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.

Davey is all over the place. He welcomed the Supreme Court judgement. Yet now is upset that guidance based on the existing law says what the judgement did.

This plan for another committee is nonsense.

Note there is no mention of actually voting against the guidance. Which MPs/Lords may get a chance to do if they do something where it matters in Parliament. Parliament resumes sitting tomorrow Monday, 1 June 2026.

Lets see IF they do something in the 39 days they have..

It's very similar to a number of letters sent from backbenchers to BP when she first received the draft guidance, asking for a parliamentary debate. Instigated by TransActual or similar.

The suggestion of shelving the draft, and setting up a cross-party committee to consider changing the law, is new. I suspect the objective of whoever is ultimately behind it is still to stall implementation of FWS, not to have a truly transparent debate.

Even if people did think it was possible to change sex in 2004, that is a very different proposition to what Davey (or whoever wrote the letter) is discussing in 2026 with his mention of non-binary people.

Of course, if he has the courage of his convictions he should just explain how he thinks the code should be changed.

I wonder how much of this was written by him? I assume he has been fed the points about masculine women being chucked out of toilets, but the misunderstanding of statute and parliamentary process is embarrassing . He has been an MP for almost 30 years.

If I were Badenoch I would make a bit of hay out of this.

I agree, she was probably not referring to actually changing sex, I think it's clear she knew it wasn't possible to actually change sex, but was referring just to the expression sex change. She's saying that the even the shrinks couldn't agree that a sex change, as it was understood then, wasn't the best way to treat men who were having difficulty with accepting who they were. They still don't, most think 'trans' ,as it is now, is a maladaptive coping mechanism, but they're being ignored, just like the Baroness, and others, were all those years ago.

Oh for the path not trod, if only, if only. 🥹

So Ed Yes I am Still Here Though You Probably Couldn’t Identify Me In A Line Up Davey has heard from many people. To be more accurate he has had some letters detailing the frothing at the mouth fury of a very teeny tiny proportion of the population - and it is likely that only a teeny tiny percentage of that teeny tiny proportion of the population actually wrote to him - in the mistaken belief that they are losing legal rights . Which of course they aren’t.

The people you should be thinking about Ed is the 51% of the population whose legal and actual rights to privacy and dignity the guidance at last confirms. It’s only taken 22 years, lucky we are a patient lot isn’t it?

It will be interesting to see if Ed’s views on this start making the news. I think a lot of people vote Lib Dem as a protest, without realising how nonsensical and dangerous some of their positions are (as some people did Green, until Polanski’s success meant he came under a lot more scrutiny). Sunlight is always the best way forward – and boy does Ed the clown need some time in the spotlight.

about:blank Liberal Voice for Women

The LibDems think women's rights are not compatible with 'longstanding British values.' Voices of women who have been self-excluding, including those from religious minorities and with sexual trauma have been ignored for years. Apparently it's the elite 0.5% who matter more...

Joanna Hall

Do you have any sway or influence in the party? I’m not being snarky; genuine question.

Liberal Voice for Women
2h
When we sue they eventually listen. Otherwise they prefer to listen to the men. Especially the men who say they are women.

Yup- peas in a pod.

They sustain this position by refusing to engage with women who disagree - on the basis that their unreasonableness towards trans people proves their unreasonableness. It’s circular logic.

They are invested in the position they take and don’t want to change it - so there is nothing in it for them to behave any differently

I think she was referring to what was called 'sex change' at the time, 'gender reassignment surgery' these days, and that's what she meant by 'attempting to change sex' .
People did, and still do, attempt to change sex, although you, me, the late Baroness O'Cathain, and most other people know it's impossible
She was so crystal-clear elsewhere in her speech, I'm guessing her listeners understood it that way too.

Exactly. Not a single one of these so called 'liberals' from any party have ever had even a half-decent stab at it. They just bleat about inclusion and persecuted minorities and case-by-case and protecting everyone.

Well, Ed certainly likes to perform. Of course, he didn't actually write the letter. He got some Omnicause minions to write it, thought oh, that looks like the right thing to say today, and signed it. Probably at the behest of his spin meister.

"to ensure existing rights are protected"

FFS they're not rights if they are based on a misreading of the law.

I am sick to death of handwringing do-gooders bleating on about how women's rights and trans rights can supposedly co-exist in blissful harmony, but never actually giving details of how this could happen in reality.

Marie, I find this statement bizarre;

Psychiatrists and psychologists are far from being of one mind that attempting to change sex is the best solution.

Not only can humans not change sex, we cannot even attempt to change sex, because changing sex is impossible!

So while she was making sense in the first part of her statement, the latter sentence, as part of the argument, is nonsensical. I just wonder where these slips of the tongue come from. I'm sure that's not what she meant, but it's a very strange thing to say.

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.

Helen belcher continues to exert his ludicrous level of influence in the Lib Dem's then

Do fuck off Ed, there’s a love.

Yes it seems to be a TRA campaigning thing at the moment to say that the EHRC are talking at odds to the Equality Act. Honestly how don’t they hear how nuts they sound at this point

If the SC judged that a man with a GRC could use the woman's spaces, how does Ed think that would be implemented? Men with GRC would be challenged to ensure he has a GRC, and according to his logic, some women would too.

He does realise self id doesn't exist here? And Mays proposal wasn't that men could decide there and then they were trans, the proposal was they could apply for a GRC without a diagnosis.

What he want are single sex spaces where anyone can go regardless of sex.

Does he really think he has the skills to argue that law into existence?