Universities should defy law on lavatories for trans people, says union
Universities should defy the Supreme Court ruling on lavatories for transgender people, a union has said.
The University and College Union has said transgender women should be allowed to use women's facilities and transgender men should be allowed to use the men's lavatories.
Its congress voted to 'stand shoulder to shoulder with the trans community' after the Supreme Court last month ruled that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
In the wake of the ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission issued interim guidance, saying trans women 'should not be permitted to use the women's facilities' in workplaces or public-facing services like shops and hospitals, with the same applying for trans men using men's lavatories.
More detailed draft guidance was published last week, with a consultation period running until June 30.
The guidance says people can be asked to confirm their birth sex so long as it is 'necessary and proportionate for a service provider, those exercising public functions or an association to know an individual's birth sex to be able to discharge their legal obligations'.
It cautions that any such question 'should be done in a sensitive way which does not cause discrimination or harassment'.
The University and College Union (UCU), which is the UK's largest post-16 education union and represents more than 120,000 education staff, held its congress on Monday where delegates backed four motions committing the union to 'fight back against unprecedented attacks on trans people's human rights'.
Jo Grady, the union's general secretary, said: 'Our congress has once again committed our union to stand shoulder to shoulder with the trans community in the fight for equality.
'This year trans people have suffered a wave of attacks against them, but UCU remains steadfast as one of their most vocal allies.
'We refuse to allow trans people to be the collateral of a Right-wing culture war and while they continue to experience violence at home, in the workplace and on the airwaves, we will stand by them.'
As a result of one of the motions, the UCU has resolved to call on employers to support the right for staff to use the gendered spaces appropriate to them, saying that the Supreme Court ruling contradicts the current practices that allow this at most post-16 institutions.
As part of the motion the congress also committed to issuing a statement to members and on social media platforms 'expressing concern' at the ruling and 'reaffirming our steadfast commitment to defending trans people', and to call on employers to develop and implement trans-inclusive policies 'as a matter of urgency'.
Another motion criticised the Government's 'decision to ignore the damning critiques' of the Cass Review, and in its wake the union will write to the Health Secretary condemning the report's findings and methods.
Published last year, the review concluded children had been let down by a lack of research and evidence on medical interventions in gender care, which led to NHS England announcing a new plan which requires new referrals into the clinics to have been seen by a GP and mental health specialist or paediatrician first.
The UCU will also advocate for healthcare that 'affirms and values' trans people in its letter to Wes Streeting as it criticised the ban on the supply of puberty blockers for young trans people – which was made permanent in December and which means they are not prescribed on the NHS to children for the treatment of gender dysphoria.
Plans remain in place to set up a clinical trial into the use of puberty blockers this year, although no patients have yet been recruited while ethical and regulatory approval is awaited.
Two motions were concerned with the actions of US president Donald Trump's administration, with one condemning its 'concerted attacks upon trans people'.
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Haste Begets Lawlessness
Last week, a federal court ruled that President Donald Trump had exceeded his statutory authority by imposing a raft of tariffs based on the "national emergency" supposedly caused by the longstanding U.S. trade deficit. Those tariffs are part of an alarming pattern: In his rush to enact his agenda, Trump frequently treats legal constraints as inconveniences that can be overridden by executive fiat. The U.S. Court of International Trade rejected Trump's reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify sweeping import taxes he announced in February and April. The three-judge panel said that 48-year-old law, which does not even mention tariffs and had never been used this way before, does not authorize the president to "impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world." That decision did not affect tariffs that Trump has imposed or proposed under different statutes, such as his taxes on cars, steel, and aluminum. But by invoking the IEEPA, Trump hoped to avoid the specific rationales and sometimes lengthy procedures those laws mandate. Trump's immigration crackdown features similar legal shortcuts. After he asserted the power to summarily deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang as "alien enemies," for example, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they had a due process right to contest that designation. That decision did not address Trump's dubious interpretation of the 227-year-old Alien Enemies Act. But several federal judges, including a Trump appointee, subsequently concluded that it made no sense to portray gang members as "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects" of a "hostile nation or government" that had launched an "invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States." As with tariffs, Trump had a more legally defensible option: deportation of unauthorized residents under the Immigration and Nationality Act. But in both cases, he chose the course he thought would avoid pesky procedural requirements. Something similar happened when Immigration and Customs Enforcement suddenly terminated thousands of records in the database of foreign students with visas authorizing them to attend American universities. Although that move was described as part of a "Student Criminal Alien Initiative," it affected many people without disqualifying criminal records—in some cases, without any criminal records at all. Those terminations "reflect an instinct that has become prevalent in our society to effectuate change: move fast and break things," U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White wrote when he issued a preliminary injunction against the initiative on May 22. "That instinct must be checked when it conflicts with established principles of law." The same instinct is apparent in Trump's conflict with Harvard University. The administration froze more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard, ostensibly because the university, by tolerating antisemitism on campus, had failed to meet its "responsibility to uphold civil rights laws." That decision ignored the legal process for rescinding federal funding based on such alleged violations. The process includes "a lot of steps, but they're important," the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression notes. "They protect students by making sure colleges live up to their obligations. And they protect colleges by making sure they have an opportunity to contest the allegations as well as a chance to make things right." Trump's disregard for the law is coupled with angry dismay at judicial review. As he sees it, any judge who dares to impede his will is a "Radical Left Lunatic," a "troublemaker" and "agitator" who "should be IMPEACHED!!!" After the tariff ruling, a White House spokesman argued that the court charged with interpreting and applying trade laws had no business doing that. "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency," he insisted. Contrary to that take, "it is emphatically the province and duty" of the judicial branch to "say what the law is," as Chief Justice John Marshall put it 222 years ago. Especially when the executive branch is headed by someone who does not seem to care. © Copyright 2025 by Creators Syndicate Inc. The post Trump's Haste Begets Lawlessness appeared first on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
El Salvador convicts army officers for 1982 killing of 4 Dutch journalists
Three former officers in El Salvador's military have been convicted for the killings of four Dutch journalists during the Central American country's brutal civil war in 1982. Former Minister of National Defence Colonel Jose Guillermo Garcia, 91, former police Colonel Francisco Moran, 93, and ex-infantry brigade commander Colonel Mario Adalberto Reyes Mena, 85, were found guilty late on Tuesday by a jury in the northern city of Chalatenango, a lawyer said. The Diario El Salvador news outlet reported that the three former officers – none of whom was present in court – were sentenced to 15 years in prison each for the killings. The four Dutch journalists, Koos Koster, Jan Kuiper, Hans ter Laag and Joop Willemsen, were killed while filming a television documentary on El Salvador's civil war, which saw an estimated 75,000 civilians killed – mostly by United States-backed government security forces – between 1980 and 1992. The journalists had linked up with leftist rebels and planned to spend several days behind the front lines reporting on the war. But Salvadoran soldiers armed with assault rifles and machineguns ambushed them and the rebels. 'We have clearly shown the level of responsibility of the accused,' said Oscar Perez, a lawyer for the Foundation Comunicandonos, which represents the victims. 'The entire organised power structure that intervened in the political-military decisions that led to the murder of the journalists,' he said. A United Nations-sponsored Truth Commission in 1993 found that the journalists had walked into an ambush trap that was planned by Reyes, who still lives in the US, and with the knowledge of other officers. The Salvadoran Supreme Court approved an extradition request for Reyes in March, but there has been no progress in his return from the US so far. The ageing Garcia and Moran are under police surveillance in a private hospital in the capital, San Salvador. García was deported from the US in 2016, after a US judge declared him responsible for serious human rights violations during the early years of the war between the military and the leftist Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front fighters. The prosecution of the men was reopened in 2018 after the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a general amnesty passed following the end of the civil war. The case against the suspects moved slowly, but in March 2022, relatives of the victims and representatives of the Dutch government as well as the European Union demanded that those responsible for the journalists' killing face trial.
Epoch Times
2 hours ago
- Epoch Times
Trump Administration Removes Hospital Guidance on Emergency Abortions
The Trump administration announced that it was ending Biden-era guidance that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions for women across the country. Issued in 2022, the guidance was an effort to preserve abortion access nationwide for women in extreme cases in the wake of the Supreme Court issuing the Dobbs Decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned rulemaking on abortion back to the state level.
