EHRC and My Comments
Below is a letter I wrote to my MP in order to voice my opinion with my reading of the EHRC Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations. I hope my MP will bring forward solutions for what has been a very toxic debate.
I’ve never been one to use arms. Alms yes. Kindness and compassion and communication get through far better than anger. Yes, swearing and emotions shows you are angry about something, but never really passes quality information about how you actually feel. It becomes easier to ignore the way we treat others than to look inwards to the depth of our pain and trauma. Looking is painful. I know.
Look at the first question.
I wanted to be balanced here and acknowledge that both sides have grievances. History tells us a lot about who, what, where and when, but do we truly listen to that history. The mistakes we make is because we don’t listen to history, or listen to the voices of our ancestors who were there before us.
Can I ask you something?
When you feel uncomfortable, where do you place that feeling – within yourself, or onto the person in front of you?
I ask because when that leads to me being less visible, it leaves me feeling less safe.
I am writing as a trans woman who has lived quietly within society for many years without issue. Like most people, I simply wish to work, live peacefully, and use public facilities safely and respectfully.
I understand the importance of protecting women’s spaces and ensuring safety for everyone. I recognise that many women’s concerns arise from a long and painful history in which women have experienced abuse, violence, discrimination, and exclusion across generations. These fears should not be dismissed or ridiculed.
However, I am deeply concerned that recent guidance and public discussion surrounding sex segregation, risks creating fear, confusion, and unintended harm — not only for trans people, but for many natal women as well.
I worry that responding to historical harms through increased social suspicion and segregation in everyday public spaces may unintentionally create new harms for both trans people and many natal women alike.
In ordinary life, people do not determine “biological sex” through inspection or testing. Society functions through social recognition: appearance, behaviour, presentation, and context. I have personally experienced being challenged from entering men’s facilities because others perceived me as female. This reflects the reality that public interactions are not governed by biology checks, but by human perception.
The practical question therefore becomes: how would such policies actually be enforced?
Any system relying upon appearance inevitably risks encouraging the monitoring and policing of women’s bodies and presentation. Women who are masculine-presenting, tall, athletic, disabled, elderly, or otherwise outside narrow expectations of femininity may increasingly become targets of suspicion or challenge.
Biology itself is also more complex than public debate often suggests. Conditions such as androgen insensitivity syndrome and other intersex variations demonstrate that chromosomes, appearance, and lived reality do not always align in simplistic ways.
I fear we are moving toward a society where ordinary people become increasingly suspicious of one another in public spaces. That does not create dignity or safety. It creates anxiety.
This subject requires calmness, compassion, and careful consideration of real-world consequences rather than fear-driven reactions. Trans people are a very small and vulnerable part of society, and many have lived peacefully for years without incident.
I am also concerned by suggestions that trans people should instead use disabled or accessible toilets as a compromise solution.
In practice, this risks creating a form of segregation that may inadvertently force trans people to publicly “out” themselves simply through which facilities they use. Many accessible toilets in the UK require RADAR key access, raising practical questions about how such guidance could realistically function in daily life.
It may also place additional strain on facilities intended primarily for disabled people, who already face limited accessibility in many public spaces.
Surely the goal should be a society rooted in dignity, safety, compassion, and respectful behaviour toward one another, rather than one increasingly shaped by fear, monitoring, and division.
Fear tends to amplify division. Reflection can sometimes create understanding.
Policies intended to reduce discomfort should not unintentionally create new forms of exclusion, visibility, or anxiety for vulnerable groups.
If a group of people must use separate facilities because others are uncomfortable with their presence, society should pause very carefully before deciding that is a compassionate direction to travel.
I respectfully ask that policymakers consider not only abstract definitions, but also the human realities and unintended consequences these policies may create for everyone.