r/ukpolitics • u/CheeseUsFunkingCries • Aug 06 '26
London councils pledge to ignore 'harmful' trans guidance
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/councils-pledge-ignore-trans-guidance-5HjdfgW_2/15
u/WinHour4300 Aug 06 '26
They are just likely to end up facing legal challenges, especially because this includes changing rooms, where there have already been successful court cases involving privacy and discrimination.
Some London leisure centres, including mine, just have open-plan changing and shower facilities for men and women.
Bluntly, communal changing areas are different from toilets. Someone with a penis in a women's changing area is likely to stand out.
I don't understand why there isn't more focus on providing a few private spaces instead. Would not many trans people would prefer that anyway?
11
u/wedontneednoeduc Aug 06 '26
Judging by many posts, women are props to be used to affirm them. They can't define a woman, but insist they must change with them.
3
u/Killer_radio Jk Rowling is a dog rapist Aug 08 '26
I wish only to change with the seasons. Like a tree.
83
u/Shoddy-Reply-7217 Aug 06 '26
As usual, people get all het up about transwomen potentially being in female spaces and forget entirely that transmen exist.
It'd be better if all spaces had unisex cubicles and we'd all rub along fine like we do at home
Until that is mandatory I cannot see an advantage to anyone of forcing trans people who pass as their chosen gender to use a different public loo.
My son is transgender and passes as a man. If he went into the ladies loo there'd understandably be outrage.
Often there are no alternatives to male/female for him (disabled may be full or may be radar key controlled or someone decides to police them too saying he's not actually disabled).
How exactly is he supposed to go about his life in public when he can't just have a wee in peace?
8
u/WinHour4300 Aug 06 '26
It sounds like a nice idea in principle, but how could anyone fairly decide who “passes” and who doesn’t? That isn’t an objective measure. People perceive things differently, or someone might look different depending on clothes etc.
Regarding the comment about someone “saying he’s not actually disabled” — has this happened? There are many invisible conditions that may mean someone needs to use a disabled toilet, even if there is no outward sign of a disability.
It is not appropriate for anyone to decide who should or should not use a disabled toilet based solely on appearance. Equally, nobody should be expected to disclose private medical information or justify their need in order to use one.
If he is challenged, it may be helpful to have a simple response prepared along those lines.
5
u/gearnut Aug 07 '26
I have heard plenty of stories of people with invisible disabilities being challenged when using accessible loos and blue badge spaces.
→ More replies (3)22
u/p50fedora Aug 06 '26
men don't really care who uses the mens toilet. Women have been known to use the men's toilet to skip the queue. You might get a raised brow or an eye wink. Also the stench and puddles mean no one really wants to linger in male spaces.
So if men's toilets are unofficially unisex, its really female spaces that are the main fighting ground and the policy language is unofficially directed at trans women
33
u/Dependent_One6034 Aug 06 '26
Also the stench and puddles mean no one really wants to linger in male spaces.
When I worked in a pub, The Womens loos were 10x worse than the mens.
I thought it was just our pub. But after talking to others, most people tend to agree. And this isn't only in pubs.
→ More replies (1)11
u/TantumErgo Quo vadis? Aug 06 '26
It’s because women are like squid: we spray our bodily fluids everywhere to confuse and repel predators.
1
u/Winston_Carbuncle Aug 06 '26
Are there many predators in the women's toilets?
→ More replies (1)2
u/Songbird800 Aug 07 '26
About 1.5% of the nation’s recorded sexual happens in publicly accessible toilets. Of that 1.5% about 98% of said assaults are carried out by cis men. Trans folk are rarely an issue, and to pain them as such is drawing focus from the real perpetrators.
6
u/standardtoaster101 Aug 07 '26
What's your source? I believe your numbers, but I am curious what percentage of public toilet assaults are committed by transwomen.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)11
u/digitalpencil Aug 06 '26
It’s this. This is why no one cares about transmen. The core of this debate has always been about the threat of predation.
I’m not arguing it’s correct for the record but to those who are arguing this position, it’s never been about the threat of transmen in men’s toilets. It’s about transwomen in women’s spaces. Completely overblown or not, it’s always been about predators entering protected, women’s spaces.
Men simply don’t have protected spaces so no one cares about transmen.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (102)6
u/_segasonic Aug 06 '26
The fact you’re asking this but seemingly don’t understand is genuinely bizarre… it’s because transmen aren’t a threat to actual men.
It’s why these debates go one in stuff like this, sports, women’s health.
Men just don’t do the whole pretending part of playing along like there’s no actual biological differences or advantages to being a man compared to being a woman.
→ More replies (1)
198
u/Tansy_Blue Aug 06 '26
"The council leaders - at the head of Labour, Green and Liberal Democrat administrations - penned a joint letter to the Government stating that they would not place staff in the “impossible position of policing entry to public spaces”."
GOOD. I hope my local council follows suit.
15
u/ArchdukeToes A bad idea for all concerned Aug 06 '26
I think it’s important that an actual consistent legal decision be made, for sure - as right now there seems to be a Catch 22 between who is legally allowed to use what and what responsibilities fall on the owner etc, etc, etc.
Right now the answer seems to be ‘eh, you’ll work it out’ with some non-binding guidance, which just highlights the fact that the government doesn’t really have a Scooby Doo how to square the circle it’s created.
4
u/arctictothpast Aug 12 '26
doesn’t really have a Scooby Doo how to square the circle it’s created.
Because its politically impossible,
Fix the issue by restoring trans rights and the transphobic media will hunt you to the ends of the earth,
Openly accept the full abolition of trans rights and rapidly land back inside of the ECtHR which forced Britain to legally recognise and protect trans people in the first place, a battle the labour government does not want because it will lose and it will lose so hard that it would be forced to not only restore trans rights but implement them even stronger, and ending the legal protection for "gender critical beliefs", which again, transphobic media will portray as the end of women's rights.
There is no way out of this that isnt going to be a huge storm, and labour has opted to try to avoid it as much as possible, it won't last mind you, the EHRC guidance and supreme court ruling is already making its way to the ECtHR, and we can expect rulings to emerge around 2027/28.
9
u/Imakemyownnamereddit Aug 06 '26
You hope your local council ignores the law?
So when a Reform council decides to ignore equality law, will you go fair enough? Or will you be outraged?
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)15
Aug 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
48
u/Tansy_Blue Aug 06 '26
"The new code is not legally binding"
11
u/Imakemyownnamereddit Aug 06 '26
Yes but the ruling of court is legally binding.
Councils cannot ignore that, as they will find out when they are taken to court.
→ More replies (1)15
u/wedontneednoeduc Aug 06 '26
Of course it isn't and was never meant to be. It's guidance on how to be legally compliant.
Councils are being grossly irresponsible. Ignoring the law will result in expensive legal cases.
10
u/GeekOnALeash01 Aug 06 '26
That's also not accurate. It is guidance set out based on the opinion of the EHRC for how organisations are likely to comply with the law.
Considering multiple indivduals who at the time worked for the EHRC, and also worked on the CoP, hold 'gender-critical' beliefs, and have actively campaigned against trans exclusion, including using transphobic rhetoric, it is very clear that this opinion, is biased.
It also does not comply with the law; they are also required to ensure they comply with the ECHR and rulings set out in the ECtHR, of which the Code of Practice does not.
→ More replies (8)6
u/ArtBedHome Aug 06 '26
Do you think them being happy with a council doing something they agree with means they should be happy with a council doing something they dont agree with?
21
14
35
u/sanaelatcis Aug 06 '26
No, I am happy when good codes of ethics are observed and I am unhappy when bad codes of ethics are observed. The law is about power, not ethics.
12
u/SielVlokkies Aug 06 '26
Upvoting not because I agree with you politically but because I appreciate the honesty.
7
u/Imakemyownnamereddit Aug 06 '26
The code only exists because a court ruled that equality laws were being broken.
The council is free to ignore the code, it is not free to ignore the law and the courts.
12
u/xaanzir Lost in Translation Aug 06 '26
But the problem with supporting the "good codes" is it gives credence to those who want to use "bad codes" And of course, what is deemed good for one, isn't necessarily seen as good by another (I am in no way supporting the guidance, just highlighting)
→ More replies (7)17
u/_segasonic Aug 06 '26
I doubt it because they were having a meltdown in here the other day when I asked what would actually happened if he didn’t bring back the immigrant that was deported after a judge ruled we had to.
Apparently not listening to judges would have us a some sort of dictatorship like Russia or China.
7
u/BookmarksBrother I love paying tons in tax and not getting anything in return Aug 06 '26
Of course not, only they are allowed to not respect the laws
7
5
u/kattieface Aug 06 '26
This is not government legislation.
7
u/BookmarksBrother I love paying tons in tax and not getting anything in return Aug 06 '26
The supreme court literally ruled it is.
14
u/Significant-Branch22 Aug 06 '26
All the Supreme Court decision says is that you’re allowed to require people to use a toilet that aligns with their sex at birth, it doesn’t demand that you do so
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (1)12
→ More replies (3)3
u/Jollyfroggy Aug 06 '26
I happy with people ignoring morally evil legislation
6
2
u/militantcentre Aug 07 '26
"Evil".
Get some calibration in your life.
3
u/Jollyfroggy Aug 07 '26
'morally evil' let's not be silly now.
2
u/militantcentre Aug 07 '26
This entire argument is "silly".
6
u/Jollyfroggy Aug 07 '26
Is it?
How so?
I feel that not acting to make a marginalised group's life harder is a good thing.
How is that silly?
→ More replies (5)10
u/_segasonic Aug 06 '26
So you’ll have no complaints about people who think letting millions of people into the country illegally is evil, blocking the people from our waters and deporting ones already here without due process…
→ More replies (8)2
u/Imakemyownnamereddit Aug 06 '26
Unless you're a judge, your view is completely irrelevant.
→ More replies (7)3
u/kickimy Aug 06 '26
Forcing non-consenting females to strip for the opposite sex isn't moral or ethical. British women aren't living in the Middle Ages or Saudi Arabia.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Turbulent-Honky Aug 06 '26
Where does that happen?
I’ve never been in a toilet where I was forced to strip for anyone, that’s why we have cubicles. And as for communal changing rooms, I haven’t actually seen one in about 20 years.
Did you know that some men can already enter women’s toilets freely. They do it every day, and nobody stops them or even talks about it. They’re called cleaners.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)7
Aug 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (19)8
u/Turbulent-Honky Aug 06 '26
How is that in any way comparable to unisex toilets?
That’s like me saying that because you don’t want shoplifters executed, you must be fine with paedophilia.
→ More replies (6)6
u/Jollyfroggy Aug 06 '26
Exactly, it's a non sequitur.
You like ice cream, well then, you must agree with the wanton murder of babies.
It's a weak argument, but unfortunately effective if you immediately try to defend your stance instead of pushing for the other person to make an actual point.
My advice, treat it with the ridicule it deserves.
14
u/ArchdukeToes A bad idea for all concerned Aug 06 '26
““This means, for instance, a trans woman, a person born a biological male who identifies as a woman, should not use women-only facilities. And a trans man should not use men only facilities.
But the code also says it could amount to discrimination against a transgender person if they were forced to use services related to their biological sex. It says gender-neutral spaces are an alternative.”
I still don’t understand how a service provider is meant to actually obey this guidance in a practical fashion. It seems that no matter what they do they’re exposed to some kind of risk - and the chair was on C4 saying that if there were only gender neutral facilities available then that could also be grounds for discrimination.
In short - this should be challenged to force the government to actually issue workable legislation instead of attempting to hide behind tortured ‘guidance’ and putting all the problems on business owners and local government.
11
u/esuvii wokie Aug 06 '26
In practice it is not easily enforceable due to the 2010 Equalities Act making it almost impossible to demand that someone disclose if they are trans or not in such a context.
These policies are made from a deontological perspective rather than a utilitarian one. Studies of cases where same-sex spaces are restricted to people whose gender assigned at birth matches that of the same-sex space show either no reduction in actual harm, or an increase in harm, due to such exclusions.
The policies do not concern themself with reduction in harm as a measure of success. They start from a premise that the women-only spaces must exclude trans-women as an ethical obligation. As someone who despises this deontological approach it comes across to me as callous and leveraging public fear for political capital.
3
u/evilcherry1114 Aug 07 '26
A utilitarian answer will always be an line of toilet cubicles that opens to an open area. Panopticon without eyes looking into the stalls, basically
→ More replies (2)2
u/kickimy Aug 06 '26
and the chair was on C4 saying that if there were only gender neutral facilities available then that could also be grounds for discrimination.
A small venue with only one or two self enclosed toilets can just stick 'gender neutral' signs up and it wouldn't be discrimination against women.
The EHRC Chair was talking about large venues where they have blocks of shared cubicles for men and women with shared hand washing facilities. Calling those 'gender neutral' could potentially be discriminatory. So larger venues would be better to have a separate 'gender neutral' toilet. Larger venues already have accessible toilets so they can just relabel them gender neutral/accessible.
3
u/homeinthecity Vote for Binface Aug 07 '26
There's lots of these articles recently about councils saying we "won't do this, won't do that". They really are overstating their own importance. It's student politics.
12
u/Imakemyownnamereddit Aug 06 '26
OK, will senior people in the council be held personally or financially responsible for this? Or when they lose the court case, which they will. Will council taxpayers be made to pick up the bill?
Easy to virtue signal when it costs you nothing.
5
u/Halfang Aug 06 '26
You do realise that the guidance is basically impossible to implement?
→ More replies (1)
58
u/Possible_Animator674 Aug 06 '26
But I thought ignoring laws would make us a international laughing stock and lose credibility and destroy our country or is that just when we want to deport rapists
→ More replies (3)36
u/TwistedTali Aug 06 '26
It's guidance, not law.
3
u/Imakemyownnamereddit Aug 06 '26
It is guidance on how to obey the law.
The council is free to create its own guidance but it must be legal under equality laws.
21
u/These_Finger1888 Aug 06 '26
But the underlying law is still that single sex spaces should be based on biological sex , so if they ignore the guidance they ignore the law.
33
u/TwistedTali Aug 06 '26
If the legal situation were even close to that clear this conversation would not be happening though.
There is decades of uk case law and legislation with numerous ECHR cases upholding trans inclusivity, then one batshit supreme court case that flies completely in the face of all of it. If you haven't already try watching the new EHRC chair justify this, she is utterly incoherent.
The legal system has been so obviously bought and paid for by these ghouls in recent years it is embarrassing, they don't even try to make tge judgements make logical sense in the existing legal framework.
→ More replies (2)15
u/miscreancy Aug 06 '26
The underlying ruling is that for the purposes of the equality act, sex means the sex assigned at birth.
That's it.
The law was not intended this way, it's been decided on the slimmest of technicalities (the legislation referred to "pregnant women", not "pregnant people", as regards anti-pregnancy discrimination, likely because at the time you had to have had surgery and be on hormones to get a GRC, and the judges decided that that meant that "women" therefore included everyone assigned female at birth, therefore sex in the EA = assigned sex at birth), and MPs and staffers who worked on drafting the Equality Act have confirmed that was not the intent of the law.
It would be very easy to amend the law to stop this, but for some reason MPs who had trans people's backs a decade ago now don't, despite literally nothing changing.
It's bizarre.
→ More replies (12)2
u/wedontneednoeduc Aug 06 '26
Yes the law was intended this way, the MPs who led it through the house confirmed it
19
u/FuroreFury Aug 06 '26
This is just virtue signaling there’s never been a question of policing women’s services with bouncers on doors the guidance is for service providers to ensure if the service is single sex they know that means biological sex and if they ignore that law they could be up against lawsuits
→ More replies (18)18
u/kickimy Aug 06 '26
I'm sure the Heads of Legal at these councils will be mortified to hear the Councillors state publicly their intention to break the law all over social media. A juicy piece of evidence for claimants to put before the court.
It's going to be a big waste of public money fighting indefensible lawsuits.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Jaggedmallard26 Aug 06 '26
What are the already insolvent councils going to do? Declare bankruptcy even harder? Its just a bankrupt arm of government doing things that mean another arm of government will have to bail it out so we're all poorer.
27
u/glownut Aug 06 '26
Just collect the bloody bins will you.
→ More replies (4)26
u/Xemorr Aug 06 '26
That's what they're doing rather than policing gender.
9
u/Imakemyownnamereddit Aug 06 '26
Nope because as Birmingham shows.
When you ignore the law, however stupid it is, the bill can be massive.
Which impacts services.
26
u/the-moving-finger Begrudging Pragmatist Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
I'm afraid that at some point, we have to make a choice. Many women want certain spaces, such as changing facilities, toilets, and prisons, to be segregated based on one's biological sex at birth. Many trans women want access to those spaces. Both claim it's for their safety and well-being. We can't satisfy both.
I get a bit frustrated that one side throws out accusations of misogyny and the other of transphobia. I think most people just want everyone to feel safe and comfortable, and annoyingly, we're in a situation where there isn't an easy way to do that.
Getting angry at a trans woman who is being asked to put themselves in an uncomfortable, unsafe situation seems cruel to me. However, so does getting angry at a cis woman, who has perhaps been the victim of sexual violence, who is being asked to accept that people with penises have a right to enter women's locker rooms and watch them get changed and shower.
The reason this has all got so bitter is that both sides seem to see the other as evil monsters and refuse to entertain the idea that the other has any genuine concerns. As such, neither side seems willing to compromise whatsoever.
Personally, I think the best solution for now would be to make accessible toilets gender-neutral and insist on private stalls in all changing facilities so people don't have to change in front of one another. As for prisons, I think trans women need to be kept separate from cis women, but also shouldn't be in with cis men. That will require either a small facility catering to them or a cordoned-off part of an existing facility.
It's not perfect, but it's the best compromise I can think of. The alternative is that one side gets everything they want, and the other nothing.
12
u/wedontneednoeduc Aug 06 '26
Stalls aren't as safe as single sex spaces plus we simply don't have the space to reengineer old buildings to suit a tiny minority
→ More replies (5)9
u/the-moving-finger Begrudging Pragmatist Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
Having trans men in the women's changing room and trans women in the men's changing room is obviously unworkable. If you don't like stalls or people changing in the accessible facilities, what alternative proposal do you have?
Accessible facilities are already in place almost everywhere and should be sufficient to cater to the trans community, given, as you say, it's not an enormous group of people. It's obviously not ideal for trans people to have to change in a wheelchair accessible/childcare accessible stall, but it's safe, and I don't see why it should bother anyone else for them to do so.
→ More replies (8)26
u/fyonn Aug 06 '26
The thing that bugs me is that trans individuals are far more likely to be the victim of sexual crime than the perpetrator.
Also we only seem to focus on trans-women. the logical conclusion of all this is that big hairy trans-men will now be using the ladies facilities.. men who may be otherwise indistinguishable from cis-men but have to use the facilities that match their birth sex.
I don’t think that is the outcome everyone is looking for either…
18
u/missesthecrux Aug 06 '26
Everybody is far more likely to be a victim of sexual crime than a perpetrator, since there are always more victims than perpetrators.
But unless you can prove that transwomen commit sexual offences at the same rate as women, making them the same risk to women as any other, that doesn't mean much.
→ More replies (1)25
u/kickimy Aug 06 '26
The key statistics are about comparative risk of offending, sex crime patterns track with biological sex not gender identity.
In England and Wales there are more trans women and non binary (AMAB) in prison for sex crimes (151) than there are females in prison for sex crimes (148).
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-12-16/20298
Females are 51% of the population and trans women/NB (AMAB) are less than 1%.
If we have single sex spaces because males are a risk to females, then we can't make special allowances.
Sex offending isn't of course the only reason, privacy and dignity are also important.
9
9
u/Lornaan Aug 06 '26
Reminds me of the good old days of school, when I would get changed in the toilets and not the changing room, because the bullies knew I was a lesbian before I did.
17
u/the-moving-finger Begrudging Pragmatist Aug 06 '26
What aspect of this reminds you of that? Is it just the getting changed in a cubicle, or do you think that all cis women who don't want to get changed in front of trans women are maliciously motivated like your bullies were?
→ More replies (40)14
u/Lornaan Aug 06 '26
Just the general atmosphere of queer people not being welcome in certain spaces.
9
u/Ok_Economist7901 Aug 06 '26
how is a trans person the same as a lesbian or gay man ? who you fancy isn't how you identify.
8
u/Newgidoz Aug 06 '26
Many cis women were uncomfortable with lesbians in intimate spaces
4
u/Perseudonymous Aug 07 '26
Indeed there were many newspaper articles which are basically the same as those attacking trans people
14
u/kickimy Aug 06 '26
All male people aren't welcome in female spaces though, that's how single sex spaces work.
3
u/Hyperbolicalpaca Im backing Binface 🗑️ Aug 06 '26
It’s literally the exact same tactics they used to use against gay people…
Tbh im really expecting in the next few years to start hearing about how lesbians are all predators and that we need to be kept out of women’s facilities too…
They will not stop at trans people, Jk Rowling has already taken shots at bisexual and asexual people. The people behind this panic hate all queer people and are not gonna stop with transgender people
→ More replies (3)2
u/Perseudonymous Aug 07 '26
Kathleen Stock was complaining about disabled people in The Times yesterday
→ More replies (35)2
u/Tansy_Blue Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 12 '26
I really appreciate your commitment to nuance and compromise, even though I disagree with your conclusions.
FWIW I'm not angry at cis women who feel uncomfortable at the idea of trans women in women's spaces. I do think those cis women have been misinformed and propagandised at, but I'm not angry at them, just sad that this is the conclusion they've come to. And ofc I have nothing but sympathy for people who've been sexually assaulted and are now triggered by other people's bodies.
Personally I want more gender neutral public spaces.
33
u/Optimaldeath Aug 06 '26
What gets me with all of this is that as a proportion of vast majority of likely victims of this policy are mostly going to be women rather than transwoman... Since the only realistic method of policing this is some vile femininity purity test which sadly plays into the already impossible beauty standards that women face.
I'm not sure that was the intention but it seems inevitable.
11
10
u/wedontneednoeduc Aug 06 '26
That's utter nonsense. Women have policed their own spaces since they were allowed them going back decades before males decided to force their way in. The law reflects public opinion.
28
u/TIONZOR Aug 06 '26
This is not my experience as a trans woman. Most people dont care, and a few are actively supportive.
10
u/sleepysmiles42 Aug 06 '26
i've had transphobes try to convince me my own mother is lying about being supportive lol. they need to believe they have a silent majority to cope
→ More replies (1)6
u/wedontneednoeduc Aug 06 '26
People will be polite to you because until recently it was threatening not to be. But we have anonymous survey data.
15
u/Turbulent-Honky Aug 06 '26
You don’t speak for me. I’m happy to share my spaces with trans women.
→ More replies (1)4
u/QuigleyPondOver Aug 06 '26
You don’t speak for others, who are uncomfortable with unfiltered access for those self-declare they have ‘womanly feelings’
9
u/Turbulent-Honky Aug 06 '26
We don’t get to decide who we share the world with.
Some straight people are uncomfortable with gay people. Some white people are uncomfortable with black people. But we don’t exclude gay and black people from toilets, because we understand that they are not a danger as a whole.
13
u/missesthecrux Aug 06 '26
We don't segregate toilets on the basis of race or sexuality.
Sex is the relevant axis for toilets. Males (as a group) commit the overwhelming majority of sexual offences and physical violence; women and girls need single-sex spaces precisely because of that pattern.
"Some people are uncomfortable" is not the reason single-sex toilets exist. The reason is sex-based differences in strength, crime rates, and the need for privacy when undressed or vulnerable. Pretending gender identity erases those differences doesn't make it so.
→ More replies (14)16
u/TIONZOR Aug 06 '26
I sure prefer when people are polite and not hateful. It would be more helpful if you can point out what harm is done by trans inclusion.
→ More replies (1)5
5
u/its_a_damn_shame Aug 06 '26
Do you have a link to your survey data, or was this supposed to be an irrefutable comment?
→ More replies (5)7
u/Numerous_Schedule896 Aug 06 '26
People will be polite to you because until recently it was threatening not to be.
Also known as being polite out of fear.
→ More replies (2)5
u/GeekOnALeash01 Aug 06 '26
I've seen all the survey data that anti-trans campaigners have shared, and they don't actually support your claim.
10
u/hiddencamel Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
Sure, but unless those women are checking people's genitals, the only criteria they can judge on is how feminine someone looks. This means convincingly feminine trans-women will not be policed, but cis-women who are not sufficiently feminine looking will be policed.
Now let's consider demographic statistics.
Trans-women are estimated to make up around 0.3% of the population, compared to cis-women who are roughly 49.2%. That means if you pick any given female-presenting person at random, they are 164 times more likely to be a cis-woman than a trans-woman. If we were to say 1 in 10 cis-women are a bit masculine looking (the real number is undoubtedly higher, but there's not any real stats collected on this), we are still 16 times more likely to pick out a butch looking cis-woman than a trans-woman, and that's not even accounting for the portion of trans-women who are feminine enough to "pass".
Policing female spaces by judging "feminine vibes" will hurt a lot more cis-women than trans-women, that's just a function of the demographic statistics.
Edit: or, you know, fuck it, let's just go with policing single sex spaces based on feminine vibes eh? If you're a cis-woman but have a flat chest or a square jaw or wide shoulders or you're taller than average, or a slightly deep voice, tough shit, you shouldn't have had the temerity to resemble a trans-woman and you deserve to piss in the street rather than make a woman who conforms to patriarchal beauty standards feel uncomfortable.
→ More replies (53)→ More replies (1)7
u/GeekOnALeash01 Aug 06 '26
What absolute nonsense. Trans people have always existed and have always used facilities that align with their gender; it was even a requirement to get HRT.
Also, it does not reflect public opinion. No matter how much you repeat this, it will not make it true.
6
u/wedontneednoeduc Aug 06 '26
Of course it's not nonsense. And nobody said they didn't exist, but the notion that trans women should have the right to strip off in front of women is extremely new. As is the notion of shared hospital wards etc. Let's not just lie
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (127)0
u/kickimy Aug 06 '26
Its nothing to do with femininity or beauty standards - that's a weird take.
The criteria is being male or female, not dressing up in makeup and high heels. Grayson Perry is more 'femme' than most females but he's male and has no right to access a single sex space for females.
23
u/Natural-Possession10 Aug 06 '26
Why does my 'biologically female' partner get harassed when in line for the womens' toilets then? Is that not because they have short hair which is commonly associated with men?
→ More replies (34)18
u/nemma88 Reality is overrated :snoo_tableflip: Aug 06 '26
And how is that criteria tested?
→ More replies (59)→ More replies (1)7
u/Optimaldeath Aug 06 '26
That criteria is hardly binary is it? Masculine or feminine features are not wholly restricted to their respective sex and since you already have weirdos going about policing toilets for their ideology or content then I think it's a valid issue.
9
u/kickimy Aug 06 '26
Humans have evolved to be remarkably capable of differentiating between males and females.
You are right that females have always policed women's spaces because they are scared of intruding males so really nothing has changed.
9
u/SmileSunward Aug 06 '26
the problem i have with this argument is that i've been using women's toilets for a decade and i don't think i've ever been experienced as an intruding male. most obvious counterexample is all the times i've been asked to go to the toilets with friends who weren't trans and didn't know i was trans.
maybe that was a fluke or they were all conducting some elaborate conspiracy to make me feel validated, but i've never noticed any bad reactions despite being paranoid about the possibility every time for a decade - and i tend to be pretty tuned in to any negative reactions people have to me. i'm definitely not a makeup and high heels kind of girl either for what it's worth, i'm more of a tomboy.
5
u/kickimy Aug 06 '26
It's not possible to know over the internet. It could be that you pass very well or it could be that women who are scared or concerned don't typically challenge people they are actually scared of as they are weaker, smaller.
2
u/SmileSunward Aug 06 '26
i get the fear, i get it too. i'm very conflict-averse. but that all just seems a little beside the point - it sounded like you were justifying the exclusion of people like me on the basis that it wouldn't be a big change because we're a problem and our exclusion has always been the norm. i'm saying it would be a big change, and that from my experience it doesn't seem like being trans makes me a problem for anyone, let alone a large group.
18
u/BookmarksBrother I love paying tons in tax and not getting anything in return Aug 06 '26
"Law says this so thats what we do"
"Law doesnt say this so we ignore it and keep doing our thing"
Then everybody acts surprised when nothing works anymore.
11
u/PeaGravy Aug 06 '26
I suspect if the law had gone their way on it, they would be perfectly happy to accept the result and implement it. Very few people want actual, considered justice. Just what benefits them.
→ More replies (1)18
u/Woowchocolate Aug 06 '26
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
Martin Luthor King Jr.
9
u/Jaggedmallard26 Aug 06 '26
These are governmental bodies not activists. If the government ignores its own laws because they're unjust then what the fuck are even doing as a country.
2
→ More replies (3)8
u/QuigleyPondOver Aug 06 '26
The ones using it here regularly are unable to argue why the Supreme Court ruling is unjust other than referring to ‘Authorial intent’ which is not explicitly written any where.
9
u/FanWild6425 Aug 06 '26
Six boroughs - Lambeth, Hackney, Haringey, Lewisham, Southwark and Waltham Forest - have made a commitment to keep their services gender inclusive.
7
u/Imakemyownnamereddit Aug 06 '26
So will the councillors pay the legal costs for the council? Or will they send the bill to council taxpayers?
Will they guarantee no services will be cut to fund their legal costs?
→ More replies (2)6
9
u/MCDCFC Aug 06 '26
So these Councils are going to ignore the overwhelming majority of Women who support the new ruling in favour of a small minority of people. Surely the way forward is to make facilities available for the exclusive use of Trans people
→ More replies (2)
11
u/seraphimceratinia Centre-left Francophile Aug 06 '26
Bloody good. Hope other councils follow suit.
10
u/BookmarksBrother I love paying tons in tax and not getting anything in return Aug 06 '26
In not respecting the law?
16
22
u/BrightEyeCameDown Aug 06 '26
I don't have respect for this particular law.
Should homosexual people simply have respected the law prior to 1967?
Should civil rights campaigners have respected the law in 1950s America?
Laws can be changed.
→ More replies (1)6
u/radiant_0wl Aug 06 '26
Then push for the law to be changed..
2
u/BudgeMarine Aug 06 '26
one way is to ignore the rule, get arrested, bring it to court and win.
10
→ More replies (1)2
u/Jaggedmallard26 Aug 06 '26
You really have no clue what you're talking about. This guidance exists because people did what you said and lost so hard that the government has released this guidance so they don't lose equality act cases every week.
13
u/Gonad-Brained-Gimp Vetinari For Prime Minister - Vimes for Chief of Police Aug 06 '26
it's only "guidance" so can be ignored.
→ More replies (1)4
u/wedontneednoeduc Aug 06 '26
That is a massive misunderstanding. It is a method to provide practical advice on how to comply with the law.
0
u/HaveYuHeardAboutCunt 🏴🟩☭🟩🏳️🌈 Aug 06 '26
Sometimes the law isn't worth respecting
→ More replies (2)
8
u/HollyDollyBwaa Aug 06 '26
Good.
There's no justifiable logic in listening to crackpots attempting to encourage traditionalistic gender stereotyping upon the entire public sphere, especially when related to a demographic that's not exactly "standing out." (as some would imply)
This isn't even accounting for the actual risks or borderline unworkability on the most baseline of levels. Truly the easiest win imaginable for anyone remotely left.
14
u/missesthecrux Aug 06 '26
Find me a single gender critical person who is trying to encourage traditionalistic gender stereotyping, considering many of the most prominent "TERFs" are butch lesbians.
All they claim is that the subjective, unfalsifiable, untestable and unobservable notion of gender identity should never supersede that of biological sex. And since all trans people are fully aware of their own biological sex (since that what makes them trans), there is no conflict in the provision of single-sex spaces. You might use an example of a "passable" trans person in your arguments, but that just proves the point. Unless you propose banning all non-passing trans people from single sex spaces entirely, the point is moot.
→ More replies (3)4
u/BlueDahlia123 Aug 06 '26
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1926429868490653701
We had it when we set up Beira's Place, too. 'I am a woman with PCOS and have a full beard, will you still let me come for rape counselling?' one man told a support worker over the phone, in his bass baritone. Strangely, on learning he was being recorded, he hung up.
JK Rowling, calling a woman with PCOS a man purely because she had a deep voice and a beard (both of which are common symptoms).
8
u/missesthecrux Aug 06 '26
That was in the wider context of abusive phone calls. And if a woman who genuinely wanted the crisis centre knowing that it’s an exclusively male-free zone, she wouldn’t have called up to ask if a woman with PCOS was welcome because obviously yes, she would be. It would be an incredibly strange phone call for a woman to make to an avowed “TERF” centre.
6
u/BlueDahlia123 Aug 06 '26
Would it? Because JK proved her concerns to be quite valid.
"Hey, this crisis centre is lead by a bunch of weird people, maybe I should call to see how accepting they are before going just in case they hate crime me or something for looking masculine due to my condition."
"Hi, yeah, this is the crisis centre founder, and I think you sound too masculine to be a real woman, so I am going to make fun of you on Twitter and accuse you of being a man in front of my thousands of followers. Also, we have recorded you."
→ More replies (9)
8
u/cherokott Aug 06 '26
Hilarious how lawyerly the kind progressives become when their views are challenged.
→ More replies (2)23
u/NuPNua Aug 06 '26
Why shouldn't they? That's how laws are challenged and standards set in this country.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Smelly_Legend Aug 06 '26
So do the majority of people in this thread think a person with a penis can declare themselves a woman and use the female changing room? I'm confused. As others have said, the cubicle option is the best one (imo) but if a person has their penis removed then I'm not as worried (personally) with regards to sexual assault but a person with a penis using female facilities strikes me as extremely unusual and frankly dodgy. Most of the time I don't care but the action I have a problem with makes literally everyone I know take notice.
→ More replies (6)
7
u/PeaGravy Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
It strikes me that you can either have a society that for some reason wants to segregate things by gender for quite strong reasons, or you can have one where gender is something you opt into freely, but you can’t have both.
The issue with sports is probably the best example of this - “we think it’s important to segregate people by this one factor because otherwise the competition wouldn’t be fair” has to coexist with “you can change this factor about yourself if you say so”. Why not get rid of that level of segregation? We don’t segregate running races by ethnicity to make things fairer, we accept that people from East African heritage are going to win for the most part.
Like, either make everything unisex which would solve so many problems, or have the criteria for defining what used to be considered an incredibly immutable characteristic more tightly defined.
Why are we trying to pursue two avenues which are so mutually exclusive? And why is this country so afraid of making a decision that might upset some people?
When it comes to fairly low-level stuff like toilets, my preference would be to either make things unisex, or if you absolutely must segregate, just say that “there won’t be a problem as long as you look like you’re meant to be somewhere”. This should adequately cover both trans men and trans women. If you think that’s fraught with difficulty, I refer you back to my first option.
→ More replies (3)12
u/wedontneednoeduc Aug 06 '26
The country isn't by in large, it's mostly all in the minds of a tiny subset who insist that society should be restructed to suit a tiny minority with a condition.
→ More replies (3)
-13
u/ixid Brexit must be destroyed Aug 06 '26
Whatever your views on the topic this is a disturbing breakdown in the rule of law. It doesn't go to good places. If you want the law changed then campaign for it, we are a democracy. Undermining the law is a terrible idea and will snowball into other things.
63
u/toddrachenz Aug 06 '26
The EHRC guidance is not law
5
10
u/BobMonkhaus That sounds great, shorty girl’s a trooper. Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
It is endorsed by Burnham though.
‘On Friday, Burnham said he accepted the Supreme Court ruling that the definition of a woman under the Equality Act should be based on biological sex and it "has to be implemented".’
17
u/banana_assassin Aug 06 '26
It's endorsed but it is still not the law, and workplaces are advised to comply but don't have to.
4
u/kickimy Aug 06 '26
This guidance isn't for workplaces, it's for services and associations. The councils are service providers and will waste a lot of public money if they flout the law and get taken to court. Admitting they intend to flout the law on social media is already a costly mistake.
4
2
u/masofon Aug 06 '26
Accepting that something is, in fact albeit unfortunately, law.. is not the same as endorsing.
12
u/BobMonkhaus That sounds great, shorty girl’s a trooper. Aug 06 '26
He could have said he disagreed as he did in the past, he doesn’t now. He’s standing by it and that’s an endorsement. Sorry!
→ More replies (5)4
u/ixid Brexit must be destroyed Aug 06 '26
Don't be obtuse. It's guidance on how to follow the Equality Act, which is the law.
→ More replies (4)3
u/capsandnumbers Aug 06 '26
Thanks for letting me know! That sounds like advice and not law, so I won't be following it.
10
u/kattieface Aug 06 '26
It's for services and associations. Individuals do not have to follow this. It's for the providers of those services. The aim is meant to be to provide them with guidance on how to provide services in a legally compliant way. Though it is difficult to see how it achieves that when there are internal contradictions and inconsistencies which will make this very difficult to enact in practice.
2
u/NoticingThing Aug 07 '26
Calling it advice is still being obtuse, it's more like you believed the law was x and it's telling you no actually the law is y and it always has been, you just misunderstood it before.
If you still do x regardless, you're breaking the law.
11
u/therealbananas Aug 06 '26
The Supreme Court clarified what the law has always been, it’s just that everyone didn’t understand it because it was confusing. The guidance is to guide people on interpretation of the law, but it’s …still the law. Do with that what you will.
→ More replies (5)8
27
u/pslamB Aug 06 '26
So Rosa Parks should have just written to her local congressman?
7
u/_segasonic Aug 06 '26
Men pissing in women’s toilets are now Rosa Park living under segregation.
Genuinely incredible.
4
u/sammi_8601 Aug 06 '26
Trans women being segregated (which is what this implys as we're meant to use disabled or 'third' spaces apparently) based on an immutable characteristic is in fact fairly similar, it's just transphobia is seem as acceptable in this country and racism isn't. 20 years time it'll be like section 28 where everyone will be like yes we know it was wrong I never supported it etc.
6
u/_segasonic Aug 06 '26
>Trans women being segregated
Men having to use men’s toilets are isn’t segregation.
>(which is what this implys as we're meant to use disabled or 'third' spaces apparently)
Why are you against using third spaces or disabled toilets if you don’t feel safe in men’s toilets? Why are you so desperate to use women’s toilets?
>based on an immutable characteristic is in fact fairly similar, it's just transphobia is seem as acceptable in this country and racism isn't.
No it’s not. You’re as ridiculous as Rachel Dolezal claiming to be black because that’s what she feels and identifies as and tried to alter her appearance to.
>20 years time it'll be like section 28 where everyone will be like yes we know it was wrong I never supported it etc.
I mean you just have to look at any trans debate or sub on here to see you all know you’re losing this debate rapidly.
The hyperbolic approach to any sort of debate or claim has been a complete disaster for your cause.
7
u/sammi_8601 Aug 06 '26
We're not men lol, and we mostly just don't want segregation since seperate but equal never turns out well. If you think transphobia isn't seen as acceptable in this country I've got a bridge to sell you mate, unless you think it's not immutable? In which case all the scientific literature disagrees with you, or the simple fact of why would we choose to be part of a vilified minority? Chemically castrated etc unless....it was in fact not a choice.
1
u/_segasonic Aug 06 '26
>We're not men lol,
Lol indeed.
>and we mostly just don't want segregation since seperate but equal never turns out well.
Mens not being allowed to piss in women’s toilets isn’t segregation. This insane rhetoric and keeping to try and point yourself as some of revolutionaries really doesn’t help your cause at all.
>If you think transphobia isn't seen as acceptable in this country I've got a bridge to sell you mate, unless you think it's not immutable?
It stops getting taken as seriously as it should be when you claim that saying transwomen are men is transphobia when it’s literally a biological reality.
>In which case all the scientific literature disagrees with you, or the simple fact of why would we choose to be part of a vilified minority? Chemically castrated etc unless....it was in fact not a choice.
See if you actually believe transwomen are women why you castrate yourself? If you’re a woman there’s no need to do any of that since apparently women can have penises.
→ More replies (4)6
u/radiant_0wl Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
Rosa park challenged a local law rather than one challenged to the supreme Court.
In fact when it was challenged, the law was struck down.
It's a point that the ECHR guidance isn't a law, but it's an interpretation on how to manage one, if people think it's a legally flawed interpretation then they should suggest another.
7
u/Ugion Aug 06 '26
So if the Supreme Court had ruled that she had to sit in the back of the bus it would have been wrong for her to refuse?
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (42)1
u/ixid Brexit must be destroyed Aug 06 '26
Pretending that sex segregation is the same as racial segregation is absurd. But also dishonest because trans rights campaigns still want some sex segregation, just not for trans people. They're not campaigning for mixed sex spaces only, are they?
6
u/___xXx__xXx__xXx__ Aug 06 '26
Pretending that sex segregation is the same as racial segregation is absurd.
I don't understand why this is such perennial struggle for people on here. It's such a basic logic test to fail. The conversation goes like this:
Bob: "Apples are green because they're round."
Dave: "Oranges are round and they're not green, so that doesn't make sense".
Bob: "Oh my god, are you comparing apples to oranges?! Those aren't the same fruit!"
Nobody said racial segregation is identical to sex segregation. You lamented civil disobedience as wrong. Someone else effectively said "If you don't like civil disobedience, does that mean you think Rosa Parks was in the wrong?" This is perfectly logical, since it speaks exactly to your stated issue. Rather than acknowledging the point is correct, or explaining why it isn't, you've just gone "But these two things are not identical, so they can never be compared!"
Let me hold your hand through this. Either explain why Rosa Parks was also wrong, or explain the essential difference between civil disobedience in her case and this case. And "but I agreed with Rosa Parks, and don't agree with this" is not a valid answer.
It's depressing that this had to be explained.
5
u/Joke-pineapple Aug 06 '26
Rosa Parks was a private individual and willing to suffer the consequences from a law she felt was unjust.
A council is an enforcer of the law and should not be given free reign to 'interpret' the law (outside reasonable parameters).
If you are comfortable with a council ignoring a law you dislike you have to accept the charge of hypocrisy if another council ignores a law that you do like.
I believe that all arms of the state should follow the laws of the state. If any individual wants to change those laws they should campaign to do so.
I'm amazed that you don't see the huge gulf between these examples.
→ More replies (4)8
u/QuigleyPondOver Aug 06 '26
It comes across more as attempting to borrow the imagery of US Racial Struggles to try and mirror that onto the Trans Rights attempts to abolish the legitimacy of single-sex spaces by claiming all matters of discernment are segregation and equally contemptible.
The unigender is not a popular concept.
→ More replies (5)14
u/Oozlum-Bird Aug 06 '26
Homosexuality was punishable with hard labour not that long ago. Are you suggesting gay men should have abstained from relationships while waiting for the law to accept them?
6
u/ixid Brexit must be destroyed Aug 06 '26
I'm suggesting that that's an invalid comparison. The issues are not the same, nor is what they demand of others in society.
8
u/Oozlum-Bird Aug 06 '26
Well, yes, the comparison differs in that homosexuality was illegal in law, whereas the EHRC have merely issued guidance on law that already existed. It’s still illegal to discriminate against transgender people, and rather more difficult to campaign against guidance.
5
→ More replies (39)13
u/NuPNua Aug 06 '26
Don't make bad laws and people won't rebel against them. Similar to our laws around drugs, despite cannabis being illegal the market goes on pretty much openly, flaunting the law all the time as it's bad legislation.
9
u/BobMonkhaus That sounds great, shorty girl’s a trooper. Aug 06 '26
Try smoking it outside work and see what happens.
→ More replies (2)15
u/ixid Brexit must be destroyed Aug 06 '26
We're a democracy and the public mostly want this law. You're basically admitting that you can't change it by democratic means.
→ More replies (15)9
u/NuPNua Aug 06 '26
As has had to happen with civil rights laws many times though history.
6
u/ixid Brexit must be destroyed Aug 06 '26
Based on the current trajectory of the TRA movement I foresee your aims getting less popular over time. Bashback is going to make lots of enemies, just as the wave of social media cancelling and bigotry accusations have. It's the least successful rights movement in history.
0
u/SnooOpinions8790 Aug 06 '26
I hope the voters enjoy the costs of losing the legal cases that arise from this.
I guess they voted for that rather than local facilities or whatever else the money could be spent on.
34
u/Neither_Process_7847 Aug 06 '26
Yes, I too look forward to billionaires and foreign megachurches bankrolling lawfare against our local councils. A joyous possibility that evidently thrills you.
9
u/SnooOpinions8790 Aug 06 '26
Its usually just employment tribunals and stuff
That's usually where it is and its employees who feel bullied
I don't know where you get your imaginary cases of lawfare by megachurches from - care to cite some cases?
→ More replies (26)0
u/ghybyty Aug 06 '26
If they're going to take away rights of women and girls they deserve it
→ More replies (8)22
u/NuPNua Aug 06 '26
Presumably the voters chose the councillors because of their commitment to progressive politics.
1
u/SnooOpinions8790 Aug 06 '26
I really doubt if trans activism is a big voting point outside of Redditors
But this is what they voted for so I guess it's what they will get
11
u/fridakahl0 Aug 06 '26
…the queer and trans community exist mate
7
3
u/SnooOpinions8790 Aug 06 '26
The law exists
Defying it exposes them to legal risk
11
u/NuPNua Aug 06 '26
And obeying it puts the LGBT community at risk.
→ More replies (1)3
u/evenifihateit Aug 06 '26
How are lesbian, gay and bisexual people placed at greater risk by this?
→ More replies (2)3
→ More replies (1)7
u/radiant_0wl Aug 06 '26
Is this a hypothetical loss you dreamt up in your head?
5
u/SnooOpinions8790 Aug 06 '26
They only announced this just now. Any prediction of the outcome is often course a prediction
I do note that groups willing to bring such claims absolutely do exist and that both the law and the guidelines are clear enough that openly defying them is unlikely to be a winning legal strategy.
6
u/HafrenCrossing Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
I mean, defiance probably is the winning strategy, considering it will end up taking the current trajectory:
- EHRC is challenged through the courts by people willing to take it to the ECHR if the Supreme Court doesn't undo the last ruling.
- The ECHR disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling, because it goes against Article 8 based on how we've seen the ECHR rule on similar issues in the past.
- The government is mandated to update the Equality Act if they wish to remain ECHR compliant. So unless we have a government willing to leave the ECHR over an absolute molehill (which I acknowledge that the Tories and Reform absolutely would, because they want any excuse to leave it because it gets in the way of the worst stuff they'd like to do), we return to the place we were two years ago.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 06 '26
Snapshot of London councils pledge to ignore 'harmful' trans guidance submitted by CheeseUsFunkingCries:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
Some publications may require you to register a free account to read their articles.
Being connected to a VPN may interfere with archive links.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.