EHRC has now sent its new guidance to ministers

I think already transitioned men could also probably sue. Perhaps the FMs are hoping no-one will?

I agree that this is good, 'So what are you going to do if us transwomen insist on peeing wherever we want?' has a clear reply: sue for harassment or indirect discrimination.

I wonder does the UK's Public Order Act 1986 apply?

• Are likely to cause fear of, or to provoke, immediate violence:
• Intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress:
• Are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress

Biological males deliberately entering, and refusing to leave, women's single sex facilities is likely 'to cause harassment, alarm or distress' and, post the SC ruling, is clearly intentional.

I'm also glad that the EHRC has said something sensible about 'gender neutral' toilets being optional and not obligatory.

'Third spaces' [actually fourth spaces: accessible toilets for disabled people - remember them?? - are the existing third spaces] were being touted as the great solution to the issue of transwomen using women's spaces.

'Third spaces' were oversold: they are expensive and disruptive to instal in existing public buildings, they are optional in new builds according to building regs [where applicable] unless there isn't enough space for the required single sex facilities, and they are rejected by transwomen who insist that they may can should must and will continue to pee where they want: in the women's toilets.

Iirc re. the Freemasons, if a man is a member and then transitions he is allowed to stay a member but if he is already trans he cannot join. Tm can be eligible to join. According to a Freemason display I walked past at an agricultural fair the other week they have Freemason societies for women, possibly two. I suspect they will have a similar sex fudge.

I was wondering how this will affect organisations like the WI and even the Freemasons

Organisations do not have to offer single-sex spaces under the guidance, but if they do, they must be based on biology.

The MPs calling for a debate I'm sure some are sincere but others may just be virtue signalling. They can't really want to be seen standing up to say some women have a dick. With the Reform wolf slavering in so many constituencies do they really want to look anymore sheep like?

Exactly where they were before, because the EHRC does not and cannot change the law. (IANAL and wasn't following carefully what they do, but if they have fitting rooms that are in any way indicated to be for women, then they have to be for women and no men, otherwise they will be direct discrimination (against those men who are not allowed in) under the EA; if they claim only to provide mixed-sex fitting rooms, that may be legal, given that shops don't have to provide fitting rooms at all, or there might be a case to be made that it's indirect discrimination against women because the fitting rooms they do provide are more suitable for men, but personally I wouldn't hold my breath for getting that one sorted in court.)

I would have liked Baroness Falkner to use her opportunity in Radio 4 this morning to reiterate the existing law which is men should be excluded from women’s spaces, regardless of their identity or risk unlawful discrimination against women. .

I feel like this needs to be repeated constantly to counter Stonewalls lies embedding a false version of the law deeply into the minds of many.

We can clearly see there are many ‘intellects’ at high levels struggling with this information - they obviously need further help in understanding.

Where does this leave M&S's 'Fitting rooms'?

They have, or at least, they say they have - but an early day motion has to be selected, 99% of them aren't due to time issues, and then there actually has to be a debate and only then maybe a vote on annulling the legislation. I am certain everyone has better things to do than this, given the free speech issues, Rayner, Gaza, Ukraine, the race riots.....

There is no overwhelming discourse in either house to have this debated. It won't happen.

What I like about this (if the article is accurate) is it explains that

1. women could sue for harassment or indirect discrimination if men are allowed into women's single sex spaces or there is no single sex provision
2. gender neutral provision may be considered but is not mandatory

The harassment and indirect discrimination warnings are particularly welcome. No criminal act has to take place. Just putting men in the same space is enough to get providers into trouble.

ETA: And gender neutral is not the answer or "safe" compromise.

Ah, thanks - that's better if it's the negative version.

I don't think there is even a vote. it's 40 days and then it's in

It’s under the “negative procedure”

• That means the Code is automatically approved after 40 sitting days unless either House passes a motion to annul it.
• By default, no debate or vote happens. An MP or Peer has to actively table a “prayer motion” (early day motion to annul).
• These are rarely taken up unless there’s significant cross-party appetite

They have bigger things to worry about than this.

Yes indeed. However the previous interim guidance, April, was not actually binding. This one will be. The law, of course, was always binding, but it lacked specific examples of what to do.

The law already is binding.

The big problem of course is that women may have to sue every org that ignores the law. This is infuriating.

It’s a technical term, it sits there. No debate in this case. If parliament wants to change it then they need to put forward a new bill.
And ECHR recognises UK Parliament as a competent authority if you look back at why and how the GRA was created, you can see how it intervenes and what happens. If UK had had same sex marriage, then v possible that GRA wouldn’t have come about.
IANAL but looking back it’s arguable that the Lords and titles passing through the make line was a huge obstacle that the GRA fudged its way round. I think now the much less empowered heredities would find primogeniture would be enacted by Parliament

What is meant by ‘laying the guidance before Parliament for 40 days’?

I think they will be following this process. Which means a vote but usually no debate.

guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/articles/ovuiEncc/what-happens-to-statutory-instruments-under-the-affirmative-procedure

What is meant by ‘laying the guidance before Parliament for 40 days’? I can see a firey debate ensuing in Parliament. What happens if the minister approves the guidance but Parliament doesn’t?

The good baroness said on Today that orgs should simply ask their lawyers if they were unsure. A boring, non-activist firm can explain how they are liable to face discrimination claims if they don’t follow the Act. Could be a slam dunk and nice little earner for no-win no-fee lawyers

Thanks for the heads up. I'm strapping myself in for a bumpy ride.

The goal posts always move. Once we used biological sex, men in dresses start saying they are biological females.

BUT this guidance will be actually binding and has specific direct examples init, unlike the Equality Act, so will be very very hard for orgs to dodge, especially if we hold their feet to the fire which we must continue to do

Any schools, gyms, shopping centres, clubs, anything, we must keep pushing with an air of people who safeguard and uphold the law.

Then they will say they are waiting for the outcome of the court cases the likes of The Good Law Project are trying to bring about.

@akkakk “organisations saying they need to wait - no the law has been law for years, the interim guidance is substantially the same - get on with it”

Absolutely this. where I work, I’m waiting patiently but it’s so annoying to see statements like this.