I, like many in the LGBT+ community am scared right now. I cried yesterday and today about the uncertainty of my future and my friends’ futures.
If you are cis or trans it doesn’t really matter, it’s clear that the guidance from the EHRC is ultimately unenforceable, however it doesn’t need to be enforced to make life uncomfortable for many people. You see, this doesn’t just make public life hostile to trans women, it erodes all women’s rights; trans and cis women alike. If we are not “performing womanhood” to someone else’s satisfaction, you can now be called trans – as if that makes you less than – and asked to leave a space.
And how would one prove they are trans or cis? A trans person can have all the same external anatomy, legal documentation and appearance as a cis woman, and that is without even considering cis women with PCOS, countless other conditions, or even as was the case with my Mum; she was just a little on the “butcher” side of feminine preferring shorter hair, jeans and a top with no makeup for much of her life, despite being a cis-heterosexual woman she would have also felt at “risk” from this guidance.
Writing about my mum I would like to share a relevant memory I have of her, from when I was much younger; a time where in my home town of Crewe, my Mum – originally from Dublin – played darts for Cheshire Ladies and at a local club level as well.
She was playing at a nearby pub that week, as we walked into the pub with her team the barman told her that we would have to sit in the garden for the night; under an umbrella in the pouring rain, pointing at a sign. “No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish”. My Mum thinking of me told the barman that I was English, born at the nearby Leighton Hospital, it was only her that was Irish, my Dad is English, she wouldn’t cause trouble; just let me in and I could sit with him, the barman pointed again at the sign, “No Dogs means you can take your little mongrel outside as well”. This isn’t my only memory of my family being treated like that but it is one that burnt into my brain at a young age, because in the end it doesn’t matter if you fall into the category bigots try to exclude; it just matters if they think you are less than them – I’ve been less than them in their eyes my entire life.
Maybe I watched too much Star Trek as a kid, I used to think the UK would almost naturally mature past where the government elevated bigots’ voices, enabling them. Over the past couple of decades, I think the Tories and Labour have fully beaten that dream out of me, turning me more towards Terry Pratchett’s “militant decency”. If we want a fairer, more liberal Britain we have to make it happen, not rely on others.
I believe as Lib Dems it is our absolute duty to be fighting against the rising tide of hatred; in local communities, online and especially in parliament.
I know that a lot of our parliamentary party are allies, but possibly are scared of putting their heads above the parapet for fear of the repercussions, but I ask you what is the point of getting elected if you won’t stand for your values when they are being destroyed. And for those of us not elected, what is the use of us if we do not collectively push for our MPs and Lords to uphold our values?
No matter what we say about this guidance, how it is unenforceable, how it is unclear, or how it doesn’t make anything better… We all know the bigots will use it to push their agenda, their lawfare, at least with “No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish” my Mum could carry an umbrella, I can’t realistically carry around a portable toilet.
* Meg Challinor is a Lib Dem member and campaigner who currently serves as an ordinary member on both the North West Regional Executive and the LGBT+ Lib Dem Executive.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
District council backs a parish council for Market Harborough
New by-election poll gives Burnham 5 point lead
Pope Leo speaks for all liberals when he condemns racism, supports migration, and supports Ukraine
Growing Asylum backlog undermines Government's case
paul barker
George Thomas
Nick Baird
Peter Chambers
Tristan Ward
20 Comments
@Meg
“… it’s clear that the guidance from the EHRC is ultimately unenforceable”
The purpose of the guidance is to not, in itself, to be enforceable but to guide others as to the meaning of the law. If organisations, businesses etc choose to ignore the guidance, they will now know that the run the risk of being taken to court by people who may claim they have suffered discrimination or harassment, for example, due to the organisations/businesses not following the law and the guidance will be used as part of the case in Court. Now it will be easier to prove that organisations/businesses are not following some aspects of the guidance more than others so we can expect court cases on these aspects first. Example, any sporting organisation that were to allow trans women to compete in a female competition where height or strength could be an advantage will know that the could easily be sued. That, therefore, will be easily enforceable. Single-sex changing rooms will be more difficult to enforce unless a trans person were to undress to the point where others could see that they were in a different changing rooms will be than their sex. Single-sex toilets will be almost impossible to enforce unless a trans person were challenged by other service users, a scene developed and police were called – at that point the trans person may be in danger of being charged with a public order offence by deliberately using the ‘wrong’ toilets.
pointing at a sign. “No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish”.
Those signs are a myth; they never existed. There are no contemporaneous references to them at all, and the only photograph of one is from the eighties, long after they are claimed to have existed, and was in all probability a mock-up made for a exhibition; see: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/21/no-irish-no-blacks-no-dogs-no-proof
@Dav – you have entirely missed the point. It doesn’t matter whether that sign was a myth; the key thing is that it did represent the reality of the time, as is evident from the incident reported in the post.
“what is the point of getting elected if you won’t stand for your values when they are being destroyed”
Can we get this stapled to every MP and councillor’s office wall, please?
@Dav well this was in the 80s, i don’t think they were being made by an official source, it was a chalk board as far as I remember… Not really the point though, I’d challenge you to listen to those marginalised by society rather than just call them liars.
MPs can vote down the new Code, if they act within six weeks. For a vote to take place, it needs enough MPs beforehand to sign the corresponding motion.
This is such low hanging fruit to stand up against. The UK has become a pariah in europe for it’s horrifically backwards stances on trans ppl(second worst in western europe i believe and could cause issues in a rejoin effort) and while the party says we have the correct liberal values(aka freedom and staying out of people’s literal pants), we also have MPs with the backbone of a noodle who do not speak out and then wonder why they can’t break through, grow in the polls or otherwise do things that help ensure their continued employment. It’s shameful to see how poorly we’re doing on this when it’s such an easy win.
A very moving article Meg.
As liberals we should unapologetically suppor5 LGBT+ rights, especially when they are being undermined by Quangos like the EHRC.
@Joan Summers, the problem is how do you prove someone is trans? Passport, birth certificate, driver’s license, they are all changeable during transition (mine all say F), chromosomes are not reliable ~25% of the time they are not a simple xy/xx signifier (and I doubt toilet staff or police would be carrying the equipment to check them anyway), and it can just turn into a game of “no you are trans not me”.
I’d also say btw, 2 of my friends who are trans women are about 5ft6, not all trans women are Amazononian goddesses.
In reply to Dav’s link to a letter in The Guardian claiming the “No Blacks…” signs didn’t exist, I’d like to offer a link to another letter from The Guardian – this one from the director of the Irish Studies Centre at London Metropolitan University, stating that yes, they did exist and also citing the report “Discrimination and the Irish Community in Britain” which was published by the Commission for Racial Equality in 1997.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/28/no-reason-to-doubt-no-irish-no-blacks-signs
On a personal note, the father of my first wife, who moved to the UK from Ireland in the early 70’s would be able to confirm the signs definitely existed – as, I suspect, would many other Irish or Black people.
I’ll also add a link to a piece by Angelique Richardson from the London Review of Books from 2020, mentioning the same letter Dav linked to and pointing out that the letter’s been misused by people claiming that it’s proof the signs never existed.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2020/october/no-coloureds
I’d say an apology for accusing the author of lying would be appropriate.
Quite a few Irish people do testify to having seen those signs:
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2024/05/06/no-irish-no-blacks-no-dogs-irish-times-readers-recall-encountering-notorious-signs-in-britain/
Joan Summers is good enough to list out a number of ways in which the EHRC guidelines can and will be used to bully women. To bully women out of sports. To bully women out of changing rooms. To bully women out of toilets, and effectively out of life in public altogether.
The question is, do we believe women should be bullied?
I don’t think we should. I would hope no one would.
Someone might say “but what if the woman is trans?” To which I reply: if you think it is ok to bully someone because they are trans, then you are still a bully.
Joan is, I think, mistaken to say these rules will be “easily enforced”; the guidelines themselves say there is no lawful way to check someone’s answer if asked their gender on using any of these services. That creates a legal minefield for any organisation that seeks to follow these guidelines.
The Supreme Court ruling in the For Women Scotland case has only created confusion, and these guidelines make matters more confused not less.
We need our Parliamentarians to say this and call for new legislation to clarify the law in a way that is compatible with the Gender Recognition Act and the European Court of Human Rights ruling (Goodwin) that led to the Gender Recognition Act, as well as more recent cases which have reinforced that trans women are women (something our Party has long recognised).
@Dav
“These signs never existed”
A very odd thing to say when the original article is direct evidence they did exist.
Dav, In the article you mention there is a letter from Dr Tony Murray
Director, Irish Studies Centre, London Metropolitan University.. rebutting the article’s claim..
And, ref Mary Read’s post.. There is no arguing against the blatant racism at Smethwick in the 1964 general election…or, ” the official policy of racial segregation that had been attempted to be put into place in Smethwick’s housing allocation, with houses on Marshall Street in Smethwick being let only to white British residents. In 1964, a delegation of white residents petitioned the Conservative council to compulsorily purchase vacant houses to prevent non-whites from buying the houses. The policy was adopted by the council but was prevented by Labour housing minister Richard Crossman, who refused to allow the council to borrow the money in order to enact their policy..”
@Dav
In pubs perhaps, but I have seen signs in windows in the 60s. Room to rent, no blacks, no Irish and certainly no dogs. That sort of prejudice was rife in my formative years and if Reform ever get near government then such sentiments will be encouraged.
@Richard Flowers
“Joan is, I think, mistaken to say these rules will be “easily enforced”
To be clear, I think they should be capable of being easily enforced in a sporting context, though – as I explained above – more difficult to enforce in changing rooms and toilets.
In sporting contests, I would expect that organisations will require to sign to confirm they were born female if they wish to compete in the female sex category. If a trans women were to falsely sign to allow them to compete, I’m sure they would face consequences if found out, possibly including legal consequences (both civil and criminal).
@ Dav re. “These signs never existed”
Back in the mid-late sixties when I was a history student at UCL (and living in a rented flat), I remember seeing plenty of such signs in Muswell Hill in properties that were to let. End of.
So, the response to a persons lived experience is to tell them they imagine it? Nice way to summarise the problem
The LGBT+ community have been screaming that they are feeling under attack, the least we can do is to stand up and provide the support they are asking for.
I remember clearly the pain section 28 inflicted on people around me, not only on the intended victims but also those who were just different and people just assumed…
We’re meant to be Liberals, we must take a stand, loudly and now
Joan – you sound decidedly approving of these rules being, as you put it, “easily enforced”. Do I misinterpret you?
The irony of these guidelines is that if you want to avoid problems using toilets (eg) , the best thing would be to perform your gender very conventionally. So one’s perceived gender is the ticket to a “single sex” space. Actually a single gender space.