UCU calls for staff rights to use facilities matching gender identities
It follows the Supreme Court ruling last month 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 (EHRC) 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 toilets.
More detailed draft guidance was published last week, with a consultation period running until June 30.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'.
General secretary Jo Grady 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.
The draft EHRC code will be presented to women and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson in July (Ben Whitley/PA)
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'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New European
6 hours ago
- New European
Trump's war against the law
The earliest source is the newspaper editor and publisher Horace Greeley's book The American Conflict (1865), which reports Old Hickory's alleged declaration on the basis of a former congressman's recollection. According to Jackson's best biographer, Jon Meacham, the claim was 'historically questionable but philosophically true'. As far as historians can tell, President Andrew Jackson never uttered the threat to the chief justice that is still so frequently attributed to him. In 1832, after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Cherokee nation in Worcester v Georgia, Jackson supposedly said: 'John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.' What Jackson did say to his longtime associate, John Coffee, was: 'The decision of the Supreme Court has felt still-born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate'. All of which matters because the spirit of Jackson is now routinely invoked by the MAGA movement as Donald Trump wages a fast-escalating war with the courts. As far back as 2021, JD Vance said that his advice to his future boss would be to fire all civil servants: 'And when the courts – because you will get taken to court – and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.'' More recently, on February 9, the vice president posted on X: 'Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power'. In a podcast released on May 21, he warmed to his theme in conversation with Ross Douthat of the New York Times. 'I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people'. Chief justice John Roberts, Vance continued, was failing in his supervision of the judiciary: 'You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for. That's where we are right now.' The Democratic Party is in a state of aphasic shock, paralysed by the electoral disaster of November 5. Both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republicans, who, with a tiny number of exceptions, are craven in their obedience to Trump. That leaves journalists, a great many of whom continue, valiantly, to speak truth to power; but do so in the face of increasing intimidation and, in some cases, knowing that their proprietors have business exposure outside the media sector that makes them fearful of Trump. So – in practice – the line that stands between the republic and authoritarianism is judicial. At the time of writing, there have been 251 legal challenges to this administration, whose actions have been halted in at least 181 cases. Time and again, Trump and his senior officials have found themselves obstructed by judges from all over the country whose orders have nationwide force. As the solicitor general, D John Sauer, has complained, this means that the government has 'to win everywhere, while the plaintiffs can win anywhere'. Last Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade ruled against the president's tariff regime, finding that 'the Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises' and that 'any interpretation of IEEPA [the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act] that delegates unlimited tariff authority [to the president] is unconstitutional.' Helpfully reposting photos of the three trade court judges, Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, claimed on May 29 that 'We are living under a judicial tyranny'. A federal appeals court last week granted a suspension of the order, meaning that, for now, Trump can pursue his deranged tariff strategy, pending further legal action. On Truth Social, he posted that he hoped 'the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY.' But will it? On Friday, the highest court in the land gave the administration interim approval to revoke a Biden-era humanitarian programme to grant temporary residency to more than 500,000 migrants facing political turmoil or warfare. This 'humanitarian parole' system is intended to help people from countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba and Haiti. On May 19, the supreme court also gave emergency approval to the government to lift the separate 'Temporary Protected Status' from nearly 350,000 Venezuelan migrants. The case is still subject to appeal. But immigration officials may now proceed with mass deportation – perhaps to the Salvadoran gulag. Yet the president and his allies remain furious with the general response of the judiciary to MAGA's egregious 'remigration' plan. On April 7, the supreme court ruled that the government must give 'constitutionally adequate notice' to individuals before their removal under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act; 12 days later, it intervened again, this time in the middle of the night, to block deportations of Venezuelans from Texas under the same antiquated legislation. The court has also ruled that the administration must 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the 29-year-old migrant who had been living in Maryland for 13 years, sent back to El Salvador after what the government has admitted was an 'administrative error'. In this case, as in many others, Trump and his team have opted for what the US legal scholars Leah Litman and Daniel Deacon refer to aptly as 'legalistic noncompliance': quibbling over what 'facilitate' means precisely, resorting to pedantry and slow-walking action mandated by the courts. With characteristic indifference to the responsibilities of his office – not to mention the oath that he took – the president himself has become an expert in non-expertise, claiming to have insufficient legal knowledge to offer an opinion on even the most basic juristic questions. Asked on NBC's Meet the Press on May 4 whether citizens and non-citizens alike deserved due process, Trump said, 'I don't know. I'm not, I'm not a lawyer.' Pressed by Kristen Welker on the substance of the Fifth Amendment which refers to the rights of the 'person', the president replied: 'It might say that – but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or two million or three million trials.' In an interview with the Atlantic to mark the first 100 days of his second presidency, Trump insisted that he would abide by any supreme court ruling – but went on to complain that 'we have some judges that are very, very tough. I believe you could have a 100% case – in other words, a case that's not losable – and you will lose violently. Some of these judges are really unfair.' His language was less restrained in a special Memorial Day post on Truth Social in which he attacked 'JUDGES WHO ARE ON A MISSION TO KEEP MURDERERS, DRUG DEALERS, RAPISTS, GANG MEMBERS, AND RELEASED PRISONERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, IN OUR COUNTRY SO THEY CAN ROB, MURDER AND RAPE AGAIN – ALL PROTECTED BY THESE USA HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY'. Which shows that this is a temperamental as well as a constitutional clash. Trump demands instant gratification; the courts exist to deliberate. This incompatibility is now becoming perilous for the republic. Miller, meanwhile, has said that the administration is 'actively looking' at suspending habeas corpus for migrants – the individual's fundamental legal right to challenge his or her detention. In this context, it is worth noting that Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, revealed in a senate committee hearing on May 20 that she completely misunderstood this most basic legal doctrine, defining it as 'a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.' Even more revealing was what Miller went on to say: 'Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.' In other words, the government will abide by judges' decisions – as long as they do what the administration wants. Suggested Reading Why do they hate us so much? Jay Elwes In Federalist No 78 (1788), Alexander Hamilton, writing as 'Publius', expressed fears that have rarely seemed more pertinent. The judiciary, he said, was by far the weakest of the three supposedly co-equal branches of government (the other two being the executive and the legislature); having 'no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment'. What were once abstract issues for constitutionalists to debate in the lecture hall are now all too practical and menacing. To start with, Mike Johnson, the House speaker, threatened in March to use the congressional 'power of funding' to 'eliminate an entire district court'. Founded in 2019, the Article III Project (A3P) mobilises thousands of phone calls, emails and social media messages to members of Congress to back Trump against the judiciary and is supporting bills introduced by senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and representative Darrell Issa of California to stop federal district judges from issuing nationwide court orders. More alarming is the surge in outright intimidation of the judiciary. Since Trump's return, unexplained pizza deliveries have been made to federal judges and their families – a way of telling them that their enemies know where they live. Deplorably, many have been made under the name of Daniel Anderl, the son of a federal judge who was murdered in 2020 while protecting his parents from a furious litigant. Judges considered hostile to Trump have also been 'swatted', where a hoax call is made to summon a SWAT team to a particular address – in the hope that heavily armed police officers, following procedure, will inadvertently traumatise whoever is at the location in question. On April 25, Hannah Dugan, a Wisconsin circuit court judge, was arrested and has now been indicted for allegedly assisting an undocumented immigrant in evading arrest. On Friday, 138 former judges filed a legal argument warning that Dugan's indictment 'threatens to undermine centuries of precedent on judicial immunity, crucial for an effective judiciary.' Pam Bondi, the attorney general, takes a different view. 'The [judges] are deranged is all I can think of,' she said on the day of Dugan's arrest. I think some of these judges think that they are beyond and above the law. They are not, and we are sending a very strong message today. If you are harbouring a fugitive, we will come after you and we will prosecute you. We will find you.' Most shocking of all are the formal discussions among senior judges, revealed by the Wall Street Journal, about forming their own armed security force. At present, the Supreme Court is protected by a special police service which it also oversees; other courts, in contrast, deploy US marshals. Notionally, these officers have a statutory duty to follow the judiciary's instructions. In practice, they work for the Department of Justice, and therefore for Bondi. What, in practice, would happen if the Trump administration flagrantly defied the Supreme Court? Thanks to the court's own landmark ruling last July, the president himself enjoys immunity; he could also pardon officials accused of criminal contempt. Another option is civil contempt, which seeks to enforce future compliance (the person in contempt of this kind is said to 'hold the keys to his own cell'). The advantage here is that the courts can deputise other agencies to enforce their rulings. But which agencies, precisely? Which, in this climate of fear, would be willing to risk retribution from MAGA? Chief Justice Roberts is an 'institutionalist' which means that his highest allegiance is to the preservation of the system that protects the constitution. In the words of his biographer Joan Biskupic, 'he elevated the institutional integrity of the Court above all'. And, to be fair to Roberts, he wrote in his most recent end-of-year report: 'Within the past few years… elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the spectre of open disregard for federal court rulings'. When Trump posted in March that a judge frustrating his deportation plan 'should be IMPEACHED!', the chief justice issued a direct rebuke, declaring that this was 'not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.' Yet it is precisely this value-system that may deter Roberts from a direct confrontation with the president. For the institutionalist, the prospect of the Supreme Court appearing impotent before an autocratic president is intolerable. Paradoxically, because such a defeat would shatter his worldview, he will postpone the moment of reckoning as long as he possibly can. But he cannot do so indefinitely. High Noon is approaching, and only one of the gunfighters – president or Supreme Court – can prevail. The outcome of that contest depends on a question of global consequence: whether the US remains, as it has long been, a nation of laws; or becomes something altogether more dangerous.
Daily Mail
7 hours ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Major development in Samantha Murphy case after mother-of-three disappeared while on a run
A trial date has been set for the alleged murder of Samantha Murphy, a Ballarat mother who disappeared on her morning run. Accused murderer Patrick Orren Stephenson, 23, is set to face a Supreme Court trial on April 8, 2026. The trial is expected to last about six weeks. Pre-trial arguments for the prosecution and defence are likely to begin as early as November, 2025. Stephenson has pleaded not guilty to Ms Murphy's alleged murder. Ms Murphy, a mother of three, vanished after going for a run on February 4, 2024, through the Canadian State Forest in regional Victoria. Despite numerous police and volunteer searches, her body has never been found. More to come...
The Sun
9 hours ago
- The Sun
White working-class kids have been betrayed. It's not racist to say it, it's the truth & Labour have finally admitted it
AT long last, a senior Labour politician has said it out loud: White working class kids are being failed by our education system, and it's a national scandal. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson did not mince her words, saying: 'Across attendance, attainment and life chances, white working class children and those with special educational needs do exceptionally poorly. 4 'Put simply, these children have been betrayed — left behind in society's rear-view mirror. They are children whose interests too many politicians have simply discarded.' Hear hear! Finally this Labour government has admitted what most of Westminster has been too afraid to say for years. Phillipson has now launched an inquiry into why white working-class children are being left behind in schools. For years, I've been banging on about this, much to the fury of the Black Lives Matter brigade and race-hustling grifters. Yes, for too long, it was people like me — a black, female, immigrant — who were blocked from getting on in Britain. But that's simply not the case any more. It's poor white kids now getting utterly shafted. The Conservatives never got to grips with the issue. Labour ignored it completely, terrified of being branded racist. But now, even they can't deny the uncomfortable truth. Shocking new Government analysis shows that in 1,228 schools in England where more than 20 per cent of pupils are both white British and disadvantaged, 21 see those pupils performing better than average. Farage promised an earthquake & he delivered - Labour are badly bruised & Tories face being brushed aside as opposition Not 21 per cent, 21 schools. In other words, if you're a poor white kid in one of England's classrooms, you're screwed. This is a national emergency. And the only thing worse than the problem is how long politicians have ignored it. The data has been screaming at us for years. In the 2022 to 2023 school year, only 36 per cent of white British pupils on free school meals got a grade 4 (equivalent to a C), or above, in English and maths at GCSE. For black pupils, it was 56 per cent. For Asian pupils, 62 per cent. So much for white privilege! If you're a white working class boy, your outlook is even bleaker. Since the pandemic, the number of young men who are NEET (not in education, employment, or training) has soared by 40 per cent. For young women, the rise was seven per cent. And where do these young lads end up? Often jobless and on benefits. In towns like Grimsby and Birkenhead, where over half the working-age population is on out-of-work benefits, many kids are now fourth, fifth, even sixth-generation unemployed. And those are the lucky ones. Others end up in prison or six feet under. The male suicide rate in England and Wales in 2023 hit its highest point since 1999 — a tragic figure. We've rightly spent decades trying to level the playing field for ethnic minorities. Great. But where is the national mission to lift up the forgotten white working class kids of Britain, especially the boys? The industries that once gave these lads pride, purpose, and a decent wage — manufacturing, skilled trades, construction — have been gutted. Big blunder In 1970, those sectors made up around 40 per cent of the UK economy. Today? Just 16 per cent. And nothing meaningful has replaced them. Meanwhile, politicians keep banging on about ' jobs of the future', as if everyone is a middle-class graduate. They tell us the future belongs to data scientists and AI engineers. Fantastic — if you've got three A-levels and a degree, that is. But what if you barely have two GCSEs to rub together? So yes, Phillipson is right to sound the alarm. But that's not enough. If Labour think a new inquiry will solve this, they are kidding themselves. We've had more reviews than these poor white kids have had free school meals. Labour's last big blunder, when they were previously in power, was pushing every young person into university. A generation of students are now loaded with debt for degrees they didn't need. This time, they have a chance to do something meaningful for the kids who need it most. The Government's £165million skills boost and new technical excellence colleges are welcome, but unless this investment zeroes in on neglected poor white communities, it'll barely scratch the surface. We need root-and-branch overhaul of how schools teach disadvantaged kids. Education is in a state of disaster in this country: Severe absence rates are at record highs, according to the Centre for Social Justice thinktank, teachers are striking because behaviour is at rock bottom, and almost one in three parents no longer think kids even need to be at school every day, according to a YouGov poll for the CSJ. Poor white kids are falling through the cracks of a system crippled by political correctness and low expectations. We've made a national effort to support ethnic minorities — now we must do the same for these kids. = It's not racist to say it, it's the truth. TOUGH JOB FOR ARMY THE Government is pledging billions to make the UK 'war-fighting ready' and the Army 'ten times more lethal'. Good luck with that! Most young men today can't last ten minutes without checking TikTok – and certainly wouldn't survive a day on the battlefield. Army numbers have been tanking for years. There's no queue of eager recruits, and there isn't going to be any time soon. We've spent years telling young men to ditch 'masculine' stuff, pushing them out of 'proper jobs' and into lecture theatres, while teaching them Britain is the world's biggest villain. Why would they want to fight for it? If the Army is hoping for a new generation of tough lads, it will be waiting a long time. World Boxing pulling no punches on Khelif at last FINALLY, a knockout win for women's sport. Algerian boxer Imane Khelif has been banned from competing in any World Boxing event until they get a sex screening to show they are female. 4 This comes after a leaked medical report appeared to show that Khelif is male. Shocking? Hardly. Anyone with eyes could see Khelif had high testosterone levels, which made it completely unfair to fight a biological woman. Putting female boxers in the ring with people who may be male isn't 'inclusive', it is insanity. JK Rowling nailed it: 'It's a win for women because they won't be battered to death in the ring by men.' She's right. Women's sport exists so women can compete safely and fairly, not so men with a hormone loophole can dominate the podium. Hats off to World Boxing for finally finding their courage. Genetic sex testing is coming in, and not a moment too soon. MADDIE A MUST GERMAN police are investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance. And predictably, some on X are losing their minds: 'Why are they still bothering?', they shout. But I'm happy to live in a world that doesn't give up on missing children. Madeleine's case was a high-profile kidnapping with possible links to paedophiles and unanswered leads nearly 20 years on. If it were their child, these online trolls would be begging police to keep searching. The millions spent since 2007 – and the Met was given a further £108,000 for the probe, known as Operation Grange, in April – may seem a lot. But if it helps solve one of the most chilling child disappearances in history, it's worth every penny. Delighted sense won for Jodie's lemurs BEING emotionally invested in Jodie Marsh's legal battle over lemurs was not on my 2025 bingo card, but here we are. Who'd have thought the former lads' mag star would become Essex's unexpected champion of endangered primates? 4 Yet it's the local council that has gone bananas, trying to evict her lemurs over a bit of jungle noise. Thankfully, the judge saw sense and said claims the lemurs were a nuisance were unfounded. He ruled they could stay in her private animal sanctuary. Now Uttlesford District Council has to fork out £20,000 in costs to Jodie for wasting everyone's time. Good for Jodie, I say!
