quinn.mx

Letter to Rachel Reeves

I have sent the following letter to my MP, Rachel Reeves, and I’m publishing it here so that there is a public record of it, and in case it helps my friends and allies in writing their own letters to their MPs about the EHRC guidance.

Dear Rachel,

I’m writing to you as a transgender constituent of Leeds West & Pudsey regarding the guidance put out by the EHRC on 2025-04-25.

Firstly, please allow me to say how happy I was to see a progressive government elected in 2024 and your appointment as Chancellor. We have had years of clueless or reactionary Chancellors and I’m so happy we finally have someone in this post who is basing her budget decisions on evidence. I am a supporter of your colleagues here in Farsley - Peter Carlill and Craig Timmins - with whom I’ve had numerous very constructive conversations (hopefully they agree!), and extremely grateful to your colleague Hannah Bithell who has been extremely instrumental in helping me and others to set up Pride Place, amongst many other LGBTQ+ initiatives around the city.

Like most LGBTQ+ people I know, I was disappointed with the Supreme Court ruling on 2025-04-16 but I was pleased it came with detailed commentary laying out how the law still protects trans people, including paragraph 140, which I quote for you below:

  1. Thirdly, the language of direct discrimination in section 13(1) is different from the language used in the corresponding provision made by section 1(1)(a) of the SDA 1975 which defined direct sex discrimination as treatment by another person of a woman in relevant circumstances if “(a) on the ground of her sex he treats her less favourably than he treats or would treat a man”. Section 13(1) by contrast is framed by reference to less favourable treatment “because of a protected characteristic”. Under section 13(1) of the Page 42 EA 2010 therefore the complainant need not herself possess the protected characteristic relied on: see Coleman v Attridge Law (Case C-303/06) [2008] ICR 1128, which held that the EU Equal Treatment Framework Directive (2000/78) protects those who, although not themselves disabled, nevertheless suffer direct discrimination or harassment because of their association with a disabled person. Accordingly, the section 13(1) prohibition includes direct discrimination based on perception, whether or not shared by the person being perceived, and by association. We return to this point below (see paras 250 to 257).

The guidance published by EHRC appears to contradict this, and actively encourages businesses and organisations to make spaces more hostile to trans people.

I understand the argument for some fringe groups being allowed to create spaces that exclude trans people, and I agree this is still a conversation worth having.

However, the EHRC guidance appears to suggest that it should now be the default for all businesses that offer any kind of sex-segregated spaces (including toilets and changing rooms) to actively work to exclude trans people from using the spaces that match the gender they most closely identify with.

This means that businesses that previously had no interest in trans rights, and trusted their patrons to use the spaces that were appropriate to them, are now being asked not only to care about which of their patrons are trans, but to actively exclude them from the spaces that they are most comfortable in. This guidance even explicitly says that groups for lesbians or gay men are encouraged to exclude the appropriate trans people from their spaces, when these groups have - on the whole - been our most vocal supporters and allies throughout Leeds and the whole LGBTQ+ community.

As a real example, the pub The Fleece in Farsley has no gender neutral toilet facilities. If I am there and I am wearing a dress, long brightly coloured hair, and tights, I’m sure you agree I would absolutely be most safe using the women’s toilet, and I am sure the pub’s owners and patrons would agree with me, since my gender transition is none of their business and allowing patrons to use the most comfortable toilet increases the comfort and safety of everyone present. But this guidance now says that because they have no gender-neutral facilities, they are encouraged to ascertain every patron’s gender assigned at birth and direct them to the toilet that matches this gender.

It’s impossible for me to understand how this is a step forward for gender equality or who wins in this situation except for a few fringe groups who are actively campaigning to make our existence in public difficult.

I’m writing to you both as my representative in Parliament and as a member of the government front bench, asking for you to please confirm to me:

  1. That you understand that Parliament is not bound by rulings from the Supreme Court or guidance by the EHRC - that Parliament makes the law and if the law is unjust, it absolutely has the power to change it.
  2. That as a woman, a feminist, and member of a party that uplifts champions of LGBTQ+ equality like Hannah Bithell, you agree that the interim guidance by EHRC is a step backwards for equality and safety for people of all genders, but especially for trans people in the UK.
  3. That future guidance and changes to the law regarding trans people should be produced in consultation with members of the trans community, in line with the UN principle of “Nothing about us without us”.
  4. That whenever this conversation comes up in Cabinet conversations about Labour’s programme for the UK, you will stand up for trans rights and oppose guidance that actively excludes trans people from spaces (other than those spaces that explicitly seek to exclude us, about which there is still valid debate).

If you disagree with any of the above, I would be keen to hear your perspective.

I am also happy to make myself available for a discussion in person or on a video call, if you’d like to understand more about my position. I can’t speak for the entire community, but I can speak from my own perspective as a trans person who loves living, working and spending in your constituency.

I’m looking forward to your response!

With hope,

~ Quinn Daley (they/them)