Barclays bank to block trans women from using female toilets
Barclays bank has confirmed it will bar trans women from using women's restrooms, following recent guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
The bank's chief executive, C.S. Venkatakrishnan, stated the decision ensures compliance with the law following a Supreme Court ruling defining "woman" by biological sex.
The EHRC advised that trans women should not use women's facilities in workplaces or public spaces like shops and hospitals.
This guidance also applies to trans men using men's restrooms. However, the EHRC stressed that trans individuals should still have access to appropriate facilities.
CS Venkatakrishnan, known within the bank as Venkat, told reporters on a media call after posting quarterly results: 'Following the Supreme Court ruling… we believe that we have to comply with that by not allowing trans women to use female bathrooms.
'We strive in every way to make the appropriate facilities available in a comfortable way for people to use and to provide equality of opportunities and development,' he added.
Barclays also ditched the diversity targets at its US business earlier this month after American President Donald Trump issued executive orders cutting federal programmes aimed at supporting women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people and other traditionally under-represented groups.
But Venkat insisted the bank was 'committed' to its principles on equality and equal opportunities.
He said: 'There should be an inclusive working environment where everybody should be comfortable and have the best form of personal expression.'
Venkat added: 'The Wall Street that I joined was not as diverse as it is today.
'I've been given opportunities throughout my career… I'm a great personal believer in this.'
Companies, as well as schools, sports clubs and public services across the UK are among those reviewing their policies following the Supreme Court ruling.
The EHRC is working on a more detailed code of practice, which it said it aims to provide to the Government for ministerial approval by June.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
As a former judge, I used to defend Britain's rights – mine are now at risk
Before being a judge, I represented a rape victim who was deaf and unable to speak. She was so badly traumatised that, in a cry for help, she took a kitchen knife out in public and tried to kill herself. She was arrested and brought to court. She did not get bail. The probation officer – before even meeting me – told me she had decided to oppose bail. A cruel pre-judgment: custody would immediately end her job and change her life. Law has no feeling; it embodied the passive-aggression of society to disabled people and women: it processed her, like meat for dogs. Two weeks ago, the UN Special Procedures group – 19 specialists in fields including freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom of opinion and expression, and violence against women and girls – issued a statement of human rights concern about the UK, towards transsexual and other trans people. It came in response to the infamous, deeply confused decision of the UK Supreme Court in April in For Women Scotland, where trans people and the vast bulk of women and lesbians were not heard. We were judged by a court packed with non-trans pressure groups, and human rights were scarcely mentioned. In my opinion, the Supreme Court's decision forced on women the notion that they are inescapably defined by biology, presumably basic urges and wandering wombs, for sexual relationships, free association and equal rights. It reversed more than 20 years of peaceful co-existence between the trans community and others. The UK is beyond crisis: the economy is down, inflation is up; electricity and gas are unaffordable. Violence against women is up. Men are discarded, angry. Such a country becomes vulnerable to extremism and minority-blaming. In 2021, European parliament research revealed how foreign actors use media to stir LGBT+ hate. It is in Russia's interest to damage our social fabric, rendering us dysfunctional and divided, as there is evidence it did, too, with Brexit. This LGBT+ emergency is ripping apart tolerant British values. It follows the rise of the Gender Critical Ideology Movement (GCIM). I need not go into suggestions that GCIM is sometimes used as cover for people seeking LGBT+ conversion practices – or that some groups oppose banning conversion therapy towards trans people. Let us note, however, that GCIM did not seem to exist until around 2016, when UK-US movements arose preaching traditional sex roles. Let me concentrate on the immediate UK human crisis. The government ruled that people like me, previously legally female and (still!) having female anatomy, at risk of assault as with all women, must henceforth change in men's changing rooms, use men's loos in pubs and be excluded from female rape services. Despite my female birth certificate, I am apparently a 'man'. The EHRC followed suit. The police confirmed that people who are (or seem to be, one assumes) 'trans' shall be strip searched only by men, anatomy be damned. Such sexual assault of 'unfeminine' women may now be the law on the ground. Women with mastectomies are confronted, accused of 'transness'. Trans people not 'out' at work face disclosure of pariah status. Non-feminine women are confronted by other women in loos. A database has been proposed to enforce segregation. A fund has been created support civil legal enforcement of the new 'sex-based' rights. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, wants to segregate trans people in hospitals. Bridget Phillipson, our equalities minister, is MIA. I formed the Trans Exile Network for those leaving the UK now. Heterosexual families with kids, where, say, the husband is trans, have been re-designated as 'lesbian' because the court redefined 'lesbians' as well as 'women'. Nobody asked them, of course – unlike the 2004 Act, which was with national consent and consultation. Trans people are now two sexes at once: one for equalities law (I am now unable to claim equal pay rights as a woman) and one for everything else. Nobody at the top cares: it is 'clarification', says Keir Starmer, ignorantly. Now the GCIM want this rolled out across Europe. Next stop: Ireland. I've been contacted by suicidal people and the parents of kids who have been denied medical treatment. Parents fear for the future of their kids: if not helped now, they face forced puberty against their medical best interests and a harder life. Puberty delaying hormones are reversible and have been used upwards of 20 years to 'buy time' until kids are adults and can make decisions. The court must have assumed that the EHRC is neutral. More fool the court. But the biggest victim is our country – which I served as a judge for more than 18 years – and truth and humanity in public life.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Public sector struggling to define what a woman is, trans report finds
Public sector workers and trade unions are widely refusing to accept the Supreme Court's judgment on what a woman is, a think tank has warned. A new study by Policy Exchange shows that dozens of organisations across the public, private and charitable sectors have continued to question the legal meaning of 'a woman', despite the ruling. In April, the court ruled that the term 'woman' refers to a biological female in the Equality Act 2010. The decision means trans women, who were born male, should use men's toilets, changing rooms and other single-sex spaces, contradicting the previous stance of a string of public sector organisations. Policy Exchange's report, the fifth edition of its 'Biology Matters Compendium', compiles examples of organisations refusing to acknowledge the legal force of the court's judgment. These include universities, professional bodies and several trade unions, along with other public bodies. Rosie Duffield, the gender-critical MP who left the Labour Party last year, hailed the report and said it showed that 'radical positions on gender identity have become deeply embedded and it will be the work of years to rectify it'. Ms Duffield wrote in the foreword: 'There should be no illusions that this is over: there will be many more battles to fight before women's sex-based rights are secure.' Lara Brown, the author of the report, said that 'despite progress, our latest edition of the Biology Matters Compendium reveals there is still a great deal of ideological capture in the policy and practice of many public institutions'. 'The defence of sex-based rights does not end with a court ruling. It requires persistent scrutiny, open debate, and the courage to challenge ideological orthodoxy – wherever it may reside. This compendium finds that in this domain, there is still much more to be done.' The report notes that at least seven major trade unions have appeared to question the ruling in recent months. Unison, one of the UK's largest unions, and the University and Colleges Union, which represents academic and support staff in further and higher education institutions, have warned of the judgment's 'harmful implications'. The Fire Brigades' Union has said in response to the ruling that 'the law is not always on the right side of history'. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (Aslef) released a statement on social media saying that it 'recognises the distress and uncertainty that the Supreme Court's ruling about the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 has caused to trans and non-binary communities.' The union declared: 'We have a proud history of championing the rights of our trans and non-binary members and we continue to stand in solidarity with them.' A collection of unions, including Unite, the civil service union PCS, the RMT and the BFAWU, a food industry union, have staged marches against the Supreme Court's decision, with one leading figure declaring that 'the trade union movement will protect and stand with trans people, whether the law cares or not.' Policy Exchange's report also draws attention to professional bodies such as the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy continuing to describe gender self-identification as 'valid'. After the Supreme Court judgment, a number of public bodies announced plans to change their policies on gender recognition. Within days, the British Transport Police announced that trans women could in future only be strip-searched by male officers. The NHS was also told by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the equalities watchdog, to change guidelines that did not fit the newly clarified legal settlement. The Football Association announced that athletes would have to compete in their biological sex categories, going forward. But other bodies were more reluctant to accept the ruling. The British Medical Association, the doctors' union, branded the Supreme Court's decision 'scientifically illiterate'. Meanwhile, the National Police Chiefs' Council said it would 'not rush' to change rules on strip-searching in order to fall in with the court's decision.
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
Trump says he thinks the government has a ‘very easy case' against Kilmar Abrego Garcia
President Donald Trump on Saturday said that it wasn't his decision to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, back to the U.S. to face federal charges, saying the 'Department of Justice decided to do it that way, and that's fine.' 'That wasn't my decision,' Trump said of Abrego Garcia's return in a phone call with NBC News on Saturday. 'It should be a very easy case' for federal prosecutors, the president added. Trump added that he did not speak with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele about Abrego Garcia's return, even though the two men spoke about Abrego Garcia during an April meeting in the Oval Office. His remarks came after Abrego Garcia arrived back in the U.S. on Friday and was charged in an indictment alleging he transported people who were not legally in the country. The indictment came amid a protracted legal battle over whether to bring him back from El Salvador that escalated all the way up to the Supreme Court. Abrego Garcia's family and lawyers have called him a family man, while Trump and his administration have alleged that he is a member of the gang MS-13. The case drew national attention amid the Trump administration's broader push for mass deportations. After Abrego Garcia's deportation, lawyers for the Trump administration said he was deported in an ' administrative error,' as Abrego Garcia had previous legal protection from deportation to El Salvador. Still, the Trump administration did not attempt to bring Abrego Garcia back, even as the Supreme Court ruled that it had to ' facilitate ' his return to the U.S. Democrats, including Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., had for weeks said that Abrego Garcia was denied due process when he was detained and deported, arguing that he should have been allowed to defend himself from deportation before he was sent to El Salvador. Trump on Saturday called Van Hollen, who went to visit Abrego Garcia in jail in El Salvador in April, a 'loser' for defending the man's right to due process. 'He's a loser. The guy's a loser. They're going to lose because of that same thing. That's not what people want to hear,' the president said about Van Hollen. 'He's trying to defend a man who's got a horrible record of abuse, abuse of women in particular. No, he's a total loser, this guy.' On Friday, Attorney General Pam Bondi alleged that Abrego Garcia 'was a smuggler of humans and children and women. He made over 100 trips, the grand jury found, smuggling people throughout our country.' In a statement Friday, Abrego Garcia's lawyer called Bondi's move 'an abuse of power, not justice.'
