
Civil servants defy official trans guidance
Civil servants have defied official trans guidance from the equalities watchdog.
The Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union said interim advice issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was 'not fit for purpose'.
The watchdog declared last week that trans women should not be allowed to use female lavatories after the Supreme Court ruled they were not legally women.
It told employers, pubs, shops and hospitals that they must all act in line with the judgment.
But the PCS said the guidance was 'damaging' and 'impossible to implement' in a statement from Fran Heathcote, its general secretary, and Martin Cavanagh, its president.
'The current interim guidance published by the EHRC is clearly not fit for purpose and is damaging in its advice and will be impossible to implement,' the union said.
'PCS is committed to a thorough response to the announced consultation and campaign that any guidance issued puts support and dignity for all at its heart.'
The union said it was 'carefully considering' its own policies in light of the ruling to make sure they were 'fully inclusive'.
'As an equalities-focused union, PCS remains steadfast in promoting and championing the workplace rights of women, trans, and LGBT+ workers,' it said.
Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, said civil servants who believed the ruling was 'impossible to implement' should resign.
'PCS's furious reaction to the EHRC's interim guidance on the implications of the Supreme Court judgment for single sex services and spaces reads more like a statement from a men's rights group than one from a Civil Service union concerned to uphold the rights of all its members, including women,' she said.
'The judgment painstakingly considered how the Equality Act protects everybody's human rights and the EHRC's advice accurately reflects this.
'Civil servants who find a law that was passed by Parliament in 2010 'impossible to implement' because of their own fringe belief system should resign and stop collecting a public salary.'
In its interim guidance, the EHRC also warned that only offering mixed-sex lavatories could amount to indirect sex discrimination against women.
'If somebody identifies as trans, they do not change sex for the purposes of the [Equality] Act, even if they have a gender recognition certificate,' the guidance said.
'A trans woman is a biological man. A trans man is a biological woman.'
The watchdog said mixed-sex lavatories or changing rooms should be provided 'where possible' in addition to single-sex lavatories.
Guidance on when competitive sports must be single-sex will be set out separately by the EHRC 'in due course'.
Schools were told single-sex lavatories must be provided for boys and girls aged eight and over, and single-sex changing facilities for boys and girls aged 11 and over.
The EHRC further clarified that members of an association with 25 members or more can be limited to men or women only, and can also be limited to gay men or lesbian women.
The guidance said a lesbian-only association should not admit trans women, and associations for gay men should not admit trans men.
Earlier this week, Baroness Falkner, the chairman of the EHRC, wrote: 'At the EHRC we uphold and enforce the Equality Act.
'That means incorporating the Supreme Court's ruling into all our guidance and explaining what it means to employers, service providers and other duty-bearers who must put it into practice.
'Our response will continue to be firmly grounded in the law. I can wholeheartedly reassure all who rely on us that every explanation of equality law from the EHRC will be accurate and authoritative. That is our job.
'The law it [the judgment] sets out is effective immediately. Those with duties under the Equality Act should be following it and taking specialist legal advice where necessary.'

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


NBC News
24 minutes ago
- NBC News
Trump administration to end deportation relief for Haitians in the U.S.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem will end deportation protections for half a million Haitians, the latest move by the Trump administration to strip migrants of legal status as it ramps up deportations. Noem, who shortened the duration of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for some 521,000 Haitians earlier this year, will terminate the status on September 2, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said. President Donald Trump, a Republican, has sought to crack down on both legal and illegal immigration during the first four months of his presidency. Noem, who shares Trump's hardline stance, moved in February to end TPS for some 350,000 Venezuelans, as well as thousands of people from Afghanistan and Cameroon. The Supreme Court ruled on May 19 that the Trump administration could proceed with ending TPS for those Venezuelans, signaling that other terminations also may be permitted to move forward. The court in a separate order on May 30 said that the administration could immediately revoke a separate status known as parole for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans. TPS — a humanitarian program created by the U.S. Congress in 1990 — is available to people whose home country has experienced a natural disaster, armed conflict or other extraordinary event. Two months before the status expires, the homeland security secretary must determine whether to renew it, expand it to include new arrivals from the country, or terminate it. 'People think TPS is a free pass, but it's not,' Abigail Desravines, a 35-year-old Haitian immigrant who came to the U.S. following the earthquake, told NBC News earlier this year. 'You have to keep renewing, pay fees and live with the fear that it could end at any time. It's not an easy path.' Trump sought to wipe out most TPS enrollment during his first term but was stymied by federal courts. In a statement, a DHS spokesperson said conditions in Haiti would now allow people to return but did not explain what exactly had changed to lessen the risk. 'The environmental situation in Haiti has improved enough that it is safe for Haitian citizens to return home,' the spokesperson said. Advocates argue that the conditions in Haiti warrant extending the relief. The country has not held an election in nearly a decade. Since the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in 2021, armed gangs have gained control over much of Port-au-Prince, creating a power vacuum that has made governing a challenge and fueled further violence, homelessness and starvation. More than 5,600 people were killed and 1,400 were kidnapped amid gang conflicts last year, according to the United Nations. The violence has rendered 1 million people homeless in Haiti, forcing many into makeshift shelters and exacerbating the country's economic challenges. Despite the dire conditions, the Trump administration has frozen some funding earlier pledged to support a U.N.-backed mission in Haiti.


The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court justices brawl over birthright ruling as Amy Coney Barrett rips Ketanji Brown Jackson for dissent
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson 's passionate dissent in the birthright citizenship case appeared to strike a nerve with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who used three pages of the majority opinion to chide her liberal colleague's legal argument. On Friday, the court released its decision in a case brought by President Donald Trump seeking to expand his executive authority by limiting the power of federal judges. Barrett, joined by the five conservative justices, authored the court's main opinion agreeing to narrow judges' ability to issue nationwide blocks on Trump's executive orders. Jackson authored a concurring dissent, accusing the majority of hastening 'the downfall of our governmental institutions.' The liberal justice of the court accused the majority of being 'so caught up in minutiae of the Government's self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.' Barrett seemingly did not care for Jackson's sharp admonishment of the court and spent several pages dismissing Jackson's argument as a 'startling line of attack' with no legal precedent and 'many problems.' 'The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity,' Barrett wrote, referring to Justice Sonia Sotomayor's main dissenting opinion. 'Justice Jackson, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever,' Barrett added. For multiple paragraphs, Barrett brushed off her colleague's fiery dissent as illogical. 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,' Barrett wrote, before spending another page discussing Jackson's dissent. Barrett, a conservative who was appointed by Trump in 2020, has occasionally toed the line between the conservative wing and the liberal wing of the court, earning ire from Trump supporters. But her scathing takedown of Jackson's dissent was an eye-opening reminder of where her loyalty lies. 'Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: '[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.'' Jackson, a liberal appointed by former president Joe Biden in 2022, expressed intense opposition to the court's decision on Friday, believing it to be 'destructive,' 'perverse,' and 'wrong.' Jackson claimed that the decision would embolden the executive to act more as a monarchy than a democracy. 'A Martian arriving here from another planet would see these circumstances and surely wonder: 'what good is the Constitution, then?'' Jackson said in her dissent. It's not uncommon for justices to display their passion for a certain issue in opinions and dissents. It's become standard to find justices sharply disagreeing with one another in written decisions. But Barrett's relentless attack and Jackson's heated dissent was even surprising to some people online. Republican Representative Dan Crenshaw wrote 'Wow' in response to Barrett's opinion, saying she 'slapped down' Jackson's credibility. Former vice president Mike Pence called Barrett's rebuke 'brilliant.' 'Justice Barrett's brutal takedown of the dissent authored by Justice Jackson is something one wouldn't have predicted from oral arguments,' Fox News host Laura Ingraham said.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Trump basks in triumph as supreme court kicks away another guard rail
He strode into the White House briefing room feeling invincible. In his own telling, he had fixed the Middle East. He had made Nato pay up. He had pacified the heart of Africa. And now Napoleon Trump had once again just been crowned emperor by the US supreme court. 'We've had a big week,' Donald Trump, orange hair shimmering, blue tie drooping below the waist, mused from a lectern anointed with the presidential seal. 'We've had a lot of victories this week.' The highest court had just handed the president another win by curbing the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding his policies – though it left unresolved the issue of whether he can limit birthright citizenship. Unable to contain his glee, Trump came to talk to the press – something his predecessor Joe Biden rarely did – to goad the 'fake news' while basking in glory from the Maga-friendly media. The president hailed the court's decision as a 'monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law' and gloated – with some hyperbole – that 'there are people elated all over the country'. He looked forward to taking aim at targets such as birthright citizenship, sanctuary city funding and refugee resettlement. In the abstract, there is a reasonable debate to be had over how much power the judiciary should have to curb an elected leader's agenda. The attorney general, Pam Bondi, has described it as a 'bipartisan problem' that has plagued five different presidents. A decade ago Barack Obama expressed frustration when a district court temporarily blocked his executive actions on immigration. In the court's majority opinion, the conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's contention that they were neglecting their duty to protect the people from government overreach. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. But context is everything. Trump has marginalised Congress, sued the media in an effort to chill free speech, assailed cultural institutions and universities and deployed the military against peaceful protesters. The courts have been leading the way in safeguarding democracy from his authoritarian impulses. Now they too are on the ropes. Asked by a reporter if the supreme court decision concentrates too much power in the White House, Trump insisted: 'The question is fine but it's the opposite. The constitution has been brought back.' Yet the supreme court that decided to make the strongman even stronger contains three Trump appointees and last year found that former presidents have presumptive immunity from prosecution for 'official acts' – in effect putting Trump above the law. The four criminal investigations that once dogged him now feel like ancient history. Trump was asked a question by a reporter from LindellTV, a news organisation founded by Mike Lindell, a conspiracy theorist and founder of MyPillow, about whether he would like to see a justice department investigation of the judges whose rulings allowed the cases to proceed against him while he was out of office. 'I love you,' Trump said in response to the question, adding: 'I hope so.' It has been exactly 12 months since he debated with Biden and discovered an opponent in chronic decline. Democrats panicked and imploded, Trump survived an assassination attempt and rode his good fortune all the way to the White House. It is small wonder that the 79-year-old now considers himself untouchable, acting with impunity at home and abroad, holding freewheeling press conferences like Friday's without fear of consequences. 'Illegal crossings at the border are at zero now,' a reporter said. Trump interjected: 'Zero! Does everyone hear that?' A cameraman in the briefing room shouted: 'Trump 2028!' Later Trump reiterated his claim that Iran's nuclear sites had been obliterated and lamented: 'We had some fake news for a little while – the same people that covered the Hunter Biden laptop was from Russia … I don't believe that they're going to go back into nuclear anytime soon.' He also used the briefing to take a swipe at Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve, for not lowering interest rates. 'We have a man who's not a smart man, and he probably has Trump Derangement Syndrome.' Later on Friday the White House would host leaders from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda to sign a peace deal to end years of fighting. Trump cheerfully admitted: 'I'm a little bit out of my league in that one because I didn't know too much about it.' He also noted that the US would gain access to critical minerals in the region. Trump even ruminated on threats to his life, including proxy groups from Iran that may issue threats, and referenced the bullet that struck his ear last summer in an attempted assassination. He gets 'that throbbing feeling every once in a while', he said. 'What I do is a dangerous business. You know, I tell the story of the car companies and different people in different professions. You have race car drivers, as an example, one-tenth of 1% die. Bull riders, one-tenth of 1%. That's not a lot, but people die. When you're president, it's about 5%. If somebody would have told me that, maybe I wouldn't have run. This is a very different profession.' As raised hands in the room clamoured for attention his political lizard brain spotted an opportunity to bash his predecessor. 'This is the opposite of Biden. Biden would take a half a question and he'd leave without answering it … You tell me when it gets boring, OK?'