal protection as transmen. But, their legal position is unchanged by FWS, so they will cope as before, or not. They sometimes claim to be trans, but they aren't. )

I'm not talking about the success or failure of a lawsuit, I'm talking about the negative publicity, cost and stress you would incur as a service provider should you mistakingly turn away a woman who then wants to pursue the issue. Nevermind the prospect of having to go to court to fight it (and potentially lose which is always a risk).

I imagine they would only risk turning away a woman if they were very, very sure it was a man.

The only reliable ID is a birth certificate issued to a minor: a transwoman will not have that/will only have one with a male sex marker.

I would rather talk about things as they are, not as I would like them to be. At this point in time there is no way to verify someone's sex. Unless that changes (which it probably won't anytime soon) we have to deal with the fact the ID is effectively irrelevant when it comes to sex.

I think maybe some of what is being said is influenced by the trans narrative being dominant.

If you turn it round and say a woman was wrongly challenged, it just as likely she will say glad you checked as I want to know as other women that something advertised as being women only, genuinely is.

Everyone who refuses, is going to be a suspect.

As said before, if the facility is clearly labeled as women only, with an attached note saying in line with supreme court ruling that sex is biological, ie means the sex you were born.

If there are women who want to make a fuss because they think it isn't "kind" they too can use the gender neutral facilities, as the can the man who says its not fair I have to acknowledge what was entered on my birth certificate.

We need to change the perception that somehow wanting single sex facilities is somehow odd.

What is odd is the people who think we should all pretent you can change sex.

I imagine they would only risk turning away a woman if they were very, very sure it was a man.

I think it would technically be low risk to turn away someone who looks male but is dressed as a woman. The only person with legal recourse in this situation would be a transman, and they don't dress as women. Only transwomen do#. And a suit from a transman could be defended by showing that her exclusion was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

#And women with DSDs. But they wouldn't have any legal recourse.

As I've said several times, an original birth certificate (issued before age eighteen) is a reliable record of sex.

And even if no ID are shown, providers have a discretion to turn away anyone they like, and it's only ever going to be illegal discrimination in certain very specific instances involving transmen.

Again a lawsuit is costly/stressful even if you win it. Getting legal advice because someone is threatening to sue you is costly. Having people go to the press to complain that your business turned away a woman from a women's only service is costly. The cost of getting it wrong it not just the verdict of the court case and its not just monetary.

As I've said several times, an original birth certificate (issued before age eighteen) is a reliable record of sex.

There is no law that compelling someone to use their original birth certificate as sex verification so this is a moot point. As the laws currently stand, we can't verify sex.

As I said, I think that providers will let in transmen as a default. If, exceptionally (and rather improbably, given her male self-identity) Buck Angel tries to join a rape support group, is turned away, and sues, the court photographs will be worth their weight in gold to the GC side of the argument. Remember, the TRAs' position is that she should never be let in!

There is no law that compelling someone to use their original birth certificate as sex verification so this is a moot point. As the laws currently stand, we can't verify sex.

A moot point how? If providers insist on proof, this is the proof they can insist on.

Businesses are businesses, they are going to do whatever reduces the likelihood of them getting sued. They generally don't want to wade into this issue nor fight it out in court. Hence I think they will tread carefully