Bridget Phillipson is blocking the publication of trans guidance that would force business and public bodies to protect women-only spaces . The Women and Equalities Secretary has given a statement to the High Court describing the proposed rules as “trans-exclusive” and has failed to sign them off more than three months after receiving them, reports the Telegraph.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) guidance was drawn up following a landmark Supreme Court ruling that only biological women are women under equality law . In her High Court submission, Ms Phillipson says that banning transgender women – biological males – from women’s lavatories would also mean women could not take their “infant sons” into changing rooms at swimming pools.
She argues that the EHRC guidelines are discriminatory; that the Supreme Court ruling on biological sex mainly concerned maternity rights, and that there are already “many entirely plausible exceptions” to a single-sex rule.
Supreme Court ruling and its implications
In April, the Supreme Court ruled that sex under the Equality Act means biological sex – which has been interpreted as meaning that trans women (people born as men) must be excluded from single-sex spaces such as women’s changing rooms, lavatories and hospital wards. Businesses and public bodies are awaiting new guidance from the EHRC that explains their legal requirement to protect single-sex spaces as a result.
Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister initially welcomed the Supreme Court ruling, saying “a woman is an adult human female” and it had provided “clarity.”
However, more than eight months after the court decision, Ms Phillipson has still not rubber-stamped the EHRC’s guidance. Sources told The Telegraph that she had insisted on additional bureaucratic processes that have held approval up. Because of the delay, hospitals, businesses and other public facilities are doing nothing to prevent biological males from using women’s loos and changing rooms.
A Government spokesman insisted Ms Phillipson was not blocking the guidance but simply wanted to make sure the “incredibly complicated” issues were legally watertight. But the Conservatives accused her of “a betrayal of women and girls everywhere.”
Phillipson’s opposition to EHRC guidelines
Ms Phillipson’s active opposition to the EHRC guidelines was made clear in her High Court submission as an interested party in a case being brought by the Good Law Project, a non-profit organisation, which is challenging an interim version of the EHRC guidelines published earlier this year.
Her court submission attacks the EHRC guidelines as “trans-exclusive” and said they failed to take into account “common sense” exceptions such as pregnant women using men’s loos to avoid queues at theatres. She has been accused of “using every excuse in the book” to stand in the way of the Supreme Court ruling, in the hope that she will find a reason to force the EHRC to rewrite its guidelines.
The EHRC is the body responsible for interpreting the Supreme Court ruling, and on Sep 4 it submitted a 300-page draft code of practice to Ms Phillipson which would force public bodies and businesses to protect single sex spaces, urging her to “act at speed” to implement it.
