Citizens Advice Scotland in trans rights row over bathroom change
Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) staff told staff last month that the charity would be enforcing a policy of 'male only' and 'female only' toilets on the basis of sex assigned at birth, according to an email seen by The Ferret.
CAS's chief executive, Derek Mitchell, reportedly said in the email, sent May 6, that the charity was bound by 'legal constraints' following the landmark ruling by the UK Supreme Court in April on how sex should be interpreted under the Equality Act 2010.
The ruling stated that, under the Equality Act 2010, the definition of 'woman' refers to 'biological sex', a decision gender critical campaigners claimed had brought 'clarity on the law'.
READ MORE: Labour MPs visit Israel on lobbying trip in middle of Gaza genocide
However, legal experts have pointed out that the ruling on the definition of 'man' and 'woman' relates to the 2010 Equality Act only, while campaign groups have also raised concerns over the interpretation of the ruling.
Mitchell said the decision to enforce male and female-only bathrooms was in response to the ruling and subsequent interim 'guidance' offered by the UK's human rights regulator, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
CAS's chief executive reportedly clarified that a separate single-occupancy bathroom would also be available 'for any colleague'.
'As an employer, CAS is required to comply with the law, and we need to ensure our practices and policies reflect current legal standards,' Mitchell said.
'This is not an expression of any view on the High Court ruling, it is our legal obligation as an employer.'
Mitchell reportedly sent a second update two days later acknowledging the upset that had been caused due to the decision, but doubled down on claims that the charity was bound by the law to introduce changes.
The decision has left staff at CAS feeling hurt, afraid, disappointed, and concerned by Mitchell's claim that the decision had been taken out of the charity's hands by legal changes, The Ferret reported.
A spokesperson for CAS said they recognised 'this issue touches on deeply personal experiences and we will continue to monitor and review our approach should guidance change'.
Lawyers and campaigners have said that the EHRC's update was neither intended as formal guidance nor legally binding, and therefore gives employers options on how they proceed.
One staff member at CAS claimed neither the trade union nor the equality, diversity and inclusion committee were consulted ahead of the decision, according to The Ferret.
Another staff member told The Ferret how CAS had built its workplace culture around inclusion and dignity, and that this policy change was effectively a 'slap in the face'.
'It's almost like it's polluted my work,' said one staff member.
'Because obviously when we consult, we're very respectful of any kind of pronouns. So I would like to think that we would treat our colleagues the same, and that the attitude from management would be the same.'
Another said the decision to put this out 'without going through proper channels to make sure that the information that he's putting in there is correct' made them feel 'less safe within the organisation'.
The Good Law Project have raised concerns since the ruling by the UK Supreme Court over how it is interpreted and whether or not it will impact other legislation that governs access to toilets and changing rooms in the workplace.
Jen Ang, a human rights lawyer and director of legal firm Lawmanity, was shown the leaked emails by The Ferret.
She said: 'The Supreme Court decision does not require employers to provide only separate toilets for men and women – it only clarified the meaning of 'sex' for purposes of the Equality Act and in so doing, shifted our understanding of what is required if single sex, mixed sex or only sex facilities are being provided by an employer.
'Employers must consider a range of factors in deciding what toilet facilities to provide, and be prepared to justify their decisions.'
She claimed companies or charities that restricted access to some facilities on the basis of a protected characteristic like sex or gender reassignment without being able to justify the decision as a 'proportionate means to a legitimate aim', may be open to legal challenge in the future.
READ MORE: Police issue statement after Scottish men killed in Spain shooting
'This is a good reason why organisations should start early with good faith efforts to gather the information they will need to make these decisions,' Ang added.
'By engaging with staff and service users to understand their requirements – and also why clear and practical guidance and support is urgently needed from our UK equalities and human rights regulators, and from our national governments.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
20 hours ago
- The National
Supreme Court's sex ruling faces legal tests – will they succeed?
Starmer's view was echoed by Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson, who described the ruling as 'crystal clear' and stressed the need for 'services that are safe and appropriate and respect [everyone's] privacy and dignity'. But what was billed as legal clarity has created 'greater confusion as to what this now means in practice,' Dr Alexander Maine of City Law School, University of London, told the Sunday National. For example, guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) states that trans men must use women's toilets – from which they could be excluded for looking too much like a man. But they also cannot be left with nowhere to go. The question of which toilets trans people can use has become a battleground (Image: Pixabay) Dr Damian Gonzalez-Salzberg, an associate professor at the University of Birmingham Law School, said the guidance 'seems to go beyond what the Supreme Court has said, or at least it might not have taken the whole picture into consideration'. The guidance now faces multiple legal challenges, with allegations that it misreads the ruling, exceeds the law, and violates human rights. Rather than ending the debate on trans rights and single-sex spaces, it has triggered three court cases – pushing the issue back into litigation and the media spotlight. Challenge one: Good Law Project and human rights. THE first, a wide-reaching legal challenge, is being brought by the Good Law Project. The group has taken legal action against both the EHRC and Phillipson, the Equalities Minister, over allegations that the guidance on the Supreme Court case breaches the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Dr Maine explained that the core argument looked back to a crucial case for gender law in the UK: Goodwin 2002. This held that the 'UK was in breach of its obligations to uphold trans people's human rights, specifically the right to marry under Article 12 [of the ECHR], and the right to a private and family life,' he said. The case led directly to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA). Dr Maine said that, given the legalisation of gay marriage across the UK since 2002, the argument under Article 12 would no longer hold weight – but the right to privacy under Article 8 could prove crucial. READ MORE: Kelly Given: Defining women by our biology alone is chilling 'It may be that because trans people will effectively be outed if they have to use single-sex spaces that they do not appear to adhere to – for instance, a trans woman using a male space – that might go against their right to privacy,' Dr Maine said. Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg said Good Law Project's argument was 'very careful' and relied on European jurisprudence. 'They suggest that it was the EHRC that misunderstood the court,' he explained. 'So that's the first ground that they're proposing – your guidance is or will be in breach of human rights if implemented because you're misreading what the law is. 'Then the second argument is, OK, if you are reading this correctly, it's still a breach of human rights, actually. They focus on what the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence has been regarding trans rights. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg'This is a very, very lengthy jurisprudence that goes from the early 1980s … That jurisprudence has got to a point which is very clear that trans people have the right to live their lives in their acquired gender, which this guidance does not seem to allow you to do when, well, you don't even know where you can pee.' Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg further argued that there could be a case under Article 14 of the ECHR, which prohibits discrimination 'on any ground'. He said: 'If you're taking certain measures, you are affecting this group quite heavily, and that's one of the problems with the EHRC guidance. They said, OK, if you have mixed toilets, this might be indirect discrimination against women because women might be put in a disadvantaged situation by this general policy. 'They're not saying the same regarding trans people, and that is worrying. If you have a policy that trans people cannot use their gender's toilets, well, this will put them in a disadvantaged situation.' He added that Article 8 and Article 14 therefore represented 'two strong arguments to be made as to human rights of trans people'. Challenge two: Liberty and the consultation period. NINE days after the Supreme Court's ruling on sex, the EHRC issued its 'interim guidance' telling firms and public bodies how it should be interpreted. At the same time, it opened a two-week consultation period to advise on permanent guidance which is due to follow later this year. After concerns were raised, the EHRC extended this to a six-week consultation. However, human rights group Liberty launched a legal action calling this 'wholly insufficient'. Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg pointed to case law from the High Court, which in January ruled that an eight-week consultation period for £3 billion cuts to incapacity benefits was too short for such major changes. The door to the UK Supreme Court in London (Image: Archive)The academic further said that the EHRC was in danger of making the same mistake as the Supreme Court and excluding the voices of those most impacted – trans people. 'If you only get six weeks, you're really restricting the possibility of people intervening," Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg said. "Especially when you consider the claims about how trans people were not really listened to in the Supreme Court's case. For the EHRC now to repeat this sort of mistake seems quite serious.' However, on Friday the High Court dismissed Liberty's claim, with Mr Justice Swift saying: 'There is no 12-week rule. The requirements of fairness are measured in specifics and context is important. 'I am not satisfied that it is arguable that the six-week consultation period that the EHRC has chosen to use is unfair." Challenge three: The European Court of Human Rights. AS things stand, there is less information available about the third legal challenge against the UK's new rules on sex and gender. However, Dr Victoria McCloud, who was the first openly trans judge in the UK before stepping down in 2024, has made clear her intention to challenge the Supreme Court's decision at the European Court of Human Rights. In the wake of the ruling in April, Dr McCloud told the BBC that she felt it breached her human rights and left her with the legal "nonsense" of being "two sexes at once". Inset: Trans judge Dr Victoria McCloud (Image: NQ) Dr McCloud also raised concerns that trans people had not been heard during the Supreme Court's deliberations on the biological sex ruling. "Trans people were wholly excluded from this court case," she told the BBC. "I applied to be heard. Two of us did. We were refused.' Dr Gonzalez-Salzberg said the ruling would 'have a very strong detrimental impact on trans people'. 'It's already having that and that is clearly problematic, and in many ways also because trans people were in a very definitive way excluded from properly being heard in the ruling, which makes the situation even, even worse.' There is a clear pattern behind the three legal cases – trans people believe they were not listened to in a ruling which directly impacted their lives. Instead, they will make themselves heard in court.
BBC News
a day ago
- BBC News
Trans former judge says Supreme Court gender ruling risks lives
The UK's only judge to ever publicly say they are transgender has told the BBC she is concerned the Supreme Court's ruling on biological sex puts lives at risk and fears "someone's going to get killed" because of Victoria McCloud is planning to take the government to the European Court of Human Rights over the April ruling, which said a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities led to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issuing new interim guidance to services and businesses on access to public facilities, such as toilets and changing Forstater, of campaign group Sex Matters, said Dr McCloud's comments were "alarmism". Speaking to Laura Kuenssberg on Newscast, the BBC's daily news podcast, Dr McCloud said: "This incident is putting lives at risk. I can't go out to the pub now, for example. It might not be the be all and end all of life but I am a lawyer."I've got to use the men's loos in a south London pub with a bunch of blokes who are drunk. I mean, come on. That's now government policy. Someone's going to get killed."Dr McCloud said she agreed with an argument put forward by "the gender critical ideological movement" that it is "risky" or "at least rather intimidating" to have a space designated for women, such as a changing room, that is occupied by men."But that applies to me too," she to the full Newscast interview on BBC Sounds"That danger is all the more if it is not going to be me and a bunch of women and one man, instead it's me - one woman - in an entirely male space in a drunk pub."That's absolutely clearly dangerous."Ms Forstater said: "Women have already been assaulted and many, many are self-excluding because of the policy Dr McCloud endorses of allowing men to self-identify into women's toilets, showers and changing rooms."Where's the concern for the female half of the population who need privacy, safety and dignity?"If McCloud isn't comfortable using male-only spaces, then there are usually gender-neutral options available. This is irresponsible alarmism."In the wake of the unanimous Supreme Court judgement, Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson, speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme in April, stopped short of explicitly saying trans women should use the men's toilets. She said: "The ruling was clear that provisions and services should be accessed on the basis of biological sex."Pushed further for clarification on whether a trans woman should use the men's or women's toilets, she repeated: "The ruling is clear."The EHRC has already suggested trans people should use their "powers of advocacy" to campaign for so-called third spaces that are gender-neutral to avoid these sorts of Minister Sir Keir Starmer said in April the ruling gave "much-needed clarity" for those drawing up guidance."We need to move and make sure that we now ensure that all guidance is in the right place according to that judgement."A woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear."Dr McCloud moved to Ireland after leaving her job as a judge last year and says she visits the UK only on essential said she is going to challenge the Supreme Court judgement at the ECHR, arguing the court did not hear from trans people before its ruling, and therefore breached her human Supreme Court did consider arguments on trans issues from the human rights campaign group Amnesty International, but not from exclusively trans activists.
The Independent
a day ago
- The Independent
‘We are disappearing': Britain's first trans judge on Supreme Court defeat – and why she's challenging it
I don't think any lawyer would have expected that outcome,' says Britain's first trans judge about the Supreme Court ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex, rather than gender. It means trans women – including those with a gender recognition certificate (GCR) – can be excluded from single-sex spaces for women, such as changing rooms and medical services. 'I wasn't expecting the trans community to lose,' admits Dr Victoria McCloud, who was publicly promoted as a symbol of the modern judiciary's diversity. April's bombshell ruling leaves Britain 'not much better than countries that criminalise trans people', she says. Dr McCloud believes her rights as one of the 8,000 people to have legally changed the sex on their birth certificate have been violated under Article Six of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 'It literally changed my legal sex for discrimination purposes, overnight,' she says. The ruling states sex is binary 'but it has actually created a situation where I am two sexes at once, which is a bit peculiar … for the purposes of the Equality Act, I am male, but for the purposes of everything else I'm female, so if I have to tick a box on a form, I don't know what box to tick.' It is for these reasons that, along with a team, she plans to take the UK government to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It is not a decision taken lightly, as she expects the ECHR could take six years just to decide the case and, even if she is successful, change would not come automatically. 'If you win, all you get is a declaration that the country's breached your human rights.' The Supreme Court ruling was seen as a victory by the gender critical side; it was campaign group For Women Scotland that brought the case after first challenging the definition of a woman back in 2022. For the trans community and its allies, it is seen as a huge rollback in rights, an outcome that Dr McCloud hoped to avoid. She notes that there were no trans voices heard in the case, even though she relinquished her role as a judge in order to apply last year to intervene in the case (but wasn't allowed to, and wasn't given a reason why). 'I think it becomes embarrassing to law, to have a situation where essentially the people who are the most affected in human rights terms don't actually have any voice at any stage.' Now living in Ireland – which she describes as a 'much safer place' where she can 'go down the pub and no one cares what loo I go to' – she says hearing the Supreme Court ruling was like 'watching a car crash from a distance'. 'My own country has left me as much as I've left my own country. The distance enables you to cushion yourself from a shock, whereas I think a lot of people in the UK are still bewildered and numb from the shock. I'm in an interesting position in that I'm sort of leading this [campaign] and yet I'm in exile.' To Dr McCloud, the dispersal of trans people means 'we are just quietly disappearing'. It's in the physical sense, as trans people are leaving the UK, but also metaphorically as trans rights are being erased at pace both in the UK, the US and around the world. Returning to London for a visit feels like a 'special mission', she says, because she feels unable to use toilets in the airport and instead has to reach where she is staying. 'It now does feel palpably different as soon as you hit the ground [in the UK].' To help other trans people, especially those who do not want to be outed, Dr McCloud has created the Trans Exile Network (TEN), which can be joined by request through her LinkedIn page. 'It's a group of trans, non-binary and intersex people (along with their families) who want to get out,' she explains. 'It's a private group for sharing tips from those who've done it and have the experience of what you need to do.' She also hopes to crowdfund to help those who will financially struggle to move. 'I don't want anyone to be left behind through a lack of means.' For those in Britain, things could worsen further for trans people 'as long as Keir Starmer, Wes Streeting and Bridget Phillips are in charge', she fears. 'I had 25 years, whatever it's been, of a perfectly ordinary, very nice life,' she says, with younger people having a bleaker prospect. And since her legal challenge could take a decade, her commitment to it is less about herself and her peers, 'it's really for people who are the next generation instead'.
