Quakers accused of ‘destroying' reputation with trans-inclusive lavatories
Quakers in Britain said its toilets would remain 'trans inclusive' despite the ruling by the Supreme Court that the word 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex and not gender identity.
It said it was not desirable to monitor who uses its facilities, adding: 'We cannot guarantee any shared space as exclusive for one group of people.'
Quakers have gained a reputation for their progressive attitude towards women, having allowed them to preach as early as the 17th century.
But Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy at Sex Matters, a women's rights group, said they appeared to have abandoned that legacy by adopting 'textbook trans activism'.
'Early Quakers were famously supportive of women's rights – they would surely be shocked and ashamed if they could see the destruction of that proud legacy,' she said.
Last month's Supreme Court ruled that transgender women are not legally women, and clarified that the word 'sex' in the Equality Act means biological sex and not gender identity.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) then put out interim guidance to organisations, underlining that in places such as hospitals, shops and restaurants, 'trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities'.
A growing number of public bodies have changed their guidance in light of the judgment. The Football Association has said trans women could be banned from women's sport.
But other organisations, including the Houses of Parliament, are awaiting final guidance from the EHRC.
The statement from Quakers in Britain dismissed the EHRC's interim guidance, which it said 'goes beyond the scope and actual statements' in the Supreme Court ruling.
Paul Parker, the recording clerk, said: 'This is already contested and subject to legal challenge.'
He said the faith group would 'welcome and affirm trans and non-binary people in Quaker spaces', adding: 'We must respect the dignity of each person to live with integrity, informed by the truth of their lived experience'.
Like Stonewall, Mr Parker said the Supreme Court judgement did not have 'the force of law'.
'Whilst the EHRC has recently issued guidance, this is currently only interim guidance. It is non-statutory and therefore does not have the force of law,' the document states. 'We see the Equality Act itself as our primary legal guide when making decisions.
'It is not possible or desirable to monitor who uses our facilities and therefore cannot guarantee any shared space as exclusive for one group of people. We will not label something as a single-sex space if we cannot truthfully guarantee that it will be single-sex.'
The minutes of the meeting read: 'The rights and inclusion of people belonging to our communities and using our buildings are not, and should not be, just about toilets. We will continue to work to make our corner of the commonwealth of heaven on Earth a more welcoming and accessible place. This is what love requires of us.'
Quakers in Britain also pointed out that at its main building, French House in London, all public facilities were 'trans inclusive'.
A spokesman said: 'Toilets labelled with a 'female' sign are intended for cis women, trans women, and non-binary and intersex people for whom this toilet is best aligned with their lived experience.
'Toilets labelled with a 'male' sign are intended for cis men, trans men, and non-binary and intersex people for whom this toilet is best aligned with their lived experience.'
Ms Joyce said: 'British Quakers' announcement that it will continue to allow trans-identifying men to use female facilities is textbook trans activism. It is also in breach of the law. The organisation would be wise to consult legal expertise without delay.
'It is not 'inclusive' to seek a way around labelling toilets and changing rooms as male and female in order to avoid having to monitor whether people comply with common-sense rules that are there to protect everyone. It places the desires of those who seek to transgress boundaries over the needs of the most vulnerable.
'This is an upside-down vision of equality, integrity and truth. By defying the UK's highest court and removing protections for women and girls, Quakers are courting legal risk and demonstrating a lack of care and responsibility, in the pursuit of a fashionable dogma.'
A spokesman for Quakers in Britain said: 'Our facilities are legally compliant. Quakers in Britain welcome and affirm trans and non-binary people in all Quaker spaces. Our values of equality and integrity guide every decision we make.
'No trans, non-binary, or intersex Quaker, staff member, or service user will be asked to disclose or prove aspects of their identity in ways that are not asked of cisgender people. We do not seek to monitor who uses our facilities, nor do we believe it is possible or desirable to do so.
'We have self-contained facilities, which function as single sex spaces, available for all our building users. We are committed to taking robust and proactive steps to ensure that all our spaces remain safe, inclusive, and free from harassment or inappropriate behaviour.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
10 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Ghislaine Maxwell Subpoena Update as House Waits on Supreme Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer told Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys the panel is willing to delay her subpoenaed deposition until after the Supreme Court rules on an appeal she has filed, a decision expected in late September. Maxwell's legal team had warned she would invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination unless certain conditions were met, including congressional immunity, conducting the deposition outside her prison, receiving advance questions, and waiting for the appeal's conclusion. Comer said Maxwell's testimony remains "vital" to the committee's Jeffrey Epstein investigation but ruled out granting immunity or providing questions in advance. He added the panel is "willing to engage in good faith negotiations" and will continue its practice of holding detailed discussions about the scope of testimony. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.


Newsweek
10 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Effort to Overturn Birthright Citizenship Struggles in Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A three-judge panel in the Boston-based appeals court expressed deep skepticism about arguments from President Donald Trump's Department of Justice as the administration seeks to overturn birthright citizenship, according to Reuters. Why It Matters Trump's executive order, signed on Inauguration Day in January, seeks to restrict birthright citizenship and could potentially affect the rights of millions of U.S.-born children. The order directs U.S. agencies to refuse citizenship to children unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The crux of the issue sits in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which will determine whether the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for children born on American soil to non-citizen or undocumented parents remains intact. The case has already gone before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month ruled that the order is unconstitutional, upholding a lower-court decision that blocked nationwide enforcement. A stock photo of a new USA passport. A stock photo of a new USA passport. Stock Photo - Getty Images What To Know The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday grilled Justice Department lawyer Eric McArthur over the core arguments of the administration's position on birthright citizenship, who reiterated Trump's argument that the 14th Amendment was only meant to extend citizenship to the children of former slaves—not the children of immigrants in the country either temporarily or unlawfully. The judges, all appointed by Democratic presidents, pointed to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which guaranteed citizenship to any child born in the country to non-citizen parents. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron mused that the judges "aren't free to disregard" the Supreme Court's previous ruling. Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued before the court that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens." While the Supreme Court in June ruled in favor of limiting nationwide injunctions, it allowed certain exceptions within the limits of a certified segment of people for class-action lawsuits to retain that power. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts in July ruled that a previously granted nationwide injunction against Trump's order could stay in place, even in light of the new Supreme Court restrictions, because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. A New Hampshire court in the same month also acted within the new ruling to certify a nationwide class of plaintiffs, which included all children born on U.S. soil. The Trump administration has sought to appeal this ruling alongside Sorokin's. What People Are Saying Judge Patrick Bumatay, who dissented in the 9th Circuit's ruling, wrote: "We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions." Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg via X, formerly Twitter, to Newsweek in July: "Easy decision. If President Trump wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, he needs to change the Constitution. But he can't repeal the language of the 14th Amendment via executive order." Representative Claudia Tenney, a New York Republican, posted to X on Wednesday: "Birthright citizenship was never meant to be a reward for breaking our immigration laws. The Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act makes it clear: No citizenship for children born to illegal aliens, foreign spies, or terrorists." What Happens Next Legal experts and state attorneys general anticipate that the Supreme Court's possible review will provide a landmark ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment—a decision that may reshape the rights of children born on U.S. soil and the future of American immigration policy. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.


Bloomberg
10 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump is Warning Putin: Grant on Nuclear Submarines
Rebecca Grant, Vice President of Defense Programs at the Lexington Institute, discusses President Trump moving two nuclear submarines towards Russia after he said former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made some highly provocative statements. Grant states President Trump is sending a warning sign to Russian President Vladimir Putin. She speaks with Kailey Leinz and Joe Mathieu on the late edition of Bloomberg's "Balance of Power." (Source: Bloomberg)