UK Equalities chief on gender, sex, and the law | Political Thinking with Nick Robinson

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-31

[00:00:00]It is fair to say is it that a transw woman is not a woman for the purposes of the law regardless of what individual >> for the purposes of the equality act.

[00:00:12]>> You've had what 30 odd years working equality and diversity and yet it seems to me only quite recently has it become as controversial as it has. Why?

[00:00:24]>> I think some of these issues have always been contested. One of the problems has been um the idea that equality or human rights legislation is a a sword which can be used to attack another group, you know, to to to make your case. And actually, it is something that protects all of us. So, if for example, you want to protect your own right to protest or to freedom of expression, you also have to recognize that the legislation that does that protects the rights of people you disagree with. All too often when you get into these really difficult and complicated debates, you can set up a situation which is basically if you don't absolutely agree with my position over here, that must mean you're either stupid or you're a bad actor. And that's not true. It's also tactically really stupid. No one is ever persuaded to change their mind by being told that they're stupid. I mean, all it does is make them angry. Um, if you want to convince people, if you profoundly disagree with somebody and think they're wrong, the way to do that is through dialogue, it's not through shutting people down or mocking them for stupidity. Um and I think you know some of what we saw was the kind of after effects for example of the the Brexit referendum where there was a you know a tendency on some sides to think well if you you know if you voted a particular way that's obviously because you're stupid or or because you're evil because you don't care.

[00:01:53]>> This debate about free speech versus hate speech.

[00:01:58]>> Yes. Yes. When we see on the one hand Tommy Robinson leading a march and on the other the so-called Nagba march the other day celebrating uh the fight for Palestinian rights.

[00:02:11]What are the issues that you in the commission now need to wrestle with?

[00:02:15]>> Well, I think again, you know, these are issues where you have got a you've got a conflict of rights. Um and people have the right to freedom of expression. They have the right to to protest, the right to freedom of assembly. People also have the right to live without harassment, without threats of violence and so on.

[00:02:35]So generally, you know, our our role at the EHRC is often to talk about the importance of the right to protest and the fact that that may include or the right to freedom of expression may include the expression of views that people find offensive, but there is a limit to that. And on that example is what matters the perception of those people who feel threatened as it often is in the law. In other words, if many but not all British Jews think from the river to the sea >> means a single Palestinian state, the abolition of the state of Israel. Is that what matters? That's what they hear. That's what they think. That's what they fear. And therefore the law should be on their side. Well, there is a complexity here, right? Because our hate speech framework has tended to be based on the perception of the the person at the receiving end. Um the freedom of expression um protections in the the human rights act are generally based on the idea that um there's quite a high level of protection for political speech quite rightly and that does include speech that people find offensive and the limitations are around incitement um you know incitement of violence for example um and so how you negotiate that in practice is a tricky one and it is something that we are looking at and it's also something that um Lord McDonald's you're looking at at the moment with his review of the right to protest and hate speech.

[00:04:02]>> The detail will come out later, but are you inclined to say the balance isn't right at the moment? People are hearing things on the street.

[00:04:09]>> I think what we have we have a problem with legislation around protest, which is that it is very complicated um and has brought been developed over a number of years and in some cases I think does unreasonably restrict the right to protest. Um I think when we're thinking about that we also have to think about um protection against people for people against you know hate speech and incitement to violence and I think how you deal with that is often quite context specific and it's often specific to the particular situation the particular march um and so we are asking you know we're asking the police to make some quite difficult decisions on the day >> not everybody accepts that this is the best way to describe it but Many see it as a battle between those arguing for rights for trans people and those who are arguing to preserve women's rights fought for over decades.

[00:05:05]Before we talk about the detail of the guidance you've just issued, how did it come to this? I mean, did other countries end up in this sort of >> harass? I think I think one of the things that is important to say is this is not a fundamental clash between the rights of women and the rights of trans people per se. It is a clash between the rights claims of different people groups. Um so >> claims being the important word.

[00:05:29]>> So basically you know you have a human rights framework for example that gives the right to privacy. What does that mean in practice? Different groups will say in order to uphold my right to privacy I need X Y and Zed and other people might say well that affects my right to privacy in these ways and that's where the conflict comes. So it's not it's not that you can't uphold the rights of both women and trans people because I think you can and that's what we've tried to do in our code of practice.

[00:05:56]>> You don't make the law.

[00:05:57]>> No, >> you implement the law. But just so people understand in law now thanks to the judgment of the Supreme Court it is fair to say is it that a trans woman is not a woman for the purposes of the law regardless of what individuals >> for the purposes of the Equality Act.

[00:06:18]One of the reasons I think why people can get themselves caught in a mess when they're asked that question is because there is a complexity. So for the purposes of the equality act um the Supreme Court ruled that a um that sex is defined by biological sex and that the terms women and men are defined by biological sex. Um but under the gender recognition act if you have a gender recognition certificate um you legally become for most but not all purposes the the sex that you you wish to be.

[00:06:50]Obviously, how people treat people in their day-to-day life can be a third thing altogether. And I think, you know, very many people would want to treat people as they would want to be treated.

[00:07:00]>> You've been really clear, haven't you?

[00:07:01]If you're a large enough organization or have a large enough building, easy. You have cubicles. You know, they're unisex cubicles. Anybody can go them. Problem solved in many ways. Um the contention comes if that isn't the easy solution when we narrow it down to bathrooms and toilets. And the question that is sometimes asked of you Baroness Kennedy has raised it of course >> is if a woman has been a trans woman and lived as such she said for 20 or 30 years are we really saying that if she goes to Waterloo station and gets caught short because she's a woman of certain age that she can't use the woman's toilet which she's been using for >> I think you know one of the the things about the the station example for examp is is that there are um uh unisex toilets available um >> not just at Waterl but elsewhere.

[00:07:57]>> Yeah. Not just at Waterloo but elsewhere. Um and obviously the policing of this has to be proportionate. So it would not be proportionate I don't think for um a train station to put somebody on guard on outside toilets checking who's going in and out. Um that you know that wouldn't be a proportionate response. But do you fear that there may be campaigners on either side of this who either try and prove that the law is an ass by saying well I'm going to make my way into the women's toilets or standing outside the women's toilets to take photographs in order to have this fight to keep it going.

[00:08:33]>> I I am sure unfortunately that that will happen with a small number of people. I think by and large, you know, what we expect with this, as in most other areas of the law, is that people follow it and that we don't, you know, we don't, for example, have police officers standing out underneath every traffic light to check whether or not people stop. What you do is where there is evidence of a a regular and systematic problem, you then might take action. Why, on the other hand, to put a question from the other perspective, did it take campaigners, often funded by the money from JK Rowling, to persuade people that a rape crisis center should only be open to people born as women? How on earth did it come to that? I think what happened was there was a long period where there was um sustained misinformation about what the law required and allowed. So um uh and and people were told that it would not be lawful to do that and that was never the case. um >> told that they had to allow in trans women to women's only spaces >> and and told that that they weren't allowed to offer you know provide uh single sex spaces and that was never the case because the exemptions in the Equality Act were always there um and uh you know in 2022 it was made clear that um uh those exemptions didn't allow for self ID into the category of women. Um so the case that that came to the Supreme Court last year was about um trans women with a gender and men with a gender recognition certificate.

[00:10:15]>> Now plenty of people listening will say ah well look trans men and women can use unisex toilets or single cubicles but many of them will not think that they want the dignity of being confirmed in their sex.

[00:10:32]call it an adopted sex if you like but that is what they will think they don't want separate they want to be who they are and in many cases who they've been for many many years >> I mean I can understand that um but at the same time it is very clear that a women do really value single sex spaces it is really important to them for for their dignity and um uh and safety and um the law in this area is is very clear. So what we're you know what the code is is doing is basically setting out how you can um ensure that you're properly following the law in a way that protects the rights of everybody.

[00:11:20]>> So if anybody wants that, there's no use trying to lobby you uh or the Equality and Human Rights Commission. they have to win political power in order to >> this is this is about you know people would have to change the law and I think you know it's one of the things that comes up in the discussion about the code because the code has to be laid before parliament for 40 days and so on before it becomes statutory some people have got the impression that somehow um if they can stop the code passing then they will change the law but the law will remain the same whether or not the code becomes statutory um the the law is the equality act and then as clarified by the Supreme Court judgment.