House of Commons Reviews Facilities as Trans Lavatory Access Policy Put on Hold
The House of Commons has confirmed it will wait for full guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) before deciding whether men who identify as women will be allowed to use female lavatories on the parliamentary estate.
This decision comes after a landmark Supreme Court ruling in April clarified that the protected characteristic of 'sex' under the Equality Act 2010 refers specifically to biological sex, not gender identity.
The ruling, which was welcomed by the government, permits organisations to restrict access to single-sex facilities—such as toilets and changing rooms—if doing so is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
In response, many workplaces and institutions have updated their policies, requiring staff to use facilities that match their birth sex. The House of Commons has opted for a more cautious approach.
A spokesperson told The Epoch Times that the House is reviewing available facilities and offering support to staff, but will hold off on making changes until further guidance is issued.
'Like many organisations, we are awaiting full guidance from the EHRC on this issue. However, in advance of that, we are reviewing the facilities that are available on the estate and providing support to colleagues where needed. We are committed to treating all those who work in or visit Parliament with respect, and in an inclusive manner.'
Related Stories
4/16/2025
5/1/2025
Maya Forstater, chief executive of the women's rights group Sex Matters,
'If one institution in the country should show leadership in following the rule of law, it's the one where the law is made,' she said on social media platform X.
EHRC Interim Guidance
On April 25, the EHRC released
The EHRC also noted that offering only mixed-sex facilities could amount to indirect discrimination against women, depending on the context. It explained that while trans individuals may, in some cases, be excluded from facilities for both sexes, they must never be left without access to appropriate alternatives.
To meet these needs, the EHRC encouraged the use of lockable, single-user rooms that can be accessed by anyone, regardless of sex. These are seen as a practical and inclusive solution, especially in settings with limited space or resources.
New Code of Practice and Consultation
A more detailed version of the EHRC guidance is expected following the conclusion of a
The new guidance is intended to help organisations understand when it is lawful to offer single-sex or mixed-sex services, and how to do so in a way that balances rights fairly.
However, the short consultation period has drawn criticism. LGBT advocacy group Stonewall said the timeline is too tight to allow a meaningful and lawful response.
'It will not allow people – including businesses, service providers, charities and individuals – to understand its potentially wide-ranging implications and provide a meaningful response,' the group said in a statement. 'It could be argued it is neither a meaningful nor lawful time frame.'
A gender neutral toilet in an office building in the City of London on Jan. 11, 2024.
Yui Mok/PA
Stonewall also urged employers to be proactive in supporting trans staff by ensuring that workplace policies are inclusive and clearly written, so that employees understand what support is available without needing to disclose personal information.
Public Response
The debate over access to toilets and other single-sex spaces continues across the UK. According to a
While most people (77 percent) believe the ruling will not affect them personally, nearly a quarter said it would, with slightly more women than men expecting to feel the effects.
In the workplace, 26 percent of those surveyed predicted a positive impact, while 20 percent expected a negative one. Expectations were even higher in sport and leisure, where 41 percent foresaw a positive impact from the ruling and 24 percent a negative one.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
It's Pride Month. Is Ohio a safe state for gay and transgender people? What new research says
Pride Month, celebrated annually in June, honors the culture and rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Americans across the nation through parades, educational events, and more. A new ranking recently released by global LGBTQ+ business platform Out Leadership reveals the most and least welcoming states for members of the LGBT community. In addition to a national overall decline, the researchers say that Ohio saw steep drops in the rankings because of laws targeting LGBTQ+ youth. Here's how Ohio ranks among LGBT-friendly states. State rankings show Ohio landing at No. 39 out of the 50 states, barely escaping the bottom 10 in the 2025 State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index from Out Leadership. Ohio scored 42.35 out of a possible 100 points. Florida came in at No. 40 with a 42.20 score. Indiana was No. 38 overall (42.67), and Kentucky scored 43.25 points to rank No. 37. The Buckeye State experienced the steepest decline out of all its neighboring Midwestern states, coming in second-last when ranked by region. The analysis also pointed to increased polarization surrounding gay and trans rights as well as a surge in bills that challenge LGBT rights like the 'Don't Say Gay' laws expanded in states like Florida, Ohio, and Texas. This is the second year that Ohio was considered one of the most unsafe states to live in as an LGBTQ+ American. The Out Leadership study scored states in five categories. Each category was worth up to 20 points toward the final score for each state. Here's how Ohio scored: Legal and nondiscrimination protection (13.75) Youth and family support (7.4) Political and religious attitudes (9.2) Health access and safety (6.0) Work environment and employment (6.0) Over the years, Ohio legislators have introduced a wave of bills surrounding the LGBT community. Ohio lawmakers have legislated several state-level bills around LGBTQ issues. Gov. Mike DeWine signed a transgender bathroom ban into law in November 2024. Similarly, DeWine signed House Bill 8, known as the "Parents' Bill of Rights," which would require teachers to notify parents about health and gender identity. The proposed House Bill 190 would require parental permission for name and pronoun changes for students. Senate Bill 132 and House Bill 61, the "Save Women's Sports Act" that pushed to ban transgender girls from playing on female sports teams in Ohio, advanced to the DeWine's desk. So did Senate Bill 50, which would ban conversion therapy for minors. In April 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court reinstated a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors under House Bill 68. "We look forward to showing once again that the Legislature acted properly in enacting this constitutional law, which protects our children from irreversible medical decisions," Attorney General Dave Yost spokesperson Bethany McCorkle said. Challenging the bill, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Harper Seldin stated, "The state's ban is discriminatory, baseless and a danger to the well-being of the same Ohio youth lawmakers claim to want to protect. It's also part of a sweeping effort to drive trans people out of public life altogether by controlling our health care, our families and our lives," the Dispatch reported. Ohio is one of 32 states with unenforceable same-sex marriage bans in laws or constitutions, despite growing support among the public. Certain bills have been introduced that support LGBT rights, such as the Ohio Fairness Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. However, these bills have not been signed into law since being introduced years ago. These 10 states scored the worst in the Out Leadership rankings. Arkansas (29.50) South Carolina (32.15) Louisiana (33.00) South Dakota (34.80) Tennessee (35.00) Mississippi (37.27) Oklahoma (37.62) Alabama (39.40) Montana (40.62) Idaho (42.07) Massachusetts (93.67) New York (93.67) Connecticut (92.27) New Jersey (90.00) Vermont (89.50) This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Is Ohio safe for gay and transgender people? What new study says
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘Why should we have to downsize?': How boomers became the victim generation
We're looking for readers in different generations to talk about change within their families, such as a grandparent and grandchild's experiences of buying their first home. To get involved, email us at money@ Baby boomers have nothing to complain about. Bumper pensions. Free university education. House prices that have gone through the roof. Some of them even got to see The Beatles. This, at least, is the idea that's caught fire over the last 20 years, a period in which the debate about inequality in Britain has been reframed as a tug-of-war between generations. Boomers – the post-war cohort born between 1946 and 1965 – are blamed for hoarding wealth after winning the economic lottery. The losers are said to be Generation Z and millennials – born between 1980 and 2009 – who face sky-high mortgages and record-breaking rents, stagnating wages, massive student debt and outrageous student loan repayments, plus an unstable jobs market. There is a stigma attached to being a 'boomer', which has become shorthand for greedy, entitled and out of touch. Boomers have been accused of 'stealing their children's futures' by taking more than their fair share. Many believe they are unfairly victimised – pilloried for their wealth, and told to downsize out of their house to make way for younger families. But are they right to feel that way? A report by the House of Commons' Women and Equalities Committee in February confirmed what many older citizens have experienced first-hand. It found 'clear evidence' of ageist stereotyping across British media, with debates about intergenerational fairness tending to pit younger and older generations against each other in a 'perceived fight for limited resources'. The report went on: 'Older people are also frequently stereotyped as wealthy 'boomers' living comfortable lives in homes they own while younger generations struggle on low incomes, unable to afford to enter the housing market and struggling with high rents.' These 'narratives', the committee said, have fuelled 'divisive and harmful tensions in society'. This resentment doesn't come from nowhere. Recent figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that boomers are by far Britain's richest cohort. The average wealth of households aged 65 to 74 is £502,500 – more than 30 times that of Gen Zs aged 16 to 24, who typically have £15,200. Boomers' wealth is also 4.6 times greater than those aged 25 to 34, who are mainly younger millennials, with £109,800. This may not seem very surprising given older people have had a lifetime to accumulate savings, homes and pensions. 'There's an extremely strong life-cycle component to wealth,' says Simon Pittaway, a senior economist at The Resolution Foundation think tank. 'Most people start working lives with very little, build it up through peak working years then run it down in retirement. 'This has been the case for a long time. But we're seeing that profile getting starker.' The gap between the generations has grown since the financial crisis, which is often blamed on the boomers, who, the argument goes, were steering the ship at the time. A Resolution Foundation study found that between 2006-08 and 2018-20, median wealth among Britons in their 60s rose by 55pc in real terms, but median wealth for those in their 30s fell by 34pc. At the same time, the share of Britain's wealth held by the under-40s has fallen from 7.5pc in 2010 to 4pc today. It's statistics like these that mean boomers are often implored to give away their hoarded wealth, or downsize into smaller properties to make room for young families. John Griffiths, 80, insists his generation is in fact supremely generous – and shouldn't be discriminated against for having done well. 'It's a gimmick in the financial media to blame the boomers,' he says. 'It's not our fault property went up the way it did in the 60s and 70s. [The house price rises] drove most of us out of London.' Griffiths was born shortly after VE Day in May 1945, putting him right on the cusp of the boomer bracket. 'I tend to count myself as one of them,' he says. After training as a chemical engineer, he spent 20 years in the gas industry and the North Sea designing and building offshore oil facilities. He went on to found his own marine energy consultancy, advising clean energy firms and governments on how to best harness the power of waves and tides. He retired five years ago at the age of 75. His successful career has allowed him to pass on lump sums totalling £500,000 to his three children, who are in their 40s and 50s and have children themselves. A large part of his financial security derives from property wealth. The house in Wimbledon that he bought with his wife Valerie in 2006 for £545,000 is now worth £1.3m. Homeowners aged 60 and over hold more than half of the nation's owner-occupied housing wealth, totalling an estimated £2.89 trillion, according to estate agents Savills. Two thirds (67pc) of homeowners aged 65 and over have two or more spare rooms in their property, even as a shortage of affordable housing prevents young families from buying their first home. The Tony Blair Institute think tank has called for larger properties to be taxed more to encourage owners to downsize. But Griffiths believes pressuring older people to vacate their homes is unfair. 'It doesn't sit well with me. I don't think older people are hoarding. They stay where they are because they're afraid of change. 'Many don't have supportive families to help them, and are stuck where they are.' Dr Jennie Bristow, a reader in sociology at Canterbury Christ Church University, traces boomer bashing back to the collapse of traditional political frameworks at the end of the 20th century. 'From the 1990s, we started trying to explain societal problems that went beyond Left and Right,' she says. 'It's still playing out now in the culture wars.' It was a time when demographic anxieties were spreading across the Western world. Ageing populations mean relatively fewer younger workers supporting the swelling ranks of elderly pensioners through the welfare system. Old-versus-young became the salient faultline. 'The narrative that emerged was that the 2008 financial crisis was due to policy decisions, and also cultural individualism, that was personified by the baby boomer generation. These are the people who are hoarding wealth and will benefit from big pensions. 'For the Right, it's an argument for restructuring the welfare state. And for the Left, it's used as a reason for more welfare and less Thatcherite individualism. It brought those two opposites together.' Bristow believes anti-boomer sentiment peaked in 2010, the year that David Willetts, a former Tory MP turned public intellectual, published an influential book called 'The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Stole Their Children's Future'. She says the tendency to blame the boomers has turned into a 'frenzy' that ignores inequalities within generational cohorts. 'The boomers associated with the 1960s generation, born straight after the war, did reap a lot of the benefits of that time. There were a lot of possibilities, economic opportunities, and they ended up with good pensions. But not everyone was part of this. It was actually quite a narrow section of society. 'Younger boomers came of age in the far more pessimistic 1970s. Yes, people got grants for university, but only 7pc of the cohort went.' Richard Merry was born in 1955, putting him right in the middle of the boomer generation. After leaving school at 16, Merry joined the armed forces, eventually becoming a member of a special army unit that sent him all over the world during a 50-year career. He has worked hard to retire three years ago in relative comfort, but acknowledges that younger generations have a tougher ride in many ways. 'People just don't earn that sort of money any more,' the 69-year-old says. 'I get a little bit sick with the boomers saying that it's young people's own fault for not getting on the property ladder.' Merry bought a three-bedroom semi-detached house in south-east London for £77,000 in 1990. It is now worth over £1m. It was easily affordable on his salary of around £32,000, equivalent to £80,000 today. 'My children, both in their 30s, work incredibly hard and lead tough lives. You simply can't compare property prices and deposits now to what they were.' But it's not all plain sailing for his generation. Care costs, for instance, are 'crucifying' the boomers, he says. His own mother's old age care cost £320,000 over three years – money that would have gone to Merry and his sister. They had to sell their mother's home to pay for it. 'All the talk is that boomers are hoarding wealth, but we're going to be skinned alive when it comes to care costs.' On tax and earnings too, it hasn't been the easiest of rides. 'People at the bottom benefitted from increases in the minimum wage, but middle earners like me have had the stuffing kicked out of them.' On the contrary, Angus Hanton, of the Intergenerational Foundation think tank, believes boomers have 'heavily rigged the game in their favour' over decades by repeatedly voting in governments that have given them a good deal. 'Boomers have fought tooth and nail to protect their interests,' he says. 'We can see that most starkly in how the tax system is structured – what's taxed heavily is earned income. Younger working people pay income tax at a high rate from a low level of earnings, plus National Insurance and student loan repayments, which is basically a tax. 'But unearned income is taxed very lightly – money in Isas and Sipps, and capital gains tax is half the rate of income tax.' Hanton, a boomer himself, rejects the idea that the focus on competing age groups squeezes out other factors from the conversation – like class, race or gender. 'Generational inequality is a really important lens and we shouldn't refuse to look through it just because there are other lenses available.' Evidence suggests that many younger people are looking at the world – and their claim on the material wealth of their elders – through this lens. Research by Moneyfarm, an investment platform, found that two in five millennials fear their parents were frittering away 'their' inheritance, while a fifth said their 'spendthrift' parents were selfish for failing to consider their children or grandchildren's economic wellbeing. Meanwhile, 61pc of Gen Z feel they have to work harder than their parents did, according to YouGov polling. The reality is that many young people will benefit indirectly from the economic success of their parents and grandparents. A much-cited report from estate agents Knight Frank found that millennials are set to become the 'richest generation in history', thanks to the steep rise in the value of property assets accumulated by the generations before them which will be passed on when they die. Yet Bristow points out that even if millennials as a group are in line for a huge windfall, the only ones who will actually benefit are those with well-off parents who rode the property wave. Boomers, too, all tend to be tarred with the same brush. 'You can look at it two ways, generationally,' she says. 'Not all older people are wealthy. So saying boomers have stolen their children's future doesn't stack up.' 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.
Epoch Times
3 hours ago
- Epoch Times
Liberals Defeated by Opposition Parties in Vote Asking for Spring Budget
A majority of MPs in the House of Commons have asked the government to table a budget or economic update this spring, in a first vote of significance lost by the minority Liberals. The vote took place on June 2, with 166 in favour and 164 opposed. Budgets are typically released in the spring, but the new government said it would be delayed until the fall.
