Sex Matters meets Anneliese Dodds

Interesting.

Sex Matters had a positive & constructive meeting with @AnnelieseDodds
She reiterated govt "will protect single-sex spaces for biological women".

We said this requires the law recognise biological women as a group that needs protection.
We talked about FWS case & beyond.
https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1854215442866246137

Obviously this doesn't mean there are no issues, BUT what it shows is Labour fully recognises that NO debate is over. Hence the stall for LWD and open meetings held with resistance groups by Streeting etc. Any law they try which tries to pretend that biology does not exist is going to be met by serious resistance, legal cases and terrible publicity. That resistance will be amplified by Kemi's Tories and will have impact with relations with Trump's US.

What does this mean for the Conversion Therapy bill for example? My suspicion is the final text, if it ever happens, will be so littered with get out clauses so it doesn't upset women, religious communities, sensible medics and trigger law suits that it may be meaningless. I may be wrong and it may have other secret implications. We shall see and we have to be ready if they try anything underhand.

Keep fighting everyone. They are only listening because people united to make it happen and as soon as we show weakness they will stab us in the back. The awful stuff the FA is trying is a typical example of the underhand bullshit the genderists are going to try in this new environment.

Keep funding court cases, keep posting, keep call stuff out.

That's very encouraging.
Re the ban on conversion therapy (mentioned in the op), I see that there has been a certain amount of discussion recently, including by a House of Commons mental health all-party group, about regulating the use of professional titles such as psychotherapist and counsellor.
There are lots of good reasons why such regulation needs to be introduced (not least because the NHS's ability to deal with mental health needs has more or less collapsed, forcing a lot of people to go private).
However, I do feel a bit worried about the timing. It has always seemed to me to be a bit odd to have a specific ban on conversion therapy rather than a comprehensive set of parameters about what counts as ethical practice in therapy. And any move towards regulation would obviously involve an enforceable set of rules about acceptable practice. So I wonder whether the conversion therapy ban will be reconceived as an aspect of this new regulatory framework.
That could of course result in something very good and welcome - something which prevented therapists from imposing prescriptive agendas around sexuality and gender but nonetheless facilitated all of the necessary exploration. But equally it could become captured by transactivism , with the result that a new regulatory framework would put therapists at risk of being struck off if they did not default to a wholly affirmatory approach.