Museums Body Critiques EHRC Proposals on Gender Facilities

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has faced backlash from Museums Galleries Scotland (MGS) regarding its recent proposals on gender facilities following a significant Supreme Court ruling. The consultation closed last month after the court determined that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers specifically to biological sex, clarifying that a Gender Recognition Certificate does not alter a person’s sex for legal purposes.

In a May update, the EHRC stated that trans women, defined as biological men, should not access women’s facilities, while trans men, defined as biological women, should not use men’s facilities. MGS, which supports approximately 455 non-national museums and is funded by the Scottish Government, expressed concerns that the EHRC’s guidance could potentially lead to the closure of some museums or leave trans individuals without any suitable facilities.

The organization urged the EHRC to consider the implications of its proposals on trans individuals and those committed to inclusivity. The consultation response from MGS articulated that the current guidance does not promote inclusion, stating, “There is no guidance on how to include trans people; there is only information on how to exclude them.” This lack of direction, according to MGS, fails to assist organizations wishing to adopt a trans-inclusive approach.

MGS highlighted the potential risks of the EHRC guidance impacting the human rights of trans individuals, particularly regarding access to facilities aligned with their lived gender. The organization raised critical questions about how front-of-house staff would manage situations requiring proof of sex, noting that gender recognition certificates and altered birth certificates are not accepted as valid evidence. This could place undue pressure on staff, leading to discriminatory practices based on subjective assessments of appearance.

The response pointed out that requiring all users to be checked could result in increased workloads and costs for museums. The guidance implies that allowing trans individuals to use facilities corresponding to their gender identity may expose organizations to legal repercussions. Conversely, not verifying identities could lead to arbitrary exclusions, potentially humiliating both trans and non-trans patrons.

MGS also expressed concern about the environment this guidance fosters, citing instances of public policing of gender presentation at heritage sites. This creates a climate of suspicion and increases the likelihood of harassment and distress among visitors. The organization warned that many museums might lack the resources to adapt their facilities in compliance with the new guidance, placing them in a precarious position.

The response concluded with a strong call for the EHRC to reassess its processes and understand the needs of trans individuals and organizations dedicated to inclusivity.

In reaction to MGS’s statements, Tess White MSP, the Scottish Conservative shadow equalities minister, criticized the organization for its stance, suggesting that it contradicts the Supreme Court’s clear ruling. White stated, “By criticizing the EHRC’s guidance, Museums Scotland are flouting the law, putting women and girls in danger and laying themselves open to legal challenge.” She called for immediate compliance with the law to ensure the provision of single-sex spaces across public bodies.

The Scottish Government, EHRC, and other stakeholders have been contacted for further commentary on this developing situation. As the debate continues, the impact of these proposals on public facilities and the rights of trans individuals remains a pressing issue.