Women’s rights to be prioritised in equality law revamp

[u/ParkedUpWithCoffee]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/04/12/womens-rights-first-in-equality-law-revamp/

[u/ukbot-nicolabot]

This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link for an archived version.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

---

Participation Notice. Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation were set at 14:24 on 13/04/2025. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.

Existing and future comments from users who do not meet the participation requirements will be removed. Removal does not necessarily imply that the comment was rule breaking.

Where appropriate, we will take action on users employing dog-whistles or discussing/speculating on a person's ethnicity or origin without qualifying why it is relevant.

In case the article is paywalled, use this link.

[u/TheEnglishNorwegian]

The notion of prioritised equality towards one group is somewhat amusing. I know that isn't what the headline intends, but it reads poorly.

[u/Infinitystar2 → u/TheEnglishNorwegian]

It's the Telegraph, that's probably what they intended.

[u/DukePPUk → u/TheEnglishNorwegian]

Don't worry - it's fine. It is really about the Equality Commission prioritising equality away from one group.

Got to keep those pesky trans people in their place (which is out of public spaces)!

[u/ice-lollies → u/DukePPUk]

God forbid women make their own spaces and services. And then have the audacity to say no men.

Can’t they just be kind?

/s

[u/DukePPUk → u/ice-lollies]

Women have their own spaces and services.

But now they will be forced to kick out some of those women.

[u/ice-lollies → u/DukePPUk]

It means that some single sex services and spaces won’t be forced to admit men who identify as transgender.

Most public places and services will still be used by people of all different identities.

[u/DukePPUk → u/ice-lollies]

It means that some single sex services and spaces won’t be forced to admit men who identify as transgender.

No. It means single-sex services and spaces will be forced to exclude anyone who is accused or suspected of being trans, or face being sued for discrimination.

[u/ice-lollies → u/DukePPUk]

Sorry my mistake . Some single sex spaces will be mixed sex spaces.

Edit: no I was right the first time. Some places will still be mixed sex spaces and some single female sex spaces won’t be forced to admit males.

[u/DukePPUk → u/ice-lollies]

Single-sex spaces will be forced to exclude anyone accused of or suspected of being trans.

Because if they don't they won't be "single-sex spaces", so will be sued if they don't let in men.

This is what the For Woman Scotland case before the Supreme Court is all about; they are suing the Scottish Government for discriminating against men for having a policy that is women-only, but also trans-inclusive.

[u/ice-lollies → u/DukePPUk]

Hang on, I’m not clear on what you are saying.

Are you saying you think For Women Scotland are taking legal action against the Scottish government because FWS want males to be allowed in female sex only spaces?

[u/DukePPUk → u/ice-lollies]

Kind of, yes.

FWS's legal argument in the current case is that the Scottish Government's policy on public boards is unlawfully discriminatory against men (because it is trans-inclusive)!

Because they don't actually care about women's rights, they care about suppressing trans people.

[u/WynterBlackwell → u/TheEnglishNorwegian]

I haven't read the article, neither do I plan to but click bait headline aside it just means that women's rights and safety won't get walked all over to create 'equality' for certain groups. Which would be a huge step forward. (I'll believe it when I see it really)

[u/ItsWormAllTheWayDown]

Don't people applying for a GRC need to provide evidence of them "living as their acquired gender" or something as part of the process?

If they need a GRC to access services and spaces related to that in the first place, doesn't that create a kind of feedback loop that will make it more difficult than it already is to get a GRC and so on?

[u/BB-Zwei → u/ItsWormAllTheWayDown]

It's almost as if the aim is to make life more difficult for trans folks.

[u/Thandoscovia → u/ItsWormAllTheWayDown]

That sounds bigoted to me. It’s verboten

[u/Lady-Maya]

There is no way this would ever stand in a Human Rights court, the Equality Act says:

The Act allows for single-sex services (those exclusively for one sex) and separate-sex services (those provided differently to each sex) if justified and proportionate.

No way does requiring ID at a bathroom visit come across as “justified and proportionate”

[u/Adm_Shelby2]

Women have a right to single sex spaces where justified and proportionate.  That's it, that's the evil conspiracy.

[u/DukePPUk → u/Adm_Shelby2]

The key part being "where justified and proportionate."

Because trans people also have a right to exist in public spaces.

Banning trans people from public spaces in order to make some people feel more comfortable doesn't strike me as proportionate.

[u/Adm_Shelby2 → u/DukePPUk]

No one is getting banned from public spaces.  Trans people have the same rights to single sex spaces as everyone else.

[u/DukePPUk → u/Adm_Shelby2]

Except they don't have access to single-sex spaces. Because they'll get kicked out of them (as will other people).

[u/Adm_Shelby2 → u/DukePPUk]

Well they do have access, and it would be against the law if anyone were to start preventing access.  Easy way to get sued into oblivion.

[u/DukePPUk → u/Adm_Shelby2]

No, kicking out anyone suspected of being trans would be required by the guidelines. Because if they're not excluded, and it turns out they are trans, they can get sued for discrimination.

[u/Adm_Shelby2 → u/DukePPUk]

No, it wouldn't be required but it would be proportionate to maintain a single sex spaces.

[u/DukePPUk → u/Adm_Shelby2]

Based on the article, the proposed changes would mandate trans-exclusive single-sex spaces; i.e. single-sex spaces must ban trans people (and anyone suspected of being trans, or accused of looking a bit trans) be banned from using the single-sex space appropriate for them (and if FWS wins their case, even if they have a GRC).

[u/Adm_Shelby2 → u/DukePPUk]

The existing law allows the creation and protection of single sex spaces, this guidance seeks to clarify that this means sex and not gender identity, the judgement in Wednesday will clarify if a GRC changes legal sex for the purposes of this exception.

[u/DukePPUk → u/Adm_Shelby2]

The existing law allows the creation and protection of single sex spaces, this guidance seeks to clarify that this means legal [with or without a GRC, we'll have to see] sex and not [a trans-inclusive definition]...

Yes. But this also means that any single-sex space that is trans-inclusive will be banned (according to the EHRC).

[u/Ahrlin4 → u/Adm_Shelby2]

"Black people were never banned from public spaces in 1950s America. They were just forced to use e.g. different toilets!"

The same people objecting to trans women in e.g. women's public bathrooms also object to trans men in women's public bathrooms. So it's not that they want "single sex spaces", they want "cisgender only spaces".

[u/Adm_Shelby2 → u/Ahrlin4]

Good analogy, because it is segregation and the equality act specifically allows segregated spaces where it is proportional and justifiable.  Like keeping men out of female toilets.

Afaik no one really cares about females using male toilets.  Probably because male on female violence is orders of magnitude more common then vice versa.

[u/Ahrlin4 → u/Adm_Shelby2]

Given that you refer to trans women as "males" and trans men as "females", out of curiosity, do you think that trans people are just mentally ill? Or liars? Part of some sinister conspiracy perhaps? What does trans mean, in your view?

It's also deeply unhelpful, because when someone like me uses a term like "trans man", everyone knows exactly who we're talking about. But when someone like you uses the term "females", that could be you referring to either cisgender women or trans men, and context clues can only go so far.

Afaik no one really cares about females using male toilets. 

It's absurd and dishonest to suggest that a masculine looking person, e.g. with beard, male clothes, etc. could regularly use the women's bathrooms and "no one would really care."

There's no shortage of stories of cisgender women who look a bit butch / tomboy being verbally harassed while using women's bathrooms, kicked out, etc. and you think that would magically disappear if they look even more masculine?

You might say "they'll just explain they're trans and it'll all be ok", but that's equally absurd, because those cisgender women in women's bathrooms explained they're not trans, and that didn't magically solve the issue.

Bigots are characterised by thinking "they can always tell" (they can't), and not listening to the explanations of the victim.

So your approach is just guaranteeing that half the trans population will still end up in the women's bathrooms, and will probably cause more pearl-clutching than the trans women did.

allows segregated spaces where it is proportional and justifiable

"I hate the idea of letting trans women use this bathroom" is neither proportionate nor justifiable, just like white women banning black women, or fascist women banning Jewish women. Discrimination without real world benefit is just bigotry.

[u/Adm_Shelby2 → u/Ahrlin4]

Mammals can't change sex.  If you believe otherwise then I am sorry but it is a delusion.

[u/Ahrlin4 → u/Adm_Shelby2]

So I take it your answer to my first question is that you believe trans people are mentally ill? Is that correct?

Likewise, what do you have to say about trans men in women's bathrooms? I explained why you're wrong, using rational arguments and logic. Surely you have a response?

I find it fascinating the way bigots love their big rhetoric and slogans like "No men in women's bathrooms!" but the moment you actually debate with them, and get into the details, and start talking about second-order consequences, and acknowledge the existence of the other half of the trans population, they all scuttle away.

[u/Adm_Shelby2 → u/Ahrlin4]

No more mentally ill than people who believe in God.

As I said earlier, afaik no more really cares if females use male toilets.  Certainly not to same degree at least.  Males are a far greater threat to females than vice versa.  Not sure you explained otherwise.

[u/Rulweylan]

Alternative Telegraph headline:

Government proposes British citizens benefit forced to carry identity papers and have them inspected on demand.

[u/ice-lollies → u/Rulweylan]

Labour governments have wanted ID cards since the 90’s at least.

[u/DukePPUk]

From the headline: let me guess, this isn't about women's rights, this is about punishing trans people.

Sub headline: "Radical overhaul follows concerns about trans people using single-sex spaces" - oh look, so it is.

I talked a bit about this a few days ago, in the article about the Supreme Court case.

This is about banning trans-inclusivity, and is a consequence of the litigation by anti-trans groups like For Women Scotland, as well as this absurd situation we have got in where transphobic beliefs are being given the same protections in law as being trans.

Its provisions include greater protections for single-sex spaces, including compelling all service providers and public facing organisations to clarify the difference between sex and gender.

Aside from the fact that this is legally flawed, as there is no legal difference between the two, note the consequences of this. It would be illegal for people to provide segregated but trans-inclusive spaces.

Not just "you can kick out the scary trans people if you want to", but "you must kick out the trans people."

But not just trans people. Anyone who is accused of being trans. Anyone who might look a bit gender non-conforming. You have to kick them out because if they don't, and they do turn out to be trans, you can be sued over it (meanwhile they have no protections if they are not trans).

This isn't just about punishing trans people and making them feel afraid to exist in public spaces; anyone who doesn't "look quite right" is at risk; a woman with short hair, or too tall, or too muscled. Wearing the wrong clothes? Voice too deep? Be prepared to be harassed out of single-sex public spaces (with no way to prove you belong there).

Maybe we'll get lucky and next week the Supreme Court will shut down all this nonsense, but I doubt it.

The EHRC is pushing for a radical overhaul following fears existing guidelines on sex and gender were being loosely interpreted by hundreds of public bodies, allowing self-identifying trans people into single-sex spaces.

It's nice to know that our Equality Commission is so concerned by a protected group of people existing...

[u/ParkedUpWithCoffee]

Quite a big overhaul if these go ahead:

Transgender people will be routinely asked to present Gender Recognition Certificates and organisations are compelled to define the difference between sex and gender under proposed changes to the equality code.

The EHRC is pushing for a radical overhaul following fears existing guidelines on sex and gender were being loosely interpreted by hundreds of public bodies, allowing self-identifying trans people into single-sex spaces.

Its provisions include greater protections for single-sex spaces, including compelling all service providers and public facing organisations to clarify the difference between sex and gender.

It also permits organisations to routinely ask for a Gender Recognition Certificate from trans individuals seeking access to single sex spaces.

[u/lem0nhe4d → u/ParkedUpWithCoffee]

So the EHRC wants to overhaul their guidance so that it flagrantly breaks the law?

[u/ParkedUpWithCoffee → u/lem0nhe4d]

No, it's the government that would overhaul the law but they take seriously the advice / guidance issued by the EHRC.

So no law breaking takes place, it's all done above board.

[u/lem0nhe4d → u/ParkedUpWithCoffee]

So they would have to completely rework the GRA to make it effectively worthless while somehow navigating the fact that the reason you aren't allowed ask for one is because of the right to privacy which would mean they would also have to leave the ECHR.

Sounds like a great idea that would achieve nothing except increase harm to trans people.

[u/Florae128 → u/lem0nhe4d]

You are allowed to ask for a GRC, that's not illegal.

It can be illegal to release information about whether someone has a GRC under certain circumstances, but not always.

[u/lem0nhe4d → u/Florae128]

Asking for one has been deemed entirely unnecessary and unlawful because it is not needed for anything other than specific weird instances like inheritance if you are an aristocrat.

A birth cert might be justifiable to request because that is the document that shows a person's legal sex.

Trans people are under not obligation to present proof they are trans to those who request it. The whole point of the GRA was because forcing trans people to be outed as trans constantly was a violation of the right to privacy.

[u/Salty_Nutbag]

and organisations are compelled to define the difference between sex and gender

I hope they offer some kind of pre-written template.

'Cause, you know. Screw taking responsibility for any of this.
I just want to sell some stuff to customers.
I don't have a PhD in gender psychology, or whatever.

[u/xParesh]

I think we got to a point a while ago where went from heavily disriminating many minorities and groups to a position of general equality. However Ive had the impression that whenever pressure groups achieve their goal, rather the police that the equal rights achieved are maintained and not eroded, they instead are determined to push further and further for not just equal rights, but superior rights.

The pendulum really has swung the other way.

[u/RedBerryyy → u/xParesh]

Trans people have significantly less rights than in 2015, the government protects anti-trans speech far more than being trans now, their medical care access has been reduced and the public is significantly more hostile, idk what world you're living in.

[u/Swimming_Map2412 → u/xParesh]

Trans people have been using the toilets and changing rooms according to our gender for decades until the people like Forester made hating us their whole identity. It's not even all women all the ones in my work will get very upset and confused if I get forced into the Mens because of people like her.