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

I think that I have never been made to feel unsafe by a trans woman in any space, including sharing plenty of bathrooms with them. I think we’ve all been made to feel unsafe by cis men, and we all know that if they want to intimidate us or assault us etc, they don’t need put a disguise on to do it.

But you’ve heard this argument before and it’s not going to persuade you; I’ve heard yours and it’s certainly not going to persuade me. You’re here because you know full well that nobody elsewhere is particularly interested.

I also think anyone who genuinely cares about women’s safety has bigger fish to fry.

But but but how you know they were trans women?? Aren't we always told that we just can't tell??

anyway if youre so desperate to make men feel safe how about you spend some time going around men's discussion boards lecturing them on not being g kind and accommodating to trans women?

or as you're such a big brilliant ally, you could always offer to accompany TW to the mens so they feel safe

@Tinycatclub

Do you really believe the defining difference between men and women is mental? That there are rights ways and wrong ways for men and women to think, and thinking the "wrong way" for your sex is so significant that it overrides all the differences between our phsyocal bodies, and all the social consequnces that come with that especially for female people, and makes what woul otherwise be a man suddenly to all intents and purposes interchangeable with female people simply because of what is in his head?

Do you really think it's reasonable that we can have words that differentiate betwen slightly different sahes of blonde hair, or between people who live in towns less than thirty miles apart, but not names that differentiate between people of the two human sexes?

Does all that seem normal and reasonable to you, or does it not start to smell a little bit like a belief system rather than a neutral evoluation of language and understanding?

Remember, this is not just about trans people, it is about all humans and how we understand ourselves in relation to our bodies and each other. You can't just look at what trans people say they feel or need, you have to ask does that actually make sense against the wider human experience. You can't have one way of defining sex for trans people and another for everyone else - it's got to be the same rule for all of us otherwise it's meaningless.

Who are these "women" whose safety you care about? How do they differ from "men"?

Are they are risk in ways that are different to men? Why? How? How did that situation come about? What do you think needs to change to solve it?

Remember, your answers must not assume women are female...

But how are any of us supposed to tell the difference between a 'transwoman' and a 'cis man' if they enter the woman's bathroom?

You’re judging that from your own little bubble. Most people in this country absolutely do not share your views that a group of men are women on their say so, I promise you. There are polls and everything. You’re the one with the fringe beliefs listening to your own echo chamber.

And @Tinycatclubwhile you may have never felt unsafe in the presence of a trans identifying men in the ladies, I'm sure you understand that a) that doesn't mean that no one else has and b) we can't make laws based on your personal experiences alone.

My honest answer to all your questions is ‘why are you so weirdly obsessed with such a tiny percentage of the population, and have you considered just pulling yourselves together’ so I’m going to leave you all to your little cesspit now.

And that lack of interest applies to your male friends and their terrible ordeal of having to use a men’s or unisex toilet. Most people totally agree with the SC judgment and think it’s all been solved now men can’t use the ladies’.

“You’re entitled to your opinions, but others are free to judge you for them (and they will). That’s consequences 🤷‍♀️”

Judge away, it's a two way street, you've also been judged for your 'opinions', which seem to have come straight out of the cracker box.

My honest point about that is that you don’t have any answers, because you know it’s complete bullshit, so you insult, deflect and flounce.

Because the demands they make, to deny material reality and force compliance, impact 100% of the population. Have whatever gender identity you like. You are still expected to obey the law and you may not demand I recognise your gender identity as something I care about. Outside of course any Equality Act duties I owe you.

You strike me as extraordinarily misogynistic. Why don't you think women's rights and dignity matter?

If you think supporting women makes this a 'cesspit' well that reflects even more badly on you.

So, can't answer then. No surprise. Never is.

Because try to get beyond the slogans and it becomes clear it is impossble to defend the detail without betraying the utter sexism, if not downright misgyny, of a movment that does not believe female people are important enough to even deserve our own name.

But thanks for confirming with your "tiny percentage" comments that your focus in entirely on the trans people here and not the rights, needs, history and lived experience of opression of the slightly over 50% of the human race who is physically female. Good to know where we stand in your priorities.

“I think that I have never been made to feel unsafe by a trans woman in any space, including sharing plenty of bathrooms with them.”

So, this is the ‘I’m alright, Jack’ argument of the privileged.

Do you understand that some female people have been made to feel unsafe or been abused by male people with transgender identities when they access female single sex provisions? Are they allowed to disagree with you attempt to negate their lack of consent?

I personally have been abused by male people who declared they are female, am I allowed to disagree with you without your negative moral judgement?

Should any of us have to disclose our trauma history or history of abuse so that we can have single sex provisions? I mean, that is a direct contradiction to this statement of yours :

”I also think anyone who genuinely cares about women’s safety has bigger fish to fry.”

You don’t think adding to the issues that female people experience by removing access to female single sex provisions, including sports, refuges, support groups, representation, hospital accommodation, choice of single sex health care provision, prisons, changing rooms and toilets is contradicting your argument that women have bigger fish to fry?

Why on earth would you make that fish fucking bigger than it needs to be ?

There are at least two posters on MN that I can think of who’ve been open that they’ve experienced sexual harassment or assault by trans identified males.

So the only measuring stick is if someone makes you personally feel unsafe? No thought at all for those women that DO feel unsafe or have been attacked, because you're the most important woman and the only one that matters?
How very rational of you.

And dont pretend you care about womens safety when you've just perfectly demonstrated that your only concern is for yourself and men.

I feel unsafe when womanhood is reduced to a personality trait because it denies the long history of abuse, exploitation and marginalisation of the female body all over the world and throughout history, disconnecting the challenges and risks we still face as women today from their roots in the past, and removing our ability to understand and fully mobilise against them, and to explain and justify the protections and supports we have established against them.

It shocks me to see people who believe that laws should be made based on their personal experiences alone.

You had the opportunity to present a coherent argument but all you did was attempt to shame and not engage.

What a shame.

I’m always struck by the complete lack of empathy or understanding of these posters, and how smug and self satisfied they are in it.

Pretty much.

Been quite a few this weekend that have dropped by to tell posters discussing their needs that that are ‘anti -rights’, ‘anti-trans’ and, effectively, bigots. What they all share in common is misinformation, misrepresentated evidence, and not even logically coherent arguments.

They do show though that there is nothing underlying the emotional reasoning.

Replying to myself....

The "oh it's just a tiny percentage" argument is very like climate change denial.

The assumption is that the world is so big that doing little things that harm it at the indvidual level doesn't matter because it will always just ... be there. It is a constant, the background against which we do what we do.

Genderism strikes me as much the same. There's an assumption in Genderism that all the so-called "cis" women will just carry on being women like we always have, female bodies and all, even while Genderism itself insists that is not what being a woman even is. Our womanhood is supposed to remain unexamined, just the same bog standard fact of life womahood they grew up with, not changed at all by their belief that womanhood <> female, it will alaways just ... be there. A constant, a background that provides society with baseline expectations of "womanhood" that they can appropriate to express their identities.

I’d like to have a reference to SEEN in my signature too but I’ve never seen anyone use it. I have seen lots of trans related signatures though, sometimes with weblinks which link to non-impartial belief related info about pronouns and allyship. The Civil Service Code is openly breached in my department and there is nothing I can do about it.

I would hesitate to put a reference to SEEN in my signature, because I believe that my work would suffer because it would affect other peoples willingness to work collaboratively with me.

Just like other organisations it appears the Civil Service has wrung its hands over trans rights and desperately tried to get round the law to allow the single narrative trans ideology to continue to dominate.

We largely got rid of the misogynistic Stonewall from the CS and its wrongful and disingenuous interpretation of the very laws that we make. Now it appears we don’t even need Stonewall, because the CS is quite capable of trampling on women’s rights all by itself.

Interestingly, the strength of feeling here is very much representative of all the women and most of the men I know, most of whom aren’t on Mumsnet. Most people understand perfectly well why facilities are split by sex in the first place, and don’t see any good reason for allowing some people to disregard this.