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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
NHS chiefs forced to rip up trans guidance
NHS chiefs have been forced to rip up their pro-trans guidance after it was rendered illegal by the Supreme Court ruling. The NHS Confederation, which represents trusts, has quietly withdrawn guidance telling hospitals that they should allow trans people to use their chosen toilets and changing rooms. The group told The Telegraph it had taken the guide down from its website because it had become 'dated' since the Supreme Court judgment that the word sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. Reached in April, the decision means trans women, who were born male, should use men's toilets and changing rooms, contradicting the previous stance of a string of public sector organisations. The confederation's advice is now being updated in line with the Supreme Court ruling and new guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and will be published later. On Thursday night, women's rights charities demanded that the confederation apologise for the guidance, which they claimed may have led to unfair decisions, such as the case of Darlington nurses who were disciplined for demanding single-sex facilities. They said that rather than deleting the guidance, the confederation should actively inform all trusts that it was now null and void. Maya Forstater, the chief executive of Sex Matters, said: 'Its guidance encouraged a hostile, humiliating and unsafe environment for NHS workers and patients. It was published with much fanfare but withdrawn by stealth. 'NHS Confederation should now apologise publicly for undermining women's rights and the culture of care. It should also undertake to contact all NHS trusts, telling them that its guidance was flawed and that policies based on it should now be torn up.' A growing number of public bodies are changing their guidance in light of the Supreme Court judgment, including the Football Association, which has said trans women would be banned from women's sport. However, neither NHS England nor the NHS Confederation have put forward new guidance. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, has said he wants the new guidance in place by the summer. The confederation's now-withdrawn guidance stated: 'In all types of workplaces, trans and non-binary people should be supported to use the bathrooms they feel most comfortable using. At no time is it appropriate to force staff to use the toilet associated with their assigned sex at birth against their will.' It also tells management, senior healthcare leaders and human resources directors to take a 'zero-tolerance attitude' to transphobia. The confederation also promoted individual trusts' guidance, such as Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust, which said: 'You are entitled to use single-sex facilities in accordance with your gender identity. 'For non-binary people, this may mean using gender-neutral or accessible facilities, or using a combination of different facilities. A non-binary person can choose to use facilities they are most comfortable using, if gender neutral facilities are not present.' 'Will not change our commitment' A spokesman for the confederation said: 'We have withdrawn our guide from our website as elements of it were dated following the ruling of the Supreme Court in April and interim guidance from the EHRC. 'Our intention remains to provide our members with information that helps them best support their staff and patients, and so we will update and reinstate our guide as soon as the EHRC has updated its Code of Practice, which will need to be approved by the UK Government, and when NHS England has then updated its guidance for what the changes mean for NHS organisations. 'The withdrawal of our guide does not change our explicit commitment to support our members to reduce the unacceptably high levels of bullying, abuse and discrimination at work that trans and non-binary staff and patients face.' The spokesman said the guidance had not been taken down immediately after the Supreme Court ruling because the initial response had been to keep it on the NHS Confederation website with acknowledgements that certain elements of it had become dated. It was later decided that to avoid the risk of any confusion, it was best to remove the guide in its entirety and update it later. Ms Forstater said: 'NHS Confederation's now-withdrawn guidance on trans issues is among the worst we have seen. Not only did it encourage hospitals to break the law on workplace facilities, it directed NHS managers to regard anyone who correctly cited the law as a 'transphobe' and to treat them with a 'zero tolerance' approach. 'This is the approach that led to NHS staff such as Sandie Peggie and the Darlington nurses being disciplined in their workplaces simply for asserting their right to safety, dignity and privacy in single-sex facilities. 'Hospitals should always have been places where staff understood that sex matters. But NHS Confederation has been dragging its feet since the Supreme Court judgment was handed down.'
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Landmark Supreme Court ruling sides with Marlean Ames, a straight woman who was 'passed over' for jobs for gay colleagues
The Supreme Court has sided with a straight woman who alleged that she was passed over for positions that went to her gay colleagues. Marlean Ames said she was the victim of bias in an agency overseeing Ohio 's youth correctional facilities, with her case being decided in a rare unanimous ruling as all justices agreed. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote the opinion for the court, agreed that a ruling used in almost half the nation's federal circuits that forced people who are not white, male or gay to meet a higher bar to prove workplace discrimination. Brown wrote that it was unconstitutional for courts to have different standards for different groups, and said ' Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.'
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Trump's new ban dodges pitfalls faced by last attempt, experts say
US President Donald Trump has issued a sweeping new travel ban for people from 12 countries, revisiting a hallmark policy of his first term in are some key differences, original travel ban suffered a series of legal defeats. This time, the policy appears to have been designed to avoid the same predecessor, which targeted seven predominantly Muslim countries and was dubbed the "Muslim ban" by critics, was ordered just a week after Trump took office in 2017, during his first term in the White ban was amended twice to overcome court challenges, after opponents argued it was unconstitutional and illegal because it discriminated against travellers based on their religion.A scaled-back version was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018, which this new ban closely experts told the BBC that it appeared Trump had learned lessons from his first Jackson, an expert in US immigration law at the London firm Laura Devine Immigration, said the new ban was more legally robust as a the first lacked "clarity", the new restrictions were "wider in scope" and had "clearly defined" exemptions, she there are some similarities in the nations chosen by the 2017 ban and the 2025 ban, Muslim-majority states are not the express target of the latest McQuade, professor of law at the University of Michigan and former US attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, told the BBC World Service's Newshour programme that, on this basis, it seemed likely to win the approval of the Supreme Court, if it was ever referred up to that level. Trump's travel ban: Follow live updatesEverything we know about the ban so farWhy are these 12 countries on the list?Trump suspends foreign student visas at Harvard The 12 countries subject to the harshest restrictions from 9 June are mainly in the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean, including Afghanistan, Iran and will be partial restrictions on travellers from another seven countries, including Cuban and Venezuelan said the strength of the restrictions would be graded against the severity of the perceived threat, including from besides Iran, none of the 12 countries hit by the outright ban are named on the US government's state sponsors of terrorism a video announcing the ban posted on X, Trump cited Sunday's incident in Boulder, Colorado, in which a man was accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at demonstrators attending a march for Israeli alleged attacker was an Egyptian national. However, Egypt does not appear on either list. Trump also specified high rates of people overstaying their visas as a reason for listing certain Steven D Heller, an immigration lawyer based in the US, said there was a "lack of clarity" over what threshold had to be met by a country's overstaying rate in order for that country to be placed on Trump's ban list. That could be the basis for a successful legal challenge, he suggested."If they're relying on this notion of excessive overstay rates... they have to define what that actually means," he told the the first ban, which was to last for only 90 to 120 days, today's order has no end has been met with dismay in the targeted countries. Venezuela has described the Trump administration as "supremacists who think they own the world", though Somalia has pledged to "engage in dialogue to address the concerns raised".The original ban spurred mass protests and sowed chaos at US airports. It was repealed in 2021 by Trump's successor, President Joe Biden, who called the policy "a stain on our national conscience."
