The suggestion that the government has rolled back trans rights is inaccurate and damaging

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

If service providers offer single- or separate -sex services, trans men and women should be treated in accordance with their gender and access the services most appropriate for them (Getty)

Your recent piece on trans people’s access to single-sex spaces appears to suggest that the government has reinterpreted the Equality Act 2010 to support a ban on trans people from using single-sex facilities such as toilets.

In fact, the Equality Act gives trans people the right to use facilities that are appropriate for their gender and makes discrimination against trans people as customers and service users unlawful. There has been no change to the protections afforded to trans people under this legislation. However, the meaning of the single-sex exceptions in the Act has been dangerously misconstrued.

Under normal circumstances, if service providers offer single- or separate-sex services, trans men and women should be treated in accordance with their gender and access the services most appropriate for them. However, in limited circumstances, there are exceptions to this. These exceptions should be treated as a last resort, where every way to enable full inclusion of a trans person has been explored.

This is far from the picture of a blanket ban suggested by the press this week. At Gendered Intelligence we are noticing an increasing demand for support and training for organisations to deliver trans-inclusive services, including how best to manage single-sex facilities.

Many trans people, and especially trans women, are challenged on a daily basis while using facilities that we should all take for granted, such as toilets and changing rooms. The risk of discrimination and harassment can only be increased by reporting that has the effect of removing trans people’s legal protections in the minds of the public.

Dr Jay Stewart, chief executive, Gendered Intelligence

It would be great if politicians could act like adults for a change

I read with bare credulity the reports that Boris Johnson was “cold-shouldered” by the cabinet for constantly choosing self-promotion over party unity, and his slop and cowardice – most recently displayed when he chose his cabinet job over principles with regard to Heathrow.

“Cold shoulder” is not really a parliamentary tool or a democratic weapon, is it?

The increasing parallels between the orange slob on the other side of the pond and our own lower-grade blonde blob are too numerous to mention. But in the US it seems it is restaurant owners and airlines making a stand against the white supremacists, while in the UK it is schoolboy tactics like sending someone to Coventry on which we seem to increasingly rely to marshal good behaviour.

Next they will be giving each other wedgies…

Amanda Baker
Edinburgh

The Heathrow expansion will be a disaster

All sanity demands opposition to the proposed Heathrow expansion, endangering 2,000 years of priceless medieval Anglo-Saxon heritage by the desecration of the historic villages of Harmondsworth and Sipson for an airport that can’t cope adequately with the passengers it has.

Wasn’t the HS2 project meant to end the dependency of jets into London? Or was that last week’s “wealth creators” fairytale?

Let’s concentrate on the infrastructure business and communities do need instead of wasting more of taxpayers’ money on white elephants

Mark Boyle
Renfrewshire

Stop saying the majority did vote for Brexit

In his letter, Rob Prince claims that 52 per cent of the electorate voted for Brexit. This is untrue.

The electorate is the total number of people who are entitled to vote, not the number of people who do vote.

The electorate was 46.5 million people and 17.4 million voted for Brexit, 16.1 million voted to remain and 13 million did not vote. Therefore only 37 per cent of the electorate voted for Brexit.

That means 63 per cent of the population did not vote for Brexit, so it never was the will of the people and 63 per cent of the electorate is being forced to accept the will of 37 per cent. That is not democracy, and in a democracy the people have a right to change their minds, otherwise why bother having elections?

Phil Wheeler
Peterborough

Hopefully Prince William can make a real change in the middle east

Prince William’s visit to Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories was majestic in its meaning. The region is the birthplace of monotheistic religions, the cradle of civilisations, cultures and etiquette. It is a mixture of astonishing ancient ruins and modernity.

It is unforgivable that this region has witnessed an unimaginable conflict and systematic persecution to a largely indifferent global audience. Many children have been orphaned and brutalised, have seen nothing but utter misery, squalor, physical and psychological wounds.

Let us hope that this visit will bring to politicians the message that a viable and sustainable political settlement is the only way forward to alleviate human suffering, economic harshness and political animosity.

Dr Munjed Farid al Qutob
London NW2

Don’t forget that language can evoke painful mental images

Is it possible that we could refrain from using the term “jumping into bed with” with respects to two politicians siding with each other on a certain policy?

I know there’s a tendency to speak in layman’s terms about these things, but I would rather prefer hearing that May has “created an unholy alliance” with Viktor Orban. Might mean the same thing but what do I know?

David Murphy
Address Supplied