Trans women should not be allowed to use women's toilets, says human rights watchdog
Trans women should not be allowed to use women's toilets, the UK's equalities watchdog has declared.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has issued interim guidance after the Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that the legal definition of a woman was tied to biological sex.
It comes as the Government considers plans submitted by the watchdog last week for a wider overhaul of equality laws aimed at protecting women-only spaces.
In an update published on Friday night, the EHRC told employers, pubs, shops and hospitals that they must all act in line with the Supreme Court judgment.
'If somebody identifies as trans, they do not change sex for the purposes of the [Equality] Act, even if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate,' the guidance said.
'A trans woman is a biological man. A trans man is a biological woman.'
The EHRC added: 'In workplaces and services that are open to the public, trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men's facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex.
'In some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men's facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women's facilities.'
The watchdog said mixed-sex toilets or changing rooms should be provided 'where possible' in addition to single-sex toilets.
Guidance on when competitive sports must be single-sex will be set out separately by the EHRC 'in due course'.
Maya Forstater, the executive director of the women's rights campaign group Sex Matters, told The Telegraph: 'This guidance is super simple and clear and confirms what the Supreme Court says.
'The Supreme Court's judgment was a model of clarity, and the new EHRC guidance is practical, simple and workable.
'Some trans people will be disappointed, but other people have rights. There is no excuse for any employer or service provider not to follow this guidance right now.'
Last week, the Bristol Old Vic indicated it would defy the Supreme Court by continuing to allow theatregoers to use whichever toilet they prefer.
The theatre said: 'In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the legal definitions of sex and gender, we want to reassure our trans and non-binary visitors, staff and artists that you are welcome here.
'We continue to welcome everyone to use the facilities that are most appropriate for them and we continue to offer a range of choices because we understand people enter into this conversation from different starting points and life experiences.'
The Bristol Old Vic went on to insist it would 'only ever intervene if people are behaving inappropriately'.
Girlguiding, Britain's biggest organisation for young girls, issued a statement saying it was 'proud to be a trans-inclusive organisation' and that it would await further guidance.
In its interim statement, the EHRC also warned that only offering mixed-sex toilets could amount to indirect sex discrimination against women.
Schools have been told single-sex toilets must be provided for boys and girls aged eight and over, and single-sex changing facilities for boys and girls aged 11 and over.
Biologically male pupils who identify as trans girls are not permitted to use girls' toilets or changing rooms under the guidance, just as biologically female pupils who identify as trans boys are not permitted to use boys' toilets or changing rooms.
The EHRC further clarified that members of an association with 25 members or more can be limited to men or women only, and can also be limited to gay men or lesbian women. The guidance said a lesbian-only association should not admit trans women, and associations for gay men should not admit trans men.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
an hour ago
- The Intercept
Trump Travel Ban Punishes Victims of the U.S. War Machine
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a proclamation banning travelers from 12 countries from entering the United States and partially restricting visitors from seven other nations. 'We will restore the travel ban, some people call it the Trump travel ban, and keep the radical Islamic terrorists out of our country that was upheld by the Supreme Court,' wrote Trump in a written statement. The restriction goes into effect on Monday, June 9. The full ban applies to foreign nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. The partial ban applies to people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. In a video address posted on social media, Trump said a recent terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, 'underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas.' He added, 'We don't want 'em.' The man charged with that attack is from Egypt, which is not one of the countries listed in the travel ban. The list overlaps with the sites of U.S. military and CIA misadventures stretching back more than a century, including Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. The inclusion of Afghanistan angered many who have worked to resettle its people in America. The travel ban makes exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, or SIV — a classification granted to people who worked closely with the U.S. government during the two-decade-long war there. That still leaves many former allies and their families on the outside looking in. The ban also comes as the Department of Homeland Security's termination of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for Afghanistan is scheduled to take effect on July 14, 2025. During America's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the U.S. government helped evacuate around 80,000 Afghans who aided U.S. forces, ranging from interpreters to CIA-trained fighters and their families, including members of so-called Zero Units implicated in the killings of civilians. Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement on his first day back in office. Andrew Sullivan, a U.S. Army veteran and the executive director of No One Left Behind, which advocates on behalf of SIV applicants, expressed gratitude for the Trump administration's exemption for Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders. 'However, there are still many allies who served shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States who are being left behind because they do not qualify for the SIV program,' he said. 'This includes those who were injured in the line of duty and were unable to complete a full year of service, the women and men of the Afghan National Army who trained and served with U.S. Special Forces, and many more.' 'People in other nations fall victim to the same cycle — trusting U.S. promises, only to be abandoned when perceived strategic interests shift.' Trump's Afghan abandonment isn't unique, however. It follows in a long tradition of American desertion of wartime allies that includes partners from Southeast Asia — like Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia — to the Middle East. 'This isn't a Trump-era phenomenon; it's a pattern that spans decades, from Vietnam to Afghanistan and from Kurds to Ukrainians,' said Erik Sperling of Just Foreign Policy, an advocacy group critical of mainstream Washington foreign policy. 'It's no secret that ostensible American partners in the developing world often end up worse off as a result of Washington's actions. Yet time and again, people in other nations fall victim to the same cycle — trusting U.S. promises, only to be abandoned when perceived strategic interests shift.' Afghanistan was not part of Trump's first-term travel ban but, in the time since, fell to the Taliban when the U.S. withdrew its forces in 2021 under the Biden administration. This resulted from a peace deal with the Taliban signed by the Trump administration in 2020. Trump wrote that Afghanistan 'lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.' He also cited its visa overstay rates as a reason for the nation's inclusion in the new travel ban. Sullivan said many U.S. allies would be harmed by the restrictions. 'They stood by us in war but now face danger because of their service with no clear way out,' he told The Intercept. 'We must keep our promise to them as well.' Earlier this week, around 100 members of Congress called on the Trump Administration to reverse its decision to end TPS for Afghans. 'This decision is devastating for resettled Afghan nationals in the United States who have fled widespread violence, economic instability, challenging humanitarian conditions, and human rights abuses in their home country,' they wrote, noting that it would negatively impact approximately 9,000 Afghan nationals. 'Many of these Afghans fearlessly served as strong allies to the United States military during the war in Afghanistan, and we cannot blatantly disregard their service. We respectfully ask that you redesignate Afghanistan for TPS to ensure Afghan nationals in the U.S. are not forced to return to devastating humanitarian, civic, and economic conditions.' Sperling said the United States should be upfront about its history of abandoning its partners when they outlive their usefulness. 'If American policymakers are serious about building durable soft power around the world, they should reckon with this history and ensure that future allies understand the risks before taking U.S. advice,' he told The Intercept, noting that America's latest exercise in ally abandonment may have far reaching consequences. 'Many Afghans reasonably relied on U.S. promises and put their trust in the U.S.-backed plans for their country,' he said. 'Turning our back on them now is both immoral as well as a strategic blunder that will undermine U.S. interests in the region for the foreseeable future.'
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Straight Woman In ‘Reverse Discrimination' Case
Lawsuits for 'reverse discrimination' will face an easier path after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided on Thursday with a woman who argued that she was passed over for a promotion and later demoted because she is straight. The court's ruling is a departure from previous court decisions that have set a higher bar in cases where people who are part of a majority group, such as those who are white and straight, filed lawsuits alleging discrimination under federal civil rights law. But the Supreme Court said in its ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race and sexual orientation, among other characteristics, 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful 'to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'' 'By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court. The case was brought by Marlean Ames against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, where she started working in 2004. In 2019, she applied for a promotion, but was turned down and a colleague with less seniority—who was a lesbian woman—received the promotion instead. Ames was later demoted and her previous role was given to another colleague who had less seniority, a gay man. She sued under Title VII, alleging in her lawsuit that she was denied the promotion and then demoted due to her sexual orientation. Her supervisors, however, said Ames was passed over for the promotion because she didn't have the vision and leadership skills needed for the role and demoted because they had concerns about her leadership skills. Lower courts had previously ruled against Ames, saying her lawsuit failed to demonstrate 'background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' But the Supreme Court ruled that requirement was 'not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute.'
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
In vitro fertilization emerges as a central issue in the Alabama state Supreme Court race
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — An Alabama fertility lawyer announced her candidacy for the state Supreme Court, emphasizing her personal experience with in vitro fertilization and blasting a controversial 2024 decision that ruled frozen embryos can be considered children under state law. AshLeigh Dunham on Wednesday announced she will run in the Democratic primary in 2026 for the seat held by Republican Associate Justice Greg Shaw. Dunham currently works as a court referee in juvenile court in Jefferson County, and also owns a law firm that specializes in helping families navigate 'assisted fertilization,' according to her statement. Dunham said her work with fertility law is personal because she left Alabama to use IVF to conceive her daughter. 'Our Supreme Court needs justices who understand the real challenges families face. The court has made some anti-family rulings that are wildly out of touch with the people of Alabama,' said Dunham, referring to the 2024 ruling that said three couples whose frozen embryos were destroyed in an accident at a storage facility could pursue wrongful death lawsuits for their 'extrauterine children.' Incumbent Justice Shaw concurred in the decision and wrote a special opinion. Seven of the nine justices concurred in the result, one gave partial concurrence and one dissented. The ruling temporarily brought IVF services to an abrupt halt statewide, drawing criticism from politicians on both sides of the aisle. The ruling swiftly prompted legislation in Alabama that shields doctors from potential legal liability. The Alabama Supreme Court, like other statewide offices, has become dominated by Republicans. The court has been all-Republican for over a decade and has been comprised entirely of white justices since 2001. Shaw, the incumbent, was first elected to the court in 2008 and reelected in 2014 and 2020.
