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.

The term 'British values' is not as cosy, chummy, coherent, or universally shared as Ed Davey suggests.

But taking 'British values' at its most benign, does he not think that they include the values promoted by Wollestonecraft and the suffragists and women trade unionists and so many others over the centuries?

And I suggest that 'Terf Island' is the result of clinging-on-by-the-fingertips to those very 'British values'.

Basically, Ed DAvey is saying that women's sex-based rights are counter to "British values."

I think we have to keep calling it out this way - nothing at all to do with trans-identified men & public fetishists, but to focus on women's sex-based rights.

The strong argument of the FWS case was to preserve women's sex-based rights. That is, rights which are attached to the protected characteristic of sex, and which recognise that - given our current society - there are areas where women need specific sex-based accommodations and rights.

Here we go….28 signatures so far

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

Signed by the usual suspects.

V interesting @fromorbit

Important In The Lords yesterday Lib Dem Peer Lord Strasburger was demanding Labour implement single sex spaces properly. This could be why Sir Ed is following the tactic he is. He knows he can't get his Lords and possibly his MPs to sign up to an full on anti-women position.

Lord Strasburger

To ask His Majesty’s Government which government departments have not yet fully implemented the Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers.

The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity
(Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Supreme Court ruling that the noble Lord’s Question refers to brings clarity for women and service providers. We expect all duty bearers to follow the law and to seek legal advice where necessary, and that includes government departments. Departments have been reviewing and updating their policies and guidance following the Supreme Court ruling. This includes the new internal Civil Service guidance that has been shared with departments. We will ensure that any policies and guidance are consistent with the draft code of practice for services, public functions and associations that was laid in Parliament before the Recess.

Lord Strasburger
(LD)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Over the last year, Government Ministers have repeatedly told this House that all service providers must get on with implementing last year’s Supreme Court ruling, but it seems that the NHS did not get the memo. The cases of Sandie Peggie and the Darlington Toggle showing location of nurses show that the NHS still expects female nurses to undress in front of males. Will the new Health Secretary be any better than the previous one at getting the NHS to obey the law?

Baroness Smith of Malvern
(Lab)
Of course it is the case that the NHS should be obeying the law, in terms of both the provision of goods and services, which this code covers, and employment practices, on which further guidance will come from the EHRC. On the provision of the services that the NHS is responsible for, it is of course thinking carefully about both the ruling and the guidance, and it will be coming forward with more guidance in the near future.

More contributions follow in debate:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2026-06-01/debates/7BAE213A-9D03-41A3-BF3D-1C762FD4BEBF/ForWomenScotlandLtdVScottishMinisters

It would seem not

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

Astonishing that Marie Goldman claims that women have have had mastectomies don't look like women. Can she hear herself?

more interested in just registering a protest and not actually follow through in parliamentary action. It is an interesting choice to say the least if it happens.

For the TAs the attempt at a Fatal Motion though doomed to failure would be symbolic. The interesting thing for the pro-women side is the issue of who would sign it? How strong are the TAs in Parliament?

As has been pointed out here the 4 Green MPs didn't turn up for the debate today. Carla Denyer is taking time off for mental health reasons she is the most active in the TA cause Would all of them sign the motion? .Adam Ramsay on the other hand has made reality based comments before.

Would ALL the Lib Dems sign up to such a motion? It maybe that some of the Lib Dem MPs have grown a spine secretly and Sir Ed knows it. That maybe why Sir Ed rather than using Parliamentary procedure which puts names on record is calling for a committee to reconsider the guidance a concept which Labour can just ignore. He doesn't want to cause a debate or civil war inside the party.

Also very important is how many Labour MPs would actually sign. Indications are the real number of TA hardcore inside Labour MPs might be 20 or 30 at most. That is in fact pathetic.

Remember many Labour MPS inside this Parliament have been rebellious they forced u turns over winter fuels and welfare plans. If many Labour MPs wanted to they could actually cause the government to be more anti-women. I think that though most won't go on the record to say it openly many actually think biology is a thing. They want the gender debate to go away.

A solid attempt to attack the guidance in Parliament would be a gift to the Tories and Reform as the Tory performance in the mini debate today indicates.

I still think that a fanatical TA MP or two will register a fatal motion, but it might not be an official Lib Dem move. If that is what happens we need to watch who signs because that will really show how powerful the TAs are.

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

I will stay in the Bluestocking and subsist on a diet of grilled dead cow, roast chicken, potatoes, seasonal greens, good quality red and white Burgundy and a steady flow of G&T until this nonsense disappears.

Sorry, that was my dream. In real life I will keep saying "this is stupid; how is this fair? so how do you see this working?" Etc.

I can't bear to watch it, but from what's been described above, it all sounds fairly predictable? Is there any indication that the code will be blocked though? Because I'm fine with the usual activist MPs having a rant and a vent, so long as the code passes unimpeded.

Interestingly, Zarah Sultana doesn't seem to have commented on it from I can see...

That "sex as special category data" was (nearly) a master stroke by Bridget and her team, so I'm glad that Sex Matters are onto it, because it is just wrong. It muddies the waters just enough to make everyone second guess themselves. And they were clearly hoping we wouldn't notice.

Oh, no, can't have it out in the light of day, can they? They'd have to actually define things, explain things, demonstrate the actual, measurable value of things, and be prepared to defend their position when challenged. It's all smoke and mirrors, so it's a nonstarter.

Sigh. Seems all too plausible. Even the remote risk the government might grant a debate and they would have defend themselves in public is too much.

What am I missing?

The cold, unfeeling reality of virtue-signalling. Unfortunately for the trans-identified people who went along with the Greens, the politicians never.really. meant.it.

Next week, next month, next year, whenever something better comes along, the Greens will pick up their tents and move them to better pastures. As they did with the climate (emergency? what climate emergency), so they will with gender ideology, until the only ones left will be standing together in a very small, self-perpetuating group, looking at each other, wondering "where did everyone go?" and "is it time to go home for tea then?"

Start about 16.41

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/6cf14ecc-c54b-4536-9f93-66c8e8f6334e

Absolutely. Seriously, though, why aren't even the Greens firmly announcing they will table the relevant "prayer" to object? I understand the government controls the timetable, and can simply never give it debate or vote, but doing so seems a free win for those seeking TRA adoration. What am I missing?

..and water-ski up the Thames😄

He could always dress up in drag to submit it, would that do?

the Equality Act, as envisaged in 2010, and the 2004 Gender Recognition Act did not anticipate the assault on rights that we see emerging.

Almost gets it. They definitely never imagined that a group of unhinged men would decide en masse to declare themselves women, and try to take an entire generation of children down the rabbit hole with them.

I would imagine that it's because that would be too much like hard work. And not photographically stunt-worthy.