Bridget Philipson- TW should use toilets according to biological Sex.

We’re going to see men react as they will.

On another radio an equality lawyer said politicians and organisations had pretty much being lying to them about access and the law hasn’t changed. FWS just got the SC to tell people what the law is meant to be.

Labour have been woeful. Thanks to those who took this to the top.

I whooped when I heard her. I thought she was good, very clear and the interviewer didn't need to keep going or trying to trip her up - she said use the facilities for biological sex, a lot of the time in small cafes that will be one unisex facility, other areas are important and the EHRC guidance will be critical and needs to come quickly.

I heard this interview earlier and it was great to hear someone from the government and speaking for the government confirm that transwomen or trans identifying males need to use the male toilets i.e. the men's. This is a clear change from where we were a year ago when the same person was saying that males who identified as women could use the female toilets. I do think bathrooms and changing rooms are important, I agree that prisons, hospitals and crisis centres are paramount but for its critical that all women feel safe and have a safe space to go when out and about.

I'm disgusted at continued assertation by trans activists that they fully intend to ignore the law and to continue to their campaign against women's sex based rights. To me that just shows how much the trans activists are really men's rights activists. Any talk of third spaces for trans people is shouted down. If this were really about their safety then they would be happy with that but again they continue to demand access to women's spaces and the women in them for their own personal validation and gratification of their fantasies that they too are women when they are not, never have been and never will be.

That's going to cause a bit of embarrassment when the people ordered out turn out to be women.

If Bridget is relieved, that will spread to lots of other less powerful women and girls being relieved too.

Well done BP!!!

This^
And I suspect now the great feminist Nicola Sturgeon has gone many in Scottish Gov will feel likewise

I just can't take any Labour politician seriously on the issue when you consider what they have said in recent years.

Anas Sarwar's claim to have supported this position all along was quite incredible. Bare faced lying.

Bridget Phillipson must be relieved not to have to contort herself into saying men can have penises, or whatever BS she has spouted in the past.

Useful idiots, the lot of them.

I disagree. I think it’s given young women the confidence to say eg. ‘get out of here, you’re male’ in nightclubs. There’s been a lot of ‘but I identify as’ smirky men who can’t use that excuse now.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/26/moustached-man-refuses-leave-female-toilet-identifies-woman/

No she had to get a clear answer.

Philipson was reluctant but the interviewer got the statement. The interviewer did well.

You think that they believe they are above the law?

(can't be bothered to counter the 'nobody notices' nonsense)

They will have been noticed most of the time, but women have been kind and tolerant. The proposed policy of gender self-ID blew all this compromise out of the water. It was a spectacular own goal for the trans movement. They only have themselves to blame.

Well done FWS and everyone that worked with them. You did this.

Amazing women. Phillipson did the whole it won’t be the case much as unisex, cubicles blah blah but yep given a choice today a transwomen should choose the biological sex provision, ie men’s.

Bravo to every woman who didn’t give up in the face of abuse and Labour waffle.

But it's a bit meaningless, isn't it? It's not as if anyone polices entry to the toilets. I suspect lots of TW who have quietly been using women's toilets for years without anyone noticing will just continue.

And BP had to concede. Well played, Anna.

Maybe I misinterpreted her intention.

Labour will be aware that the Supreme Court have done them a massive favour. Labour can shift position on gender ideology significantly and say that they're just following the law. And they no get to step away from the debate having turned into a minefield for them before the judgment.

That was pretty good - clearer than I was expecting.

One small thing today: the Labour MP Graham Stringer, not someone I was previously aware of, has also come out in support of the Supreme Court ruling. He's been an MP since 1997, but doesn't seem to have a record of commenting on this issue, so perhaps it's a sign that people are getting braver.

Here's the article:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/67b66ba1dab0ca0c

And this is the bit with Graham Stringer:

'One senior Labour MP told The Telegraph that Sir Keir Starmer must stand by the ruling on the legal definition of women and not subvert it.

'Graham Stringer, a Labour MP since 1997, said: “I think Keir Starmer should come out, welcome the judgment and say that the Government will abide by the decision.

'“And all those people who don’t like it can, if they wish, jump in to change the law but not to subvert it. I support the judgment and don’t want the law changed.

'“Obviously anybody in this country has the right to change the law, but we should make it clear as a Government and party that we support the decision because it is based on science and it clarifies what has been a mess and led to women losing their safe space. They can now re-create those safe spaces.”'

I bet Labour have been crapping themselves about their polling numbers compared to Reform but also about their TRA contingent.

Now they see a chance to head off Reform on gender ideology whilst simultaneously bleating "Our hands are tied, soz, the Supreme Court, innit".

I heard Bridget gulp once, but she seemed pretty clear. It was a smart move to sneak these qns in before school breakfasts (but she seemed to be well briefed to expect to be quizzed).

I’m guessing that Wes is “too busy” to do any interviews for the foreseeable.

FWIW, I tend to avoid using cafe/pub loos, but I can’t think of many that aren’t marked male and female.

This is what she was saying less than a year ago:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5105511-tw-with-penises-can-use-female-toilets-bridget-phillipson-labour-has-lost-womens-trust-wes-streeting

Bridget is on Sky News now giving clear answers. There is going to be a statement in the House of Commons later.

The interviewer was absolutely obsessed with toilets
There was a subtext. Anna introduced the subject by saying that organisations will need to think about how to implement the ruling and that they need guidance from the Govt. Anna then asked about toilets.
Basically, the subtext was "if I ask you about schools or the NHS then you are going to waffle about it being a long process. Instead, can you confirm that the Govt backs the ruling and that if any woman finds a man now in a ladies' loo she can challenge him?"
And BP had to concede. Well played, Anna.

Given all the comments made by the Labour Party before, during and since the election this is not enough.

I want an announcement from KS that they have heard this judgement and it will be made clear to all public and private bodies that they must adhere to the law. There’s been too much in the press over the past few days about many MPs not being happy and them regrouping and putting pressure on KS. To do what I’m not sure but you can bet that the TRAs are in over drive at the moment.

Lets not forget that they said a woman can have a penis, we haven’t heard that them admit they were wrong.

Wow that was really clear from Bridget. The interviewer was awful. She got a crystal clear answer the first time she asked the toilet question, why on earth dod she have to use up valuable interview time repeating the question again?

As said on other threads, the toilet question IS important, in fact fundamental to being sure that women are actually understood as a distinct sex with separate needs and a rights to dignity, privacy and safety. I thought the interview was great, but she was not straightforward on toilets, extolling the virtues of unisex provision, which is not an appropriate solution if it replaces women's provision.

To me the interviewer seemed to be representative of the view that it's all well and good for the Supreme Court to hand down a judgment, but we can really expect it to be implemented when it would be so terribly mean?