Minister blames 'slow' EHRC for trans guidance delay

They are writing the guidelines one word a day and the person responsible has been off sick a few times.

Either that or theirs no political will at the EHRC or by Phillipson to do their actual job properly.

She said she wants an Equalities Impact Assessment to check for any burden on businesses. What? That is not the purpose of an EIA. It might note any burden on people with protected characteristics, but it is not going to say 'ooh that might be expensive though'

for example an equalities impact assessment

What for? The law hasn't changed?

it's not the job of the EHRC to change the law.

Falkner already called Phillipson's bluff. In a number of interviews towards the end of her period as head of EHRC, Falkner stated that the information given to Phillipson is sufficient and meets the requirements and that no further studies need to be carried out and that's why EHRC are not minded to carry them out.

She also stated that Phillipson has had the Code of Practice since May rather than September and so has been sitting on it for much longer than is mentioned regularly in the media.

Starmer consistently used “safe spaces” when the subject arose during the last election campaign. Carefully chosen weasel words yes.

Oo I never knew that factoid. Thanks Knotty

Exactly! Heather Binning of WRN fame couldn’t get her first job due to that reason. How ridiculous that we are going back to that

Because Phillipson doesn't want to commit to agreeing that spaces must be split by sex not gender.

By using the word 'safe' she's weaselly leaving the (toilet, changing room, refuge and prison) door open to using risk assessments for trans women. And thus allowing these men into women-only spaces.

Hence her treacherous nonsense intervention in the recent case brought by the Good Laff Project.

I do not trust Phillipson at all.

It was interesting to see that the Welsh statutory guidance on toilets acknowledges this, what with the Welsh administration being quite a bastion of gender ideology:

2.10 ....despite women making up more than half of the UK population, and with a higher proportion of older people being women, there is more provision for men, primarily because of the smaller space that urinals take up. Historically, the ideal ratio of 1 male facility to 2 female facilities has not been delivered, which results in insufficient provision for women.
32533 The Provision of Toilets in Wales: Local Toilets Strategies, English Version

This document dates from 2018 - I haven't been able to find anything more recent, so it would appear to still be the relevant statutory guidance.

Because a safe space can exclude all men who are not women, while a single sex space can exclude all men even if they claim to be women.

Because it could be argued that trains, planes and small cafes should have single sex toilets.

edit: as a guess

Because Labour think we're stupid

My last post just highlights the complexity of the task. As a country we know more about how many street lamps we have than how many public toilets we have. There are a few toilets researchers out there who have been saying we need to fund study into toilets for decades. It appears to be under no one’s remit and everyone’s remit, such is the necessity.

Why does Phillipson keep talking about “ safe” spaces rather than “ single sex” spaces ?

Thank you. Yes women have never had equality with toilets - the fact that there were no women’s toilets was given as an acceptable reason not to employ women (in living memory).

The law is the law and has been clarified by the Supreme Court for the hard of understanding. The pending guidance is supplementary and its absence should not be used as justification for noncompliance with the law. Phillipson is awful.

Read this this morning and thought of you @Keeptoiletssafe

https://www.thetimes.com/article/c20128eb-d2bc-4359-8132-70820746e1f8?shareToken=be4ea34e547b5e4e2b614137e990e866

You note she mentions the HSE as well as the EHRC. The HSE has a huge responsibility to keep people safe and healthy. Adding unisex provision for example will mean they have to change all sort of legislation and regulations. It really is complicated and that’s just for toilets. It is huge economically, socially, logistically and all should be underpinned by health and safety. This interview gives me hope they really are trying to do this thoroughly.

'"This doesn't have to be a long and drawn out process. I'm determined to do this properly but I absolutely am committed to making sure that women, whether it's in rape crises centres, women's refuges, or in access to other provisions and accommodations, have got what they need to feel safe."
She said "we're making progress" and the watchdog's new chairwoman Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, who took on the role in December, was "going to do a fantastic job".'

That may be positive, actually.

The EHRC website says
The draft code was submitted to the Minister for Women and Equalities for approval on 4 September 2025. The next stage is for a draft code, as approved by her, to be laid before Parliament.
On 15 October 2025, we wrote to the minister to ask for:

• an update on that process
• the revocation of the 2011 version of the code, as it is now out of date in various respects

It probably won't happen under current management, but I can imagine Baroness Falkner calling the Minister's bluff and saying very publicly -
'Here is all the information you said you were waiting for, so there's no justification for any more delay, Minister'

Clip of this

https://x.com/i/status/2008892427890045083

And one from an unknown date

https://x.com/i/status/1805352140275147000

Didn't Kemi try to table a Friday morning bill to make sex mean biological sex whilst a back-bencher, which Labour MPs promptly blocked by filibustering?

Isn’t it just.

I have sympathy with how long it’s taking. There is going to be a lot of fallout economically and policy-wise, and I only know about toilets! A lot of businesses including schools have ‘inclusive’ toilets and this will have to change. To be fair, if offices and venues had followed building standards, they would be fine. It was designers trying to reinvent toilet designs without understanding H&S legislation and regulations. But even Document T wasn’t retrospective.