New Green council motion disagreeing with EHRC guidance on SSS

[GCburneraccount]

My council recently became green controlled with lots of new and inexperienced councillors. This weeks council email led with news of a motion passed that disagrees with the EHRC guidance on SSS.

My heart sank, I hope they aren't going to go the way of Bristol and Scotland on this.
I'm going to write to them to ask to clarify what this means for their delivery of SSS and question their wisdom of getting involved in all of this.

I will appreciate any advice and useful examples that the wise women here can throw my way.

Full text of the weekly email:

At a meeting of Full Council yesterday, the Council passed a motion committing to protecting the rights of transgender, non-binary and intersex residents in our borough.
We believe that misinterpretation of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) current guidance on the use of single sex services and spaces – published earlier this year following a supreme court ruling on the definition of sex – presents a significant risk of exclusion for transgender people. The government’s own equality impact assessment admits as much.
Not only that, misinterpretation of the guidance also threatens the privacy and human dignity of women, ethnic minorities, and disabled people through intrusive questioning about “biological sex” or “sex at birth”.
Gender reassignment remains a protected characteristic under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). We believe that every resident of this borough deserves to access council services safely, with dignity, and free from discrimination or harassment.
As well as ensuring that the council’s mandatory training, human resources, and procurement policies reflect PSED best practice, we are committed to ensuring the provision and expansion of non-gendered safe and private spaces in all council-owned facilities, new and old.
As it stands, we believe the EHRC guidance leaves transgender people at risk of intolerance and discrimination. As a Borough of Sanctuary, we are proud to stand by our long record of inclusion, diversity and equality.

They can’t just misrepresent what the law and guidance says, but someone is going to have to take them to court, preferably someone who suffers a detriment.

Who do they think is “misinterpreting” the guidance exactly? It can’t be clearer that single sex spaces need to operate on the basis of biological sex, not gender identity.

they can pass all the self important motions that they like

they still have to obey the law though

Commiserations, OP.

Agree that we need some court cases against these ridiculous councils, so the penny finally drops with the hard-of-thinking who run them, like it hopefully has now with the NHS.

They can posture all they like - they still have to follow this law and all the other laws of the UK.

And if anyone still claims that the Greens in England are nothing like the Scottish Greens - remember what we all said before the election.

I have just googled and this is my council also previously mentioned on these pages. Very concerning. I am going to have to write some emails.

expansion of non-gendered safe and private spaces in all council-owned facilities, new and old.

You could write and ask what this means? What sort of spaces are they talking about toilets, changing rooms and will it follow the law in providing single sex and unisex where needed? This bit seems to indicate that much to their disdain of the law and all their huffing and puffing, they could be seeking ways to provide facilities for all. Maybe that’s just my wishful thinking with the Greens - who knows?

I assume they must be the only local authority with money to burn that they're going to go around doing this

Full motion is here:

https://democracy.walthamforest.gov.uk/documents/g6355/Agenda%20frontsheet%2016th-Jul-2026%2019.30%20Council.pdf?T=0

They may have passed it, but what will their legal department make of it?

Disagree with what? The guidance merely helps people understand the law.

If the Greens want to go all out to overturn women and gay people's legal protections by effectively destroying the Equality Act, and then the huge task of ripping women's protections out of all the various laws and the devastation that will cause? Then that's a policy decision they'll need to sell to the electorate. Whatever. I'd think most people voting Green would like to know about the environment, not about Mens Rights Activism and homophobia.

I suppose it is helpful how we're seeing party after party now openly declaring that they don't believe women and gay people should have equality to men. Or protections in law that inconvenience men in wanting to use non consenting women and gay people in their own agendas. I'd think it will do the conservative vote some good, they're beginning to look like the only option with any lingering sanity.

They don’t have to agree with the law but they do have to follow it

They seem to think the EHRC has misinterpreted the law and (its own?) guidance, whereas their wet-behind-the-ears non-binary councillors understand the real meaning.

The government’s own equality impact assessment admits as much.

OP, you could start by asking them for the evidence of this? Is this true? I don't recall anyone on this forum talking about the existence of a Government EIA, but I could be wrong.

Councils hate spending money, so they will probably have to be reminded that they are not allowed to just change the signs on their toilet and changing facilities to simply say "mixed sex" - there will be regulations they have to follow to bring them up to code. And they will be required to provide many services on a biological sex basis, whether they like it or not. @Keeptoiletssafe should have some good advice.

As others have said, they have to obey the law. And, yes, they'll undoubtedly have to be sued at some point. You could also remind them to build into their 2027-28 budget sufficient funds to contest a major law suit. Ot two. They can use Scot Gov's experience as a starting point for that!

You can, of course just say to them that they don't have to like it, but they are not above the law, and if they don't follow the law willingly, then others will force them to obey the law. Willingly.

SingleSexSpacesinSchools might have some good template letters?

That looks pretty meaningless. Makes them feel good about themselves but doesn't change our rights.

I've seen some similar types of motions re Palestine. I wish valuable council meeting time wasn't taken up with this stuff. Councils should be discussing how to provide good public services. Perhaps they SHOULD focus on toilets in this instance - having decent public ones!

A Borough of Sanctuary. JFK.

I would point out why do they think ‘women, ethnic minorities and disabled people’ will be the groups specifically liable to intrusive questioning about their sex. I hate to think what they are inferring.

Another thread on this: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5555646-anyone-live-in-waltham-forest-your-council-very-much-needs-some-women-to-write-to-them-and-say-that-actually-yes-the-ehrc-code-is-just-what-we-want-dont-exclude-women

are committed to ensuring the provision and expansion of non-gendered safe and private spaces in all council-owned facilities, new and old.

So what is this going to look like?

I think you need to ask them how they plan going to meet the required facility standards for mixed sex and unisex provision.

This always makes me wonder what people think used to happen in the past. Do they think that we have had single sex facilities for all this time for the specific reason that there are circumstances where it is reasonable to object to the presence of somebody of the opposite sex, but also nobody cared?

Or is it more likely that people do care and it’s rare for sex to be judged incorrectly, hence the legislation.

They seem to have passed it, and added this:
8. Celebrate Trans Day of Visibility across the Council

https://democracy.walthamforest.gov.uk/documents/g6355/Decisions%2016th-Jul-2026%2019.30%20Council.pdf?T=2

There is a lot of posturing in the motion, but not much substance.

Thanks all. V useful as I try to work out how much of this is pointless posturing and how to approach.

Thanks to the PP who found the whole text of the motion. There's a lot of nonsense in it but also wording that allows a lot of wiggle room in case none of it ends up happening.

The bits leaping out at me are:

"The Supreme Court has defined “sex” as “biological sex” and “sex at birth”.
However, these phrases have no agreed medical or scientific meaning."
[Bonkers. Not sure where to start with this one.]

"Council believes that Trans women are women, trans men are men, and non-binary identities are valid. This is consistent with, and not in conflict with, the council's commitment to equality for all residents."
[Excellent, ideology over law. Exactly what you want in a council...]

"ensure that trans awareness and inclusion form part of mandatory equalities
training for all staff and elected members, and that the council's HR policies
- including on name, prefix, and pronoun use, facilities access, and dress
codes - are updated to reflect best practice."
[Depends how this one is done. Don't disagree with best practice informing equality training including all PCs, but I doubt this is what they mean.]

"Commit that, in the spirit of ensuring compliance with all relevant laws,
including data protection, health and safety, and non-discrimination against
those with protected characteristics, self-identification should be sufficient in
normal circumstances for the purposes of access to and use of any of the
London Borough of Waltham Forest’s facilities and services. As examples,
this principle need not apply when there is a reasonable suspicion of danger
to a service user, bystander, or employee, or where there is a proportionate
means of achieving a legitimate aim."
[My emphasis. They are getting into deep hot water on this one. But have left wriggle room for it to be just posturing.]

"Commit that all new and refurbished council-owned public buildings, leisure
centres, and civic spaces will include non-gendered toilet and changing
facilities where practicable, in addition to facilities provided for people who
are disabled"
[If this means that in addition to SSS and disabled spaces they provide an extra space, I'm not going to argue with this. Hard to tell though. Hope it doesn't mean gender neutral for everyone.]

Moreover, the exclusion of those with protected characteristics from essential facilities or services will rarely be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

Have they not realised that everyone has protected characteristics?

More people here stick to this one :)

local residents need to make a fuss about this. Ask about costings, ask about actual risk assessments. Ask to see the reliable calculations about how things the best way forward

Commit that, in the spirit of ensuring compliance with all relevant laws,
including data protection, health and safety, and non-discrimination against
those with protected characteristics, self-identification should be sufficient in
normal circumstances for the purposes of access to and use of any of the
London Borough of Waltham Forest’s facilities and services. As examples,
this principle need not apply when there is a reasonable suspicion of danger
to a service user, bystander, or employee, or where there is a proportionate
means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Do they mean 'self ID' as in you can decide which facility to use (so the facility is mixed sex), or do they mean 'self ID' as in they aren't going to ask for ID except where this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?

The first thing that strikes me is they are equating safe with private. Safe and private and not the same thing.

In terms of toilets, no one is being excluded. They can always use the accessible. I can’t imagine council buildings do not have an accessible toilet. If they don’t, then should so if this is what they are spending money on this is good.

If they are making all toilets mixed sex, then this is not allowed under building regs and regulations. It is costly and is discriminatory.