Disabled people may have to ‘compete’ for access to toilets with trans people, a Government analysis has admitted. An impact assessment of long-awaited guidance from the equalities watchdog warns of a ‘significant possibility of this creating tension’.
New Guidance on Single-Sex Spaces
Implementing the Supreme Court judgment of more than a year ago, new rules state that organisations should make clear if spaces such as toilets are single-sex and so only for use by those of that biological sex. But the equality impact assessment says that if a trans person chooses to use a disabled toilet rather than that of their biological sex, it could create issues. This ‘may not foster good relations between groups’, it warns, as it says disabled people have had to fight for their right to accessible toilets.
Supreme Court Ruling Interpretation
Ministers have taken more than a year to publish guidance on how to interpret last year’s Supreme Court ruling that the definitions ‘women’ and ‘sex’ refer to biological sex. The 342-page guidance was published on Thursday after controversy over the timeline to provide the desperately needed guidance. In it, the Equality and Human Rights Commission confirmed that single-sex services must be on the basis of biological sex, rather than ‘gender identity’.
This means that a trans man – a biological female – can be excluded from a men-only service, while a trans woman – a biological male – can be excluded from a women-only service. The guidance applies to facilities including hospitals, sports, leisure centres and cafes and states that an accessible toilet could be used as a mixed-sex toilet. But it adds that in such cases a service provider should ‘monitor if there is any negative impact on both trans and disabled people and take appropriate action’.
Impact Assessment Concerns
An accompanying impact assessment by the Office for Equality and Opportunity states that guidance ‘concerning the potential need for trans people to use disabled toilets as “third space” facilities may not foster good relations between groups’. It added: ‘This is because disabled people and trans people may have to compete to access a limited number of facilities. Disabled people have had (and continue) to fight for access to suitable toilets. ‘Whether this creates tension between the two groups will depend on how providers choose to arrange and label their facilities . . . EHRC have tried to manage this in their example, but we must recognise that there is a significant possibility of this creating tension.’
