ATProto Browser

Record data

{
  "uri": "at://did:plc:zsavht65qe2dxize3jc3qqos/app.bsky.feed.post/3loducfpjps2d",
  "cid": "bafyreicadthfaxzfrdarwsegt4ixknzycoz5n4ddyergino24s2h5axmvy",
  "value": {
    "text": "Letter to Baroness Faulkner from Labour MP Tony Vaughan \n\nIt's pretty good. Could be clearer on the impact on trans men's safety, rather than framing in the form of perceived risk, & doesn't mention the potential Article 8 conflict, but  1/2\n\n@tonyvaughanmp.bsky.social",
    "$type": "app.bsky.feed.post",
    "embed": {
      "$type": "app.bsky.embed.images",
      "images": [
        {
          "alt": "1. I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the Equality and Human Rights Commission's (EHRC's) interim guidance on single-sex spaces entitled \"An interim update on the practical implications of the Supreme Court judgment\" published on 25 April 2025.\n\n2. I write as a Member of Parliament representing many constituents who are adversely affected by that guidance. Before being elected to Parliament, I was previously a member of the EHRC's own Panel of Counsel (2019-2024).\n\n3.\n\nSince the publication of the guidance last week, my office has heard from several constituents within the transgender community who fear that it exposes them to heightened risks of harassment, violence and exclusion. These concerns are based on their own real-world experiences of rising hostility and discrimination against trans people in our society. This is a statistical fact: Home Office statistics show a long-term upward trend in hate crimes against trans people in the UK. Sadly, this is also what we are seeing across Europe, as the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner recently pointed out (Human Rights and Gender Identity and Expression, March 2024).\n\nAs the statutory guardian of equality and human rights in our country, the EHRC must take these concerns seriously and balance them fairly against others' interests. On the face of it, this guidance does not do so.\n\n5. I write on an urgent basis out of concern for my constituents. As an MP, I intend to hear from constituents who hold a wide range views on these issues so I can ultimately help our whole community to navigate this difficult area respectfully and sensitively. I do nevertheless feel it necessary to write urgently, based on the information I have, given my serious concerns about the guidance and its effects on those in the communities I represent",
          "image": {
            "$type": "blob",
            "ref": {
              "$link": "bafkreiaih4vp2ibiysmud66eudqlbxjqckfc5xri527krydzjvgf54ele4"
            },
            "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
            "size": 473772
          },
          "aspectRatio": {
            "width": 1111,
            "height": 1661
          }
        },
        {
          "alt": "Legal incoherence\n\n6. In For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 the Supreme Court ruled that the terms \"sex\", \"woman\" and \"man\" in the Equality Act 2010 refer to \"biological sex,\" rather than sex as certificated by a Gender Recognition Certificate. The Court also reaffirmed that trans people remain protected under the \"gender reassignment\" protected characteristic.\n\n7. The Supreme Court's ruling requires women-only spaces to be respected. However, your guidance appears to treat access to men's and women's single-sex spaces based on biological sex as if this were an absolute rule, rather than - as the Equality Act states an exception justified by proportionality (your guidance says, \"trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities and trans men (biological\nwomen) should not be permitted to use the men's facilities\"). \n\n8 This approach risks violating Section 19 (indirect discrimination) and Section 26 (harassment) of the Equality Act, and exposes service providers to possible legal claims. The lack of universally available alternative facilities makes the guidance impractical and, in many cases, impossible to implement without breaching the law.\n\n9 In the context of services, the suggestion in the guidance that admission to single sex facilities must always be based strictly on biological sex does not, in my view, come from the Supreme Court's ruling. Indeed, as the former Supreme Court Justice Lord Sumption said last week, the judgment allows service providers to exclude trans people from single sex spaces but does not oblige them to do so.\n\n",
          "image": {
            "$type": "blob",
            "ref": {
              "$link": "bafkreih4nubkmb7eunp2zhizkwojv52cunhjexmmznpv3hav54n4ojgfz4"
            },
            "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
            "size": 593108
          },
          "aspectRatio": {
            "width": 1083,
            "height": 1637
          }
        },
        {
          "alt": "10. The guidance also seems to be contradictory and confusing, and raises more questions than it answers. It says, for example, that trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use; but does not explain how this can be avoided if access to single-sex toilets is based on biological sex. It also says that in \"some\" circumstances trans women (biological men) can be banned from men's facilities, and says the same for trans men, without explaining what those circumstances might be.\n\nRisks of Harassment, Violence, and Forced Outing\n\n11. The guidance also fails to address the practical reality that many trans people \"pass\" as their gender identity, making enforcement not only impractical but also - as I mentioned at §3 above - dangerous.\n\n12. Take the example of public toilets. The guidance will encourage \"policing\" of toilets by fellow citizens who believe they are upholding the law by forcibly outing trans people. Your guidance means that, for example:\n\n(i) A trans woman, who presents as a woman, would have to use the men's toilets. One constituent in this situation told me that she has always used the women's toilets because she feels safer doing so, having experienced harassment for using the men's facilities in the past. She will now needlessly be exposed to heightened risks of harassment and violence\n\n(ii) A trans man, who presents as male but is biologically female, will on this guidance be required to use the women's toilets. This will result in many cis women feeling that their single-sex space has been made unsafe;\n\n(iii) Cis women or intersex people using the female toilet, but who have features perceived to be male, also risk being accused of being in the wrong toilet. One of my constituents has found herself so accused, experiencing hostile and aggressive behaviour when being challenged.\n\n13. None of this is the necessary consequence of the Supreme Court's ruling.\n",
          "image": {
            "$type": "blob",
            "ref": {
              "$link": "bafkreigpenwy3k65ydlylpwwqs5vg6quzskkux55w3y4wwbvif6objbhui"
            },
            "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
            "size": 579899
          },
          "aspectRatio": {
            "width": 1121,
            "height": 1678
          }
        },
        {
          "alt": "14. In several contexts, including services, a proportionality assessment is needed. The EHRC's job is to explain what may be proportionate or disproportionate in different scenarios and what these tests mean. Unfortunately, this guidance takes a blanket approach which does not do this and puts trans people and others at risk.\n\n15. Some have said that trans people can simply use the disabled toilet. On this point, a constituent has reported to me that, just last weekend, they were shouted at and humiliated for using a disabled toilet in Folkestone as they did not appear to be disabled. Furthermore, at a recent meeting of a group from the trans community in Folkestone, most confirmed to me that they had been harassed by members of the public in the context of their use of public toilet facilities. They and I have no doubt that this guidance only increases the risks of this occurring more often, and with greater severity.\n\nFailure of Consultation and Public Sector Equality Duty\n\n16. I am concerned that the EHRC did not consult - whether properly or at all with trans-led organisations or those with lived experience before issuing this guidance. This omission is at odds with the Public Sector Equality Duty, which requires meaningful engagement with and consideration of affected groups when developing policies that impact their rights and safety. As I said above, this is what I, as a local MP, intend to do, in order to be able to help my constituents navigate this ruling. The EHRC must also do so.\n",
          "image": {
            "$type": "blob",
            "ref": {
              "$link": "bafkreih4rjoi2g5xc5uuu6akkbhecqucuqkdyxrbwr27jzwznuwrl26np4"
            },
            "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
            "size": 28138
          },
          "aspectRatio": {
            "width": 960,
            "height": 333
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    "langs": [
      "en"
    ],
    "facets": [
      {
        "$type": "app.bsky.richtext.facet",
        "index": {
          "byteEnd": 269,
          "byteStart": 243
        },
        "features": [
          {
            "did": "did:plc:meslmfgbvsb66fmo2wbypft6",
            "$type": "app.bsky.richtext.facet#mention"
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "createdAt": "2025-05-04T12:31:40.480Z"
  }
}