I don't think there's any reason to be concerned on an individual level here. Medical confidentiality is pretty sacrosanct here. No one can access your records without
1. A good reason
2. Your consent
3. A court order
The rules about 1. are all about a clinician caring for you. A non NHS agency has no access without your permission. A clinician not involved in your care has no right of access. There are various technical safeguards and criminal sanctions.
So no, I don't think there is an individual risk here.
The risk is on a policy level. Anonymous data can be extracted. I could see that being twisted... I.e. x% of people in a certain group have a different 'biological sex' or whatever.
I'm afraid I'm somewhat less sanguine about this. The previous government's direction of travel in relation to data protection was to increase the sharing of personal data between government departments and authorities (and also with the private sector).
Once governments, and government agencies, have our personal data, the question of what they can lawfully do with that data is a matter of legislation, which can be changed, overridden by new legislation, and subject to interpretation and re-interpretation by the courts.
This guy is a major player in Trump and Musk's fascism.
I wouldn't bank on medical records not being abused - especially if Farage is ever elected. I'm a bit nervous about having autism and ADHD in my records now after what's gone on with RFK in the states...
This guy is a major player in Trump and Musk's fascism.
I wouldn't bank on medical records not being abused - especially if Farage is ever elected. I'm a bit nervous about having autism and ADHD in my records now after what's gone on with RFK in the states...
I understand that.
There would be - and already is - a huge push back against this from the medical profession. Confidentiality is so vital and central to what we do.
But, I get that when it's personal, it's scary.
I remain of the view that is the abuse of the data as a set that's the bigger risk.
As has been pointed out, the recent Supreme Court ruling relates to the meaning of sex in the Equality Act 2010.
In the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR #, one of the key criteria in the protection of personal data is whether it is special category data - sensitive personal information which needs additional protection. Special category data explicitly includes genetic data; biometric data (where used for identification purposes); data concerning health; data concerning a person’s sex life; and data concerning a person’s sexual orientation. It doesn't include their sex.
That being the case, what the ICO (the UK's data protection authority) published about gender identity (in 2024) seems relevant (including the final sentence).:
Is gender identity special category data?
Information about someone's gender identity isn't automatically special category data, but should always be treated very carefully. In some cases it might involve special category data, but this depends on the circumstances. For example, if the information also reveals specific details about the person's health status or medical care, or an organisation uses it to make specific inferences about health, that would involve special category data.
If there's no specific information or inference about someone's health (or any other specific category such as sexual orientation or sex life), it isn't special category data. But in many cases information about someone's gender identity is still likely to be particularly sensitive.
Organisations should be careful to think about fairness when handling this sort of information, and we would expect them to treat it with an appropriate level of sensitivity. They could decide to treat it as if it were special category data, to help them make sure they have a good reason for using it and comply with the fairness principle - although this isn't an explicit requirement. This would mean they treat it in a similar way to other similarly sensitive data such as sexual orientation.
They'll also need to think about their equality obligations, to make sure their use of this data is lawful.
# Thanks to Brexit, this legislation is formally called Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.
Much appreciated. I guess there may be a difference between someone in transition and someone post transition. Post transition I’m not sure there is much difference between the medication often prescribed for post menopausal cis women and trans women, particularly after surgery. Same for tests.
One difference I know, though I sure wouldn't trust your government (or mine) with it is that trans men often die of cancers related to the "reproductive system" cancers more than other AFAB people, Much ... much ... more because its very hard to get safe gynecological care. Trying to get such care requires outing themselves of course. All of this can be extremely disphoric, it's a whole bloody mess. A lovely guy I care about lost one of his best friends--also a trans guy--to a cancer like that. He didn't catch it until too late because of bigotry and living in a red state.
Helpful, Gwai. My daughter is in a General Practice which shows a good awareness of these issues and she is screened for at least some of those risks mentioned. But I’m sure you’re tight about both the paucity of information and the variable awareness of general practitioners.
As Alan mentioned earlier awareness of trans with a GP should only be related to the medical health of the patient and should only be shared with other medical practitioners who also have a duty of medical care. That combination of openness and confidentiality does make it possible to collect risk data. The issue is the potential misuse of such information.
As always, fear, ignorance and prejudice get in the way of what is best.
It occurs to me that the judgment has certain similarities to the Brexit vote - being exploited by politicians and giving the worst people the feeling that they're now off the leash in how they treat others.
I know this isn't directly the discussion above and I'm not trans so I'm not at the receiving end of the bigotry.
However as an older white person, I'm increasingly being the target of bigoted comments, because somehow the way I look means that I'm a safe person to blurt out this stuff to.
Previously I challenged these comments. But it has got to the stage where I'm so grumpy that I can't be bothered. These days I just look through people I know who are *phobes of all kinds. When they speak I ignore them and pretend they're not there. If they say something disgusting I immediately walk away. If it comes from my relatives I change the subject.
It is a form of privilege and a minor form of protest, but somehow we have to try to change the atmosphere that allows this pollution to be released around us.
The upcoming UK Local Medical Committees (LMC) Conference on 8 May 2025 is poised to vote on a motion that would force GPs to add a mandatory “biological sex” field to our records in the NHS.
I don’t know who proposed the motion and I guess it must be advisory to the BMA. Digging a bit more. What is going on?
...
It occurs to me that the judgment has certain similarities to the Brexit vote - being exploited by politicians and giving the worst people the feeling that they're now off the leash in how they treat others.
Yes, true! We're also going to see the Trumpian Tendency putting transphobic motions like the one @Barnabas62 just cited forward wherever they can, even when they know they're going to be voted down (Laus Deo!)
Can someone explain to me what practical changes lead on from this SC judgement.
Let's imagine a simple situation about toilets: someone complains that there are transwomen in the women's facilities in a public building. What happens?
It is a legal thing where the lower courts take the lead from the SC "clarification"? Or does this Human Rights Commission have an prosecution function? Maybe even the ability to fine?
Does it have the same responsibilities over private businesses?
Maybe I'm being lazy and these answers are easy to find somewhere. If that's the case, I apologise.
I think the answer to those questions is "who knows?". The SC judgement removed clarity over both the definition of a woman (reverting to the 1975 EA definition that was rejected by Parliament in 2004 for being both unclear and violating human rights), and while saying it didn't affect the rights of transgender people the interim guidance from the EHRC stripped rights from transgender people. The SC ruling is at odds with the last time Parliament explicitly defined what a woman is (the 2004 GRA), which of course makes that ruling so odd because in 2010 Parliament had the opportunity to redefine what a woman is and didn't do so. And, of course that EHRC interim guidance is still guidance.
A provider of toilets accessible to the public (which, includes employees) has decision to make. Follow the EHRC interim guidance and ban transwomen from their women's toilets (and, provide alternative facilities), but risk being in breach of the 2004 GRA. Follow the 2004 GRA and follow a definition different from the SC ruling. The options for prosecution probably need to come from someone who complains that their "single sex space" isn't because a trans-woman went in there, presumably a civil case against the provider of the toilet for failing to maintain it as a single-sex space. Which will then need to proceed up the court system to get a universal ruling on what providers of toilets are actually supposed to be doing. There are plenty of hate groups who will fund such a prosecution, the same groups who have already messed with the democratic system by using threats of litigation to force political parties to ditch processes for trying to get more women elected into Parliament. I'm not sure how deep the pockets of businesses are to fight such cases, though public support would assist in those costs. Ultimately, I see businesses and public bodies deciding that they can't afford to be the test case and will deny rights of access to toilets for anyone where that might result in litigation - the problem being that they might also face litigation for failing to provide toilet space for someone. An unenviable position for providers of toilets to be in.
What is ultimately needed is for the courts to provide clarity where the SC sowed confusion. Two cases have already been mentioned here, against the interim EHRC advice and also the SC ruling based on human rights. I've not seen any reporting on it, but someone I know who works and moves among international lawyers and is in the know tells me that the International Criminal Court in the Hague is also gearing up to take the case on the basis that if the SC definition is accepted then the UK government would be in breach of international law, though that may be something that needs to wait until other courts have had their say first.
There is also the issue of who is going to report trans people. Are they going to wait outside toilets, and challenge people? I remember that Eddie Izzard got photographed outside a women's loo, but who the hell is going to do that? Obviously, people full of hate.
<snip>The SC judgement removed clarity over both the definition of a woman (reverting to the 1975 EA definition that was rejected by Parliament in 2004 for being both unclear and violating human rights)<snip>
I suspect that what Parliament did was not expressed as a rejection of the definitions in the 1975 SDA, but rather the adoption for most purposes of an alternative definition. Unfortunately the drafting of the 2010 Act didn’t really address the issue which resulted in legislative incoherence.
What is ultimately needed is for the courts to provide clarity where the SC sowed confusion. <snip>
If the problem is in the legislation then it is something Parliament needs to provide clarity about. It is not for the courts to amend the law.
(Cue journalists like Nick Robinson, among many others, asking politicians to define what a woman is.)
Yes, ultimately it's for Parliament to clarify: when in 2010 you didn't explicitly define "woman" and "man", was this an implicit acceptance of the definition in law at that time (as set out in the 2004 GRA)?
Now, I wouldn't be averse to a revision of the 2004 GRA to correct problems with it - specifically to include non-binary genders and to remove the understanding that recognising one's gender assigned at birth is incorrect is not a medical illness that requires intrusive examination to diagnose. But, at this moment in time I fear any attempt to revise the GRA to correct the problems will be taken as an invitation by too many in Parliament to wreck it completely and remove the small protection of rights it offers.
I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that women's toilets are single-sex spaces, when at any moment you may encounter male cleaners, small boys, and in extreme cases, fathers looking for nappy-changing facilities.
My sister has already had her right to use the women's loos questioned.
and in extreme cases, fathers looking for nappy-changing facilities.
Hardly *extreme* as an owner of two small daughters I’ve got lived experience that round here putting the baby changing facilities in the Ladies is pretty much the default.
Thankfully it’s pretty bloody obvious what you’re up to and why, so while I still find it embarrassing the most that happens is I get patronising comments about how nice it is to see a dad doing it ‘for a change’ - they can FRO.
and in extreme cases, fathers looking for nappy-changing facilities.
Hardly *extreme* as an owner of two small daughters I’ve got lived experience that round here putting the baby changing facilities in the Ladies is pretty much the default.
Thankfully it’s pretty bloody obvious what you’re up to and why, so while I still find it embarrassing the most that happens is I get patronising comments about how nice it is to see a dad doing it ‘for a change’ - they can FRO.
My kids are now past that stage. (Still in the going into the toilets with their mum stage when I'm not around). It was a great annoyance to me when the baby changing facilities weren't available in the gents. I never resorted to using the ladies - the disabled usually worked and we had a portable changing mat so any clean surface worked.... side of the room if necessary!
I feel you with the patronising comments too. I didn't get many because everyone who knows me, knows that I'm a paediatric surgeon which seems to put me in a different category of man when it comes to baby conversations. Of course strangers, would still comment but I kept my counsel...
I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that women's toilets are single-sex spaces, when at any moment you may encounter male cleaners, small boys, and in extreme cases, fathers looking for nappy-changing facilities.
Let’s just do away with the concept of women’s/men’s toilets then. That way anyone can go in any toilet any time they like.
I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that women's toilets are single-sex spaces, when at any moment you may encounter male cleaners, small boys, and in extreme cases, fathers looking for nappy-changing facilities.
Let’s just do away with the concept of women’s/men’s toilets then. That way anyone can go in any toilet any time they like.
Or just do what the vast majority of people have done for decades which is have women's and men's toilets but not waste time policing them unless someone is behaving inappropriately. No point causing massive disruption when there's a workable solution that doesn't require it.
If someone is policing who can use facilities is, in itself, usually inappropriate behaviour. If someone is obsessed with other people's genitalia or genetics or medical history then that's inappropriate.
If someone is policing who can use facilities is, in itself, usually inappropriate behaviour. If someone is obsessed with other people's genitalia or genetics or medical history then that's inappropriate.
Quite. But if someone is blatantly leering at other users then they should be kicked out, regardless of genitalia, chromosomes, or gender identity.
I'm wondering what happens if someone was to set up a "women only" service.
Let's say it's a salon. Then two paying customers come to use the service. The first is a trans-woman the other a TERF. Halfway through the cut, an argument begins and the two are removed from the salon.
According to the SC, a women only salon is specifically about genetics. So does that mean that the TERF could complain to the courts about being excluded from a space that the trans-woman shouldn't have been in?
Of course this is ridiculous. But TERFs could cause a lot of trouble if they feel they have court backing to police other people in public.
This is the wider effect of this and other cases - they serve to embolden and give permission to persecutors and policers of trans and gender non conforming people (make no mistake - this is used to police gender and that means everyone who doesn't fit conservative white standards of binary male/female gender presentation is at risk of challenge) It's a bigot all-you-can-persecute opportunity.
And also it has by dint of the EHRC guidance taking aim at facilities like toilets, it's got us talking about toilets. A key plank of this scapegoating is to smear a minority as 'dangers to women' so that is what people think of in relation to them. Similar used to be done with Lesbians and Black women (historically there were campaigns against racially desegregating women's toilets in the workplace using racist claims about the dangers of sharing facilities with Black women)
This stuff has its roots in the ' Defend the pure white women!' trope so beloved of fascism which is why it should never be mistaken for feminism. Fascism works by giving its favoured groups permission to punch down on those below them in its sexual and racist hierarchy. The deal for 'nice' gender-stereotype conforming white women is getting to punch down on other women who they are allowed to denigrate and exclude and on men who are excluded from the proper straight white male category.
But to come back to the big one - they've now got us talking in terms of their agenda. I think I've said before remember the homophobe who used to post here whose shtick was every time he opened his mouth to talk about gay people in the context of child molestation?
So maybe we need to draw a line under this except to say that we oppose the bigots on this one and support trans people and everyone else using the facilities which best suit their needs.
This is the wider effect of this and other cases - they serve to embolden and give permission to persecutors and policers of trans and gender non conforming people (make no mistake - this is used to police gender and that means everyone who doesn't fit conservative white standards of binary male/female gender presentation is at risk of challenge) It's a bigot all-you-can-persecute opportunity.
And also it has by dint of the EHRC guidance taking aim at facilities like toilets, it's got us talking about toilets. A key plank of this scapegoating is to smear a minority as 'dangers to women' so that is what people think of in relation to them. Similar used to be done with Lesbians and Black women (historically there were campaigns against racially desegregating women's toilets in the workplace using racist claims about the dangers of sharing facilities with Black women)
This stuff has its roots in the ' Defend the pure white women!' trope so beloved of fascism which is why it should never be mistaken for feminism. Fascism works by giving its favoured groups permission to punch down on those below them in its sexual and racist hierarchy. The deal for 'nice' gender-stereotype conforming white women is getting to punch down on other women who they are allowed to denigrate and exclude and on men who are excluded from the proper straight white male category.
But to come back to the big one - they've now got us talking in terms of their agenda. I think I've said before remember the homophobe who used to post here whose shtick was every time he opened his mouth to talk about gay people in the context of child molestation?
So maybe we need to draw a line under this except to say that we oppose the bigots on this one and support trans people and everyone else using the facilities which best suit their needs.
Indeed, indeed.
For the reasons discussed, I think the issue lies not with the SC judgement itself, which was unavoidable,* but with the way it's being used. The usual suspects are spewing their usual hate, that was inevitable, but would be easy to fight back against in isolation. It's the EHRC's actions that I find unconscionable. This is what needs fixing.
The other failing, of course, is with the government who have taken absolutely the wrong road on this.
The power to do something sits with the government. They could remove the bigoted head of the EHRC (something that's supposed to be happening anyway), they could take an inclusive position in all of their records and they could look at the SC decision and legislate to fix the problems.
AFZ
*as a non-lawyer, I rely on others' understanding but I gather they had to reach the conclusion they did or otherwise render the Act internally inconsistent. Thar sort of legal activism is incredibly dangerous. But I keep coming back to the fact that the judgement itself means about 2% of what people are claiming it means.
I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that women's toilets are single-sex spaces, when at any moment you may encounter male cleaners, small boys, and in extreme cases, fathers looking for nappy-changing facilities.
Let’s just do away with the concept of women’s/men’s toilets then. That way anyone can go in any toilet any time they like.
Or just do what the vast majority of people have done for decades which is have women's and men's toilets but not waste time policing them unless someone is behaving inappropriately. No point causing massive disruption when there's a workable solution that doesn't require it.
What do you mean by “behaving inappropriately” though? If I (beard and all) were to use the ladies facilities in any bar, club, or so forth I’m pretty sure that would be considered inappropriate in and of itself - would such judgement be wrong to make given that nobody there could actually know which gender I identify as?
I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that women's toilets are single-sex spaces, when at any moment you may encounter male cleaners, small boys, and in extreme cases, fathers looking for nappy-changing facilities.
Let’s just do away with the concept of women’s/men’s toilets then. That way anyone can go in any toilet any time they like.
Or just do what the vast majority of people have done for decades which is have women's and men's toilets but not waste time policing them unless someone is behaving inappropriately. No point causing massive disruption when there's a workable solution that doesn't require it.
What do you mean by “behaving inappropriately” though? If I (beard and all) were to use the ladies facilities in any bar, club, or so forth I’m pretty sure that would be considered inappropriate in and of itself - would such judgement be wrong to make given that nobody there could actually know which gender I identify as?
Yes. What other alternative is there? Having someone by the door judging whether you appear feminine enough to use the ladies? Karyotyping on demand? Airport style genital inspection scanners?
I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that women's toilets are single-sex spaces, when at any moment you may encounter male cleaners, small boys, and in extreme cases, fathers looking for nappy-changing facilities.
Let’s just do away with the concept of women’s/men’s toilets then. That way anyone can go in any toilet any time they like.
Or just do what the vast majority of people have done for decades which is have women's and men's toilets but not waste time policing them unless someone is behaving inappropriately. No point causing massive disruption when there's a workable solution that doesn't require it.
What do you mean by “behaving inappropriately” though? If I (beard and all) were to use the ladies facilities in any bar, club, or so forth I’m pretty sure that would be considered inappropriate in and of itself - would such judgement be wrong to make given that nobody there could actually know which gender I identify as?
If you identify as a man, why would you purposely use the women's loo?
Inappropriate use is obviously using facilities to intimidate or spy or whatever.
I don't think many people would class "inappropriate" use as accidentally going in the wrong door or being desperate because the queue to the other door is too long.
This reminds me a bit about public toilets in Victorian England.
It is said that there were many more facilities for men (including outdoor urinals etc) than there were for women. The reason being that it was disgusting to be made aware that women were urinating.
Surely we have progressed beyond the point of thinking it disgusting to be aware that other people urinate.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: What do you mean by “behaving inappropriately” though?
When I was 13, I came out of a cubicle in some public toilets to be confronted by a man wanking. He must have been watching the toilets until a point he realised that there was only one, very young, female in them and followed me in.
He was blocking my route to the sinks, but fortunately wasn't blocking my route to the exit. I left without stopping to wash my hands.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian: What do you mean by “behaving inappropriately” though?
When I was 13, I came out of a cubicle in some public toilets to be confronted by a man wanking. He must have been watching the toilets until a point he realised that there was only one, very young, female in them and followed me in.
He was blocking my route to the sinks, but fortunately wasn't blocking my route to the exit. I left without stopping to wash my hands.
Had he disguised himself as a woman in order to do that ? Not been put off by a sign on the door offering magical protection from predators ?
What a surprise.
This is the thing that annoys me the most about the whole toilets discussion. The real issue is men's predatory behaviour not trans women. Why on earth are they not calling out that?
In the words of someone who turned out to be completely correct in her analysis, "Fight the real enermy".
This reminds me a bit about public toilets in Victorian England.
It is said that there were many more facilities for men (including outdoor urinals etc) than there were for women. The reason being that it was disgusting to be made aware that women were urinating.
Surely we have progressed beyond the point of thinking it disgusting to be aware that other people urinate.
The issue of the urinary leash (or loo leash) came up on page 5, here and here. This refers to keeping women near their homes (and those of family and friends) and limiting their access to workplaces and public spaces, through the disproportional provision of public toilets for men and women.
In 1851, the first public flushing toilet was demonstrated at the Great Exhibition. Shortly afterwards, the Ladies Sanitary Association was formed and started campaigning for the provision of women's toilets in the work place and the wider public realm. Other activist groups were formed. Progress has been slow.
Meanwhile, Labour (the NEC) has just cancelled its national women's conference - a direct consequence of the EHRC guidance. It's increasingly difficult to keep track of which century we're living in, and whether we're moving forwards or backwards through history.
I’ve agreed to be involved in our local clp’s women’s branch - essentially so as an ally I can try to campaign for terms not being seen as the voice of cis-women and getting the party to make the necessary legal revisions for inclusion.
This reminds me a bit about public toilets in Victorian England.
It is said that there were many more facilities for men (including outdoor urinals etc) than there were for women. The reason being that it was disgusting to be made aware that women were urinating.
Surely we have progressed beyond the point of thinking it disgusting to be aware that other people urinate.
The issue of the urinary leash (or loo leash) came up on page 5, here and here. This refers to keeping women near their homes (and those of family and friends) and limiting their access to workplaces and public spaces, through the disproportional provision of public toilets for men and women.
In 1851, the first public flushing toilet was demonstrated at the Great Exhibition. Shortly afterwards, the Ladies Sanitary Association was formed and started campaigning for the provision of women's toilets in the work place and the wider public realm. Other activist groups were formed. Progress has been slow.
Meanwhile, Labour (the NEC) has just cancelled its national women's conference - a direct consequence of the EHRC guidance. It's increasingly difficult to keep track of which century we're living in, and whether we're moving forwards or backwards through history.
I've seen a change in language. The gender critical seem much bolder in publicly using terms* such as
trans identifying man/woman
- helpfully inserting misgendering directly into the language.
Meanwhile, Labour (the NEC) has just cancelled its national women's conference - a direct consequence of the EHRC guidance. It's increasingly difficult to keep track of which century we're living in, and whether we're moving forwards or backwards through history.
I think I've already mentioned it, but at least two of the major Scottish parties have had to scrap their internal procedures for increasing the number of women standing in winnable positions for the elections next year because of threats of legal action from groups (outside the parties concerned) who would be demanding proof that those candidates are (in their terms) "real women". The SC ruling and interim EHRC guidance has only emboldened these groups, as they feel they have the weight of legal precedence behind them. A year ago courts might have even considered such cases as vexatious, and costs of defending such a case would be relatively small and likely recovered fairly rapidly, with provisions for political parties to have internal selection procedures that include gender balancing enshrined within the Equality Act. But now, with lack of clarity resulting from the SC ruling on the EA the interpretation of those sections of the EA that govern things like internal processes within political parties becomes something that will need the courts to rule on. A year from national elections when parties are building up campaign funds is not a time when those parties will want to divert money and staff time that could be spent on building a campaign to lengthy court cases about whether their internal selection procedures adhere to what are now very unclear clauses in the EA.
I suspect that there are similar issues that the Labour Party are facing in regards to holding a conference for women (if that's then a women only space). The existence of groups within parties for women will also be under the spotlight, especially national groups (groups within local branches are less likely to be under a public spot light).
If parties don't produce all-women shortlists or mechanisms to up-vote women in internal elections then that legal threat is removed. Of course, this would mean that it would be much harder for parties to stand a gender-balanced slate of candidates, much less address the under-representation of women in politics. We're quite likely to find that the gains in increasing the number of women in front line politics over recent years will stall, or even slip backwards, as a result of the actions of groups claiming to be standing for the rights of women.
These are socially conservative groups who don't actually support women's rights and who are usually nowhere to be seen when things that actually affect women's lives and rights are on the line, so I'm sure they won't give a hoot about the havoc they cause.
They are a bait and switch scam that claims they are about women's rights but they are actually reactionaries taking society backwards and the point is the thrill they get from punching down on others and the cheap self-affirmation this gives them.
Those are certainly the usual ones I see ( trans man, trans woman) and of course there are non binary folk too. @Gwai could you maybe update a bit on terms non binary folk use? Thanks!
I've seen a change in language. The gender critical seem much bolder in publicly using terms* such as
trans identifying man/woman
- helpfully inserting misgendering directly into the language.
*spoilered as mentions of misgendering.
What would be the correct terms, please? Trans man and trans woman?
Hidden the below as it is all a discussion of mis-gendering:
I assumed from KarlLB's post that gender critical "trans identifying man" = somebody who would be called a trans woman amongst people who accept that trans people exist and have the right to exist, i.e. somebody who identifies as female but who is interpreted by gender critical people as a "man" based on their interpretation of "biological sex." Likewise that gender critical "trans identifying woman" = a trans man.
Those are certainly the usual ones I see ( trans man, trans woman) and of course there are non binary folk too. @Gwai could you maybe update a bit on terms non binary folk use? Thanks!
Terms for being nonbinary that I know are in use (because they apply to people I know):
gender nonconforming is the fastest growing identifier I'm seeing these days. This is the word used by the person who uses he/him pronouns but tends to rock awesome skirt/blouse sets and the person who uses she/her pronouns but dresses masc enough that her (female) family try to make sure one of them is also in the bathroom area with her on road trips.
gender queer is similar but is more of an umbrella word for anyone who does not feel they are simply cis and standard in their gender identification.
Of course enby (with spelling variations) is used as a short pronounceable phrase for NB or nonbinary
A genderfluid person has gender that is expressed differently on different days. They may have dress masc or femme on some days and not on others.
On the other hand an agender person doesn't necessarily feel they have a gender.
I've seen a change in language. The gender critical seem much bolder in publicly using terms* such as
trans identifying man/woman
- helpfully inserting misgendering directly into the language.
*spoilered as mentions of misgendering.
What would be the correct terms, please? Trans man and trans woman?
Hidden the below as it is all a discussion of mis-gendering:
I assumed from KarlLB's post that gender critical "trans identifying man" = somebody who would be called a trans woman amongst people who accept that trans people exist and have the right to exist, i.e. somebody who identifies as female but who is interpreted by gender critical people as a "man" based on their interpretation of "biological sex." Likewise that gender critical "trans identifying woman" = a trans man.
Comments
1. A good reason
2. Your consent
3. A court order
The rules about 1. are all about a clinician caring for you. A non NHS agency has no access without your permission. A clinician not involved in your care has no right of access. There are various technical safeguards and criminal sanctions.
So no, I don't think there is an individual risk here.
The risk is on a policy level. Anonymous data can be extracted. I could see that being twisted... I.e. x% of people in a certain group have a different 'biological sex' or whatever.
Once governments, and government agencies, have our personal data, the question of what they can lawfully do with that data is a matter of legislation, which can be changed, overridden by new legislation, and subject to interpretation and re-interpretation by the courts.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/21/patient-privacy-fears-us-spy-tech-firm-palantir-wins-nhs-contract
This guy is a major player in Trump and Musk's fascism.
I wouldn't bank on medical records not being abused - especially if Farage is ever elected. I'm a bit nervous about having autism and ADHD in my records now after what's gone on with RFK in the states...
I understand that.
There would be - and already is - a huge push back against this from the medical profession. Confidentiality is so vital and central to what we do.
But, I get that when it's personal, it's scary.
I remain of the view that is the abuse of the data as a set that's the bigger risk.
AFZ
In the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR #, one of the key criteria in the protection of personal data is whether it is special category data - sensitive personal information which needs additional protection. Special category data explicitly includes genetic data; biometric data (where used for identification purposes); data concerning health; data concerning a person’s sex life; and data concerning a person’s sexual orientation. It doesn't include their sex.
That being the case, what the ICO (the UK's data protection authority) published about gender identity (in 2024) seems relevant (including the final sentence).:
# Thanks to Brexit, this legislation is formally called Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.
One difference I know, though I sure wouldn't trust your government (or mine) with it is that trans men often die of cancers related to the "reproductive system" cancers more than other AFAB people, Much ... much ... more because its very hard to get safe gynecological care. Trying to get such care requires outing themselves of course. All of this can be extremely disphoric, it's a whole bloody mess. A lovely guy I care about lost one of his best friends--also a trans guy--to a cancer like that. He didn't catch it until too late because of bigotry and living in a red state.
As Alan mentioned earlier awareness of trans with a GP should only be related to the medical health of the patient and should only be shared with other medical practitioners who also have a duty of medical care. That combination of openness and confidentiality does make it possible to collect risk data. The issue is the potential misuse of such information.
As always, fear, ignorance and prejudice get in the way of what is best.
However as an older white person, I'm increasingly being the target of bigoted comments, because somehow the way I look means that I'm a safe person to blurt out this stuff to.
Previously I challenged these comments. But it has got to the stage where I'm so grumpy that I can't be bothered. These days I just look through people I know who are *phobes of all kinds. When they speak I ignore them and pretend they're not there. If they say something disgusting I immediately walk away. If it comes from my relatives I change the subject.
It is a form of privilege and a minor form of protest, but somehow we have to try to change the atmosphere that allows this pollution to be released around us.
It looks like this was voted down
Yes, true! We're also going to see the Trumpian Tendency putting transphobic motions like the one @Barnabas62 just cited forward wherever they can, even when they know they're going to be voted down (Laus Deo!)
Let's imagine a simple situation about toilets: someone complains that there are transwomen in the women's facilities in a public building. What happens?
It is a legal thing where the lower courts take the lead from the SC "clarification"? Or does this Human Rights Commission have an prosecution function? Maybe even the ability to fine?
Does it have the same responsibilities over private businesses?
Maybe I'm being lazy and these answers are easy to find somewhere. If that's the case, I apologise.
A provider of toilets accessible to the public (which, includes employees) has decision to make. Follow the EHRC interim guidance and ban transwomen from their women's toilets (and, provide alternative facilities), but risk being in breach of the 2004 GRA. Follow the 2004 GRA and follow a definition different from the SC ruling. The options for prosecution probably need to come from someone who complains that their "single sex space" isn't because a trans-woman went in there, presumably a civil case against the provider of the toilet for failing to maintain it as a single-sex space. Which will then need to proceed up the court system to get a universal ruling on what providers of toilets are actually supposed to be doing. There are plenty of hate groups who will fund such a prosecution, the same groups who have already messed with the democratic system by using threats of litigation to force political parties to ditch processes for trying to get more women elected into Parliament. I'm not sure how deep the pockets of businesses are to fight such cases, though public support would assist in those costs. Ultimately, I see businesses and public bodies deciding that they can't afford to be the test case and will deny rights of access to toilets for anyone where that might result in litigation - the problem being that they might also face litigation for failing to provide toilet space for someone. An unenviable position for providers of toilets to be in.
What is ultimately needed is for the courts to provide clarity where the SC sowed confusion. Two cases have already been mentioned here, against the interim EHRC advice and also the SC ruling based on human rights. I've not seen any reporting on it, but someone I know who works and moves among international lawyers and is in the know tells me that the International Criminal Court in the Hague is also gearing up to take the case on the basis that if the SC definition is accepted then the UK government would be in breach of international law, though that may be something that needs to wait until other courts have had their say first.
(Cue journalists like Nick Robinson, among many others, asking politicians to define what a woman is.)
Now, I wouldn't be averse to a revision of the 2004 GRA to correct problems with it - specifically to include non-binary genders and to remove the understanding that recognising one's gender assigned at birth is incorrect is not a medical illness that requires intrusive examination to diagnose. But, at this moment in time I fear any attempt to revise the GRA to correct the problems will be taken as an invitation by too many in Parliament to wreck it completely and remove the small protection of rights it offers.
My sister has already had her right to use the women's loos questioned.
Hardly *extreme* as an owner of two small daughters I’ve got lived experience that round here putting the baby changing facilities in the Ladies is pretty much the default.
Thankfully it’s pretty bloody obvious what you’re up to and why, so while I still find it embarrassing the most that happens is I get patronising comments about how nice it is to see a dad doing it ‘for a change’ - they can FRO.
My kids are now past that stage. (Still in the going into the toilets with their mum stage when I'm not around). It was a great annoyance to me when the baby changing facilities weren't available in the gents. I never resorted to using the ladies - the disabled usually worked and we had a portable changing mat so any clean surface worked.... side of the room if necessary!
I feel you with the patronising comments too. I didn't get many because everyone who knows me, knows that I'm a paediatric surgeon which seems to put me in a different category of man when it comes to baby conversations. Of course strangers, would still comment but I kept my counsel...
AFZ
Let’s just do away with the concept of women’s/men’s toilets then. That way anyone can go in any toilet any time they like.
Or just do what the vast majority of people have done for decades which is have women's and men's toilets but not waste time policing them unless someone is behaving inappropriately. No point causing massive disruption when there's a workable solution that doesn't require it.
Quite. But if someone is blatantly leering at other users then they should be kicked out, regardless of genitalia, chromosomes, or gender identity.
Let's say it's a salon. Then two paying customers come to use the service. The first is a trans-woman the other a TERF. Halfway through the cut, an argument begins and the two are removed from the salon.
According to the SC, a women only salon is specifically about genetics. So does that mean that the TERF could complain to the courts about being excluded from a space that the trans-woman shouldn't have been in?
Of course this is ridiculous. But TERFs could cause a lot of trouble if they feel they have court backing to police other people in public.
And also it has by dint of the EHRC guidance taking aim at facilities like toilets, it's got us talking about toilets. A key plank of this scapegoating is to smear a minority as 'dangers to women' so that is what people think of in relation to them. Similar used to be done with Lesbians and Black women (historically there were campaigns against racially desegregating women's toilets in the workplace using racist claims about the dangers of sharing facilities with Black women)
This stuff has its roots in the ' Defend the pure white women!' trope so beloved of fascism which is why it should never be mistaken for feminism. Fascism works by giving its favoured groups permission to punch down on those below them in its sexual and racist hierarchy. The deal for 'nice' gender-stereotype conforming white women is getting to punch down on other women who they are allowed to denigrate and exclude and on men who are excluded from the proper straight white male category.
But to come back to the big one - they've now got us talking in terms of their agenda. I think I've said before remember the homophobe who used to post here whose shtick was every time he opened his mouth to talk about gay people in the context of child molestation?
So maybe we need to draw a line under this except to say that we oppose the bigots on this one and support trans people and everyone else using the facilities which best suit their needs.
Indeed, indeed.
For the reasons discussed, I think the issue lies not with the SC judgement itself, which was unavoidable,* but with the way it's being used. The usual suspects are spewing their usual hate, that was inevitable, but would be easy to fight back against in isolation. It's the EHRC's actions that I find unconscionable. This is what needs fixing.
The other failing, of course, is with the government who have taken absolutely the wrong road on this.
The power to do something sits with the government. They could remove the bigoted head of the EHRC (something that's supposed to be happening anyway), they could take an inclusive position in all of their records and they could look at the SC decision and legislate to fix the problems.
AFZ
*as a non-lawyer, I rely on others' understanding but I gather they had to reach the conclusion they did or otherwise render the Act internally inconsistent. Thar sort of legal activism is incredibly dangerous. But I keep coming back to the fact that the judgement itself means about 2% of what people are claiming it means.
What do you mean by “behaving inappropriately” though? If I (beard and all) were to use the ladies facilities in any bar, club, or so forth I’m pretty sure that would be considered inappropriate in and of itself - would such judgement be wrong to make given that nobody there could actually know which gender I identify as?
Yes. What other alternative is there? Having someone by the door judging whether you appear feminine enough to use the ladies? Karyotyping on demand? Airport style genital inspection scanners?
If you identify as a man, why would you purposely use the women's loo?
Inappropriate use is obviously using facilities to intimidate or spy or whatever.
I don't think many people would class "inappropriate" use as accidentally going in the wrong door or being desperate because the queue to the other door is too long.
It is said that there were many more facilities for men (including outdoor urinals etc) than there were for women. The reason being that it was disgusting to be made aware that women were urinating.
Surely we have progressed beyond the point of thinking it disgusting to be aware that other people urinate.
What do you mean by “behaving inappropriately” though?
When I was 13, I came out of a cubicle in some public toilets to be confronted by a man wanking. He must have been watching the toilets until a point he realised that there was only one, very young, female in them and followed me in.
He was blocking my route to the sinks, but fortunately wasn't blocking my route to the exit. I left without stopping to wash my hands.
That's inappropriate.
And indeed a criminal offence.
What a surprise.
This is the thing that annoys me the most about the whole toilets discussion. The real issue is men's predatory behaviour not trans women. Why on earth are they not calling out that?
In the words of someone who turned out to be completely correct in her analysis, "Fight the real enermy".
Returns to silent mode for your hosting needs.
In 1851, the first public flushing toilet was demonstrated at the Great Exhibition. Shortly afterwards, the Ladies Sanitary Association was formed and started campaigning for the provision of women's toilets in the work place and the wider public realm. Other activist groups were formed. Progress has been slow.
Meanwhile, Labour (the NEC) has just cancelled its national women's conference - a direct consequence of the EHRC guidance. It's increasingly difficult to keep track of which century we're living in, and whether we're moving forwards or backwards through history.
I've seen a change in language. The gender critical seem much bolder in publicly using terms* such as
*spoilered as mentions of misgendering.
I suspect that there are similar issues that the Labour Party are facing in regards to holding a conference for women (if that's then a women only space). The existence of groups within parties for women will also be under the spotlight, especially national groups (groups within local branches are less likely to be under a public spot light).
If parties don't produce all-women shortlists or mechanisms to up-vote women in internal elections then that legal threat is removed. Of course, this would mean that it would be much harder for parties to stand a gender-balanced slate of candidates, much less address the under-representation of women in politics. We're quite likely to find that the gains in increasing the number of women in front line politics over recent years will stall, or even slip backwards, as a result of the actions of groups claiming to be standing for the rights of women.
They are a bait and switch scam that claims they are about women's rights but they are actually reactionaries taking society backwards and the point is the thrill they get from punching down on others and the cheap self-affirmation this gives them.
What would be the correct terms, please? Trans man and trans woman?
Hidden the below as it is all a discussion of mis-gendering:
Terms for being nonbinary that I know are in use (because they apply to people I know):
gender nonconforming is the fastest growing identifier I'm seeing these days. This is the word used by the person who uses he/him pronouns but tends to rock awesome skirt/blouse sets and the person who uses she/her pronouns but dresses masc enough that her (female) family try to make sure one of them is also in the bathroom area with her on road trips.
gender queer is similar but is more of an umbrella word for anyone who does not feel they are simply cis and standard in their gender identification.
Of course enby (with spelling variations) is used as a short pronounceable phrase for NB or nonbinary
A genderfluid person has gender that is expressed differently on different days. They may have dress masc or femme on some days and not on others.
On the other hand an agender person doesn't necessarily feel they have a gender.
This exactly.