Ed Davey says the EHRC code has failed in its objective and calls for post legislative scrutiny of the GRA & EA. Presumably to legally allow blokes in the ladies.

Here we go….28 signatures so far

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/65938

Signed by the usual suspects.

...and two who had signed have now withdrawn. It's all happening today.

edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/65938#tab-withdrawn

...and two who had signed have now withdrawn. It's all happening today.

edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/65938#tab-withdrawn

37 signatures now. Depressing to see that the majority, 23 of them, are women selling other women down the road.

Here we go….28 signatures so far

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/65938

Signed by the usual suspects.

Lib Dems have zero influence. I should know - i have a lib dem mp. Hopefully the gov will ignore this. But I will write to my mp (who I think is secretly supportive).

Fucks sake Ed, I'm a GNC woman who is not 'feminine' in any way and EVEN if every time I went to the loo I was challenged and it took me opening my mouth and a female voice coming out and /or someone looking again and seeing the female gait and female hip to shoulder ratio, my shorter height and smaller hands etc for them to realise I'm female then I'd STILL be in favour of single sex spaces.

Because, in the grand scheme of life, a few awkward and quickly resolved but ultimately safe interactions is better than flashing, voyeurism, sexual assault and rape in what are supposed to be women only spaces. Unfeminine GNC women care about other women, Ed. I realise this is an alien concept 'caring' about people, from the sounds of it. But please TRY and understand (I know it's difficult, please just try).

Me facing slightly awkward moments would be better than some Muslim women (and other faiths) having to completely exclude from public life as their religion prohibits mixed sex private spaces, and they can no longer trust that something labelled 'women only' is in fact so.

It would be better than female survivors of rape and coercive control and domestic abuse not being able to leave the house, Ed, as they're left with literally zero sufficient private space provision which is single sex.

Because not everyone is a totally fucking selfish wanker like you clearly are Ed.

Have you ever been threatened by someone with 160% the punch power of you Ed? Have you? On average any male that has gone through puberty has 160% the punch power of women. Any women, whatever they wear.

How I wish it were possible for you to have to go to the toilet with a load of men who looked like the Rock (i.e. probably not quite the same differential in punch power, but a significant amount) of whom a certain proportion, and you couldn't know which ones, were likely to commit a crime against you and for whom the very act of entering that space with you was a massive red flag.

Fucks sake Ed, do you literally have nothing better to do than shit on women? Including the GNC ones.

Yours a GNC woman.

Edited to add: I'm also a mother, despite not being feminine (pause because your mind is probably literally blown right now, Ed) and I'd put up with even quite aggressive interactions from other women (who note do not have 160% my punch power) for the sake of the safety, privacy and dignity of my daughters. Again, I know altruism and empathy clearly not your thing Ed. But I'm pretty sure my daughters are less safe than I was at their age, partly because of men like you Ed.

Please try and understand. Men, however they feel and whatever they wear have 160% the punch power of women. Some men who want into the women's have bad motivations. Look up 'Katie' Dolatowski. You're on his side, Ed, right now. Not a good look.

It would seem not

'women without breasts due to an illness look like men'

Who needs Lib Dems when you’ve got Labour . 19 out of 28 signatures are Labour. They haven’t got the memo yet.

This an interesting point. In the EA, the duty to make reasonable adjustments is required only for people with the PC as it is recognised that equal treatment will often result in unfairness. The other PC are considered to just require equal treatment to require fairness.

I think the PC of GR is largely about people who do not want to be categorised by their biological sex. I think many people think that because of this, the comparator is people who don’t have an issue being categorised by their sex (where sex matters). However, others argue that the comparator is another person of the same sex who doesn’t have an issue being categorised as their sex.

It is important to recognise that although it cannot cover every scenario, the EHRC has provided key explanations and worked examples, also based on wide consultation, that every organisation can take and apply in its own context with common sense. If a service provider is not sure, it can and should take legal advice.

It's interesting to contrast the obligations in the context of disability discrimination, and those based on transgender discrimination.

In the context of disability, only 'reasonable' adjustments are required. The meaning of 'reasonable' includes cost, effect on other people, resources available, practicality, etc.

In other words, it is accepted that there will be circumstances where that it neither practical nor affordable to make certain adjustments for, for instance, a wheelchair user, and therefore is not 'reasonable' and not required.
Other adjustments must be made, but the law accepts that there are limits.

Contrast that with what seems to have become the norm to avoid discrimination against transpeople: transpeople 'must not be left without provision', and that is interpreted as either access to whatever toilet/changing room they choose, the provision of extra 'fourth spaces' or, as seems to be happening a lot, complete removal of single-sex provision and replacing it with all-mixed-sex individual lockable 'universal' toilets.

No weighing up of the cost, the disruption, available resources, the negative effects on other users, the practicality - in other words, the reasonableness of the adjustments to existing toilet provision, which is perfectly adequate for the huge majority of the population.

I don't understand why adjustments which are actually physically needed by people with disabilities may be subjected to a 'reasonableness' test, whereas adjustments which are not needed but simply 'preferred' by transpeople have to be provided, with no reasonableness test.

In reality no transperson is 'left with no provision', as long as there is a men's, women's, and accessible toilet. The provision is there, they are not physically unable to use it, but they choose not to use it.

And on that basis, existing toilet provision can be removed and replaced by an inferior, unsafe, inadequate, unpopular alternative in order to cater for a tiny percentage of the population, without any consideration of whether or not these adjustments are 'reasonable'.

IANAL, and I can't understand - why is there a 'reasonableness' test for adjustments on the basis of disability discrimination, but none on the basis of transgender discrimination?

It is important to recognise that although it cannot cover every scenario, the EHRC has provided key explanations and worked examples, also based on wide consultation, that every organisation can take and apply in its own context with common sense. If a service provider is not sure, it can and should take legal advice.

It's interesting to contrast the obligations in the context of disability discrimination, and those based on transgender discrimination.

In the context of disability, only 'reasonable' adjustments are required. The meaning of 'reasonable' includes cost, effect on other people, resources available, practicality, etc.

In other words, it is accepted that there will be circumstances where that it neither practical nor affordable to make certain adjustments for, for instance, a wheelchair user, and therefore is not 'reasonable' and not required.
Other adjustments must be made, but the law accepts that there are limits.

Contrast that with what seems to have become the norm to avoid discrimination against transpeople: transpeople 'must not be left without provision', and that is interpreted as either access to whatever toilet/changing room they choose, the provision of extra 'fourth spaces' or, as seems to be happening a lot, complete removal of single-sex provision and replacing it with all-mixed-sex individual lockable 'universal' toilets.

No weighing up of the cost, the disruption, available resources, the negative effects on other users, the practicality - in other words, the reasonableness of the adjustments to existing toilet provision, which is perfectly adequate for the huge majority of the population.

I don't understand why adjustments which are actually physically needed by people with disabilities may be subjected to a 'reasonableness' test, whereas adjustments which are not needed but simply 'preferred' by transpeople have to be provided, with no reasonableness test.

In reality no transperson is 'left with no provision', as long as there is a men's, women's, and accessible toilet. The provision is there, they are not physically unable to use it, but they choose not to use it.

And on that basis, existing toilet provision can be removed and replaced by an inferior, unsafe, inadequate, unpopular alternative in order to cater for a tiny percentage of the population, without any consideration of whether or not these adjustments are 'reasonable'.

IANAL, and I can't understand - why is there a 'reasonableness' test for adjustments on the basis of disability discrimination, but none on the basis of transgender discrimination?

Good for them. The EA was never meant to count trans people as their birth sex, especially as it was passed after the GRA.

Probably one story of a woman with a mastectomy being challenged. Allegedly.
One gender non conforming woman who from the photo looks 100% like a gender non conforming woman challenged. By a man!
Some GNC women removed from women's toilets by security staff. Allegedly, In the USA.
Various GNC women, butch lesbians, women with DSDs, women who are taller than average, being 'hounded out' of women's toilets. Allegedly.

Lots of samey 'allegedlys', little evidence.

There have already been stories of women with mastectomies being challenged when accessing women-only spaces because they do not look like women.

Stories or just one story?

Even if one ignores the rest of their female physiognomy, (and ignoring the very small number of men who have surgery for breast cancer and gynaecomastia) mastectomy scars are a very reliable indicator of sex.

Goldman's contribution today is very interesting in this context.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Marie Goldman
(Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. After the Supreme Court’s ruling last year, the Government’s job was to give people, businesses and organisations clear, workable guidance. The code is instead unworkable, exclusionary and expensive for businesses. As the Minister knows, the Government must ensure that they meet the legal obligations placed on them by the public sector equality duty. That requires the Minister to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct, to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not, and to foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not.

Yet the Government’s own equality impact assessment identifies disproportionate harm to those with protected characteristics, and a failure to set out how that harm will be addressed. Can the Minister really say, hand on heart, that she believes the guidance does that? The impact assessment notes how the guidance will likely impact women who are not trans, yet do not meet cultural and social expectations around what a woman should look like. There have already been stories of women with mastectomies being challenged when accessing women-only spaces because they do not look like women. Has the Minister truly considered that?

For trans, non-binary and intersex people, the code operates from a position of exclusion. It risks driving those small minorities away from public life, as leading mental health charities have since warned. The guidance conflicts with our core British values of tolerance, decency, respect for individual liberty and the rule of law. That is why I urge the Minister to withdraw it and to accept that this issue needs to be resolved by Parliament as law makers. To achieve that, I beg the Minister to adopt the Liberal Democrat proposal to appoint a joint committee of cross-party MPs and peers, to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, taking evidence from all communities who have been impacted, in order to propose amendments or new legislation that it sees as necessary to ensure that existing rights are protected. If we work together we can fix this; sowing division will not.

Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and question. I again highlight how the draft code does provide further clarity on how service providers can follow the Supreme Court ruling in practice, and we can ensure that we both protect single-sex spaces and have services and support for trans people. It is important to recognise that although it cannot cover every scenario, the EHRC has provided key explanations and worked examples, also based on wide consultation, that every organisation can take and apply in its own context with common sense. If a service provider is not sure, it can and should take legal advice.

I also want to mention the burden on business. The EHRC expects that for most aspects of the draft code, businesses will already be compliant, and for some businesses there will be no cost at all. For example, a small café might have one individual lockable toilet for use by all customers, and it would not need to change anything. It may be helpful for the House to know that the EHRC will be running a session to answer questions from Members of Parliament later this week, and there may be some matters that the hon. Lady wishes to raise directly.

Note Goldman does not back up her suggestion for a committee with any kind of a threat that the Lib Dems will attempt to reject the guidance if they are not listened to.

It seems an obvious play. Parliament does use prayer motions against legislation every so often. It doesn't work but it registers a protest. So why are the Lib Dems not trying that.

As I and others have said it does seem possible the Lib Dems are

Here we go….28 signatures so far

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/65938

Signed by the usual suspects.