Trans guidance for civil servants must stay secret, ministers say

[IwantToRetire]

Ministers have refused to publish transgender guidance for civil servants, raising concerns about whether the rules respect women’s rights.

The rules about <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/o/vIObJ/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/03/civil-servants-defy-official-trans-guidance/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">how transgender civil servants should be treated at work were sent to government departments in May.

But the Cabinet Office refused to share the draft policy with The Telegraph because “ministers and officials may not feel comfortable sharing their views”.

This decision not to publish the guidance has raised concerns that it may not respect women’s rights, with Claire Coutinho, the shadow minister for women and equalities, accusing Labour of “running scared of scrutiny”.

Full article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/07/18/trans-guidance-civil-servants-stay-secret-ministers-say/ and at https://archive.is/vIObJ

Well after following the Tempest Tribunal here and on TT I wouldn’t be surprised if it says something like: look, if a man says he’s a woman just give him everything he wants and let him rewrite departmental policies because otherwise he’ll have a massive strop and no one wants to be dealing with that.

"...on a salary of nearly £70,000 – to “lead on trans equality” at the Cabinet Office."

and the grifters keep grifting. 😡

I can tell you exactly what the guidance is. I have seen it in draft.

The guidance is to ask people to use toilets and spaces appropriate for biological sex but they will not actively enforce it, as they say it isn’t possible.

They have also reinforced the guidance that says it’s a disciplinary offence to deliberately call someone by the wrong pronouns etc.

If ministers and officials are not comfortable sharing their views - particularly on an issue for which there is legislation - why on earth are they in government? This comes across as cowardly at best, illiberal and undemocratic at worst.

No offence guys but refusing to publish something does kind of show it does not meet the legal restrictions so you are just setting yourselves up.

Numpties.

To be slightly generous to the Cabinet Office if it is still only draft guidance then I can see the point of not sharing it with the media. However, when it is actually finalised, all bets are off. Could FOI it maybe. TRA will probably be first in line in publicising it.

Good old civil service - always keen for new employment tribunals. "Can't actively enforce it" yeah they could, they just reeeaally don't want too because the larping men will kick off. I mean they couldn't actively stop me punching my co workers in the face if I really want too but they can actively enforce I don't by being very clear that my doing so would result in me being fired. Then of course it's up to me what I do with that information

I'd love to know how they define using someone's correct sex pronouns as "deliberate" - once, twice? How many times? is it reasonable to compel employees to lie?

they're still trying to placate the angry men and the super special not like the other girls NB

Unfortunately, it's going to take a few grievances about the impact of not enforcing it for anything to change.

So one side gets to do what they want.

The others - compelled speech and forced to go along with one belief system.

This is not national security - they do not have a right to keep this secret. They are public servants and need to be shown to be keeping to the law.

I can see how some service providers may have problems enforcing single sex spaces sometimes. There will be issues about what is reasonable action to maintain single sex services in some cases.

But in the workplace its very easy to enforce. If a man continues to use women's spaces they risk a disciplinary process.

But the Cabinet Office refused to share the draft policy with The Telegraph because “ministers and officials may not feel comfortable sharing their views”.

'Their views'?
What have their views got to do with it? The document isn't a critique of the law (surely?). It's guidance about how to comply with the law as it exists.

Oh dear this is getting really silly now.

If they're determined to make not submitting meekly to someone else's control of your language based on 'respect' for them when it is NOT against the law a disciplinary offense -

then how are they going to justify in court NOT making men enter women's single sex spaces - because that's what this means, let's be honest - which IS against the law, a disciplinary offense?

The whole 'oh we can't tell he's a man it's impossible sooooo complicated' bollocks won't stand up for two minutes.

Good luck with enabling one protected characteristic to trample the actual rights of another protected characteristic so that leaders can express their personal partisan political hobby horses on their employees, particularly when you have policies about equality and public duty and are supposed to follow the Nolan principles.

Get a grip for fucks sake you absolute planks. This is the kind of extreme lunacy that will make enough of the electorate say 'well Farage can't be any worse' to get us into real trouble.

I'd add that Labour's cards are now fully down on the table as the party of fervent men's rights activism, proudly standing against women's equality and inclusion.

And by extension, against gay rights (your actual LGB) since to fuck over sex based rights means ending their legal protections as well as women.

You'd think that if deliberate use of wrong pronouns is a disciplinary offence, deliberate use of the wrong toilets should also be a disciplinary offence, wouldn't you?
I'm struggling to avoid adding a sarcastic and immature 'Duh!'.
And failing, so:
Duh!
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the goose-identifying gander.

Of course they can enforce it, they enforce it like they enforce any other mandatory behaviour at work, like delivering on your objectives, attending on time, or turning up and doing it at all. They make the expectations clear, and they put employees on a disciplinary pathway leading ultimately to being fired if they don’t comply.

Management 101.

Are the civil service really that incompetent? I mean, I’ve heard over the years from friends who work there that things are pretty amateurish, but come on.

If they’re really not sure how they get employees to comply with expectations, then I’ll apply for a job there and turn up 3 days a week instead of 5, while drawing the full salary. That would suit me brilliantly, I’m sick of having to do a 5 day week but need the income of it.

I’m Civil Service but the guidance has not been widely shared in our dept. However it looks like our LGBT network may have seen it. They were invited to share concerns but no one else was. I think our dept remains very captured.

That's what's so annoying about this, and what's caused all the problems, they only ask one set of employees and then they wonder why all the other employees object to what they have decided that everyone must do.

They really don't understand what full consultation means do they.
Why are they consulting employees anyway, it's not like it can be voted on, it's the law, it's applicable to everyone, no exceptions. 😡

I’m civil service too and it is disappointing that gender ideology continues unchecked in the CS. It is incredibly misogynistic. I recently saw a very senior figure endorsing pronoun statements in a Pride post on our intranet. The lack of impartiality is laughable and not a single person in the CS or government is willing to do anything about it. Despite me raising my voice from time to time it seems there is nothing that can be done.

Absolutely, consulting with a small subset of employees on a policy that affects all employees, does not a ‘staff consultation’ make.

In the CS ‘trans rights’ are not treated as the political issue they are. I have seen so many instances over the years of CS happy to put in writing on all CS forums their gender ideology related views as if they are just accepted and normal and that women’s rights are transphobic. And these things appear never to be challenged and frequently stay up in writing. There is in my experience sbsolutely zero voices on this side of women’s rights under the EA. It is utterly unbalanced and partisan. And it makes women like me feel dismissed and unwelcome. The CS is not the right employer for anyone who believes in women’s rights under the EA.

I have also seen it in policy making whereby certain organisations are groaned at or CS openly indicate their disapproval at their views in a non impartial way, both in writing and in meetings.

I hope that Sex Matters takes this latest issue up.

If the guidance is secret, how will civil servants know what is permitted or banned? How will they know if they transgress? Surely that’s dishonest, unethical, possibly even illegal?

Once civil servants are told the guidance, it is no longer a secret.

I cannot read the links. Are they saying they won’t let anybody know what it says before they publish it? When they do publish it, if it contradicts the SC ruling, they open themselves up to being taken to court over it. And will lose. Expensively. It doesn’t made any sense.

I wish I could believe that they won’t reveal it because it actually follows the law, and they want to minimise bash-back from the MRAs.

I don’t think ‘the electorate’ is as obsessed with picking on trans people as mumsnet, tbh.

tbh with the h stand for honest, not the right word when talking about 'trans' where being dishonest is the 'normal' way of doing things. tbd would be more appropriate.

Requiring men to follow the same law as everyone rise is not "picking on them"

hth

what is picking on people is demanding that everyone uses pronouns don't correspond with people's sex, that women's rape support services accommodate men because they feel like women, that women's sports teams allow men to play on them because of men's womanly feeling or any other thing that requires women to give up their single sex spaces, places and services to please men larping as women. What is really picking on ppl is doxxing them, threatening them with violence, contacting g they're employers demanding they be sacked for expressing GC views and picketing women's events screaming whore TERF bigot

hth again

That was my first thought too.

"their views..." 🙄