House of Commons this afternoon. Ministerial statement on new code of practice

EC supports the puberty blocker trial too.

I think some politicians have dug themselves into a hole so deep that they couldn't get out even if they wanted to. (I'm being generous here).

Genderist politicians see no issue with this because of course people really know who women are so there's no need to actually have that written into the laws that protect us, handwavy ones that lump us in with feely men are all we need.

Ironically, their case is much more difficult to argue because they have abandoned any argument that is possible to define what trans people really are.

It will be interesting to see who doesn't sign it.

And I suspect some are signing it because they don't want to face the wrath of their TRA constituents.

Oh, they don't want to do away with "women" as mostly as sex class. That would be too honest and rational.

What they want is for woman to mostly mean the sex class in practice and women's rights and needs mostly be defined by our sex, but also that we are all compelled to pretend some men are also in that sex class based on non-physical feely reasons.

To square that circle,

1. We mustn't draw attention to the fundamental mismatch between "woman" based on the body sex and "woman" based on feely reasons, nor highlight the contradiction between Feminism saying women should not be limited by the cultural stereotypes assigned to our sex and accommodating as women people who, not sharing our sex, can only be differentiated as woman by sharing in those stereotypes.
2. We mustn't have any of the basis for women's rights explicitly tied to our sex, even the ones directly linked to biology like abortion, because having that written down officially means the pretend women get undermined.

Genderist politicians see no issue with this because of course people really know who women are so there's no need to actually have that written into the laws that protect us, handwavy ones that lump us in with feely men are all we need.

Basically, we should trust they will continue to support female people as long as we are never so gauche as to talk about our sex openly.

I do find her mystifying.

In the past she has been very vocal on the indirect discrimination of a parliament designed around men who will never need to go on maternity leave or breast feed babies.

But she doesn't seem to understand that she is suggesting removing the legislation that protects women from sex based discrimination.

Stella Creasy does seem to have gone mad for it doesnt she?

Apparently she said she can’t challenge the EHRC Guidance (presumably has been trying hard to do so behind the scenes since last September?) and instead wants to redo the Equality Act in order to remove women’s sex based rights.

So weird after all her campaigning on abortion rights. I mean how can you tell who needs an abortion if you can’t identify the women or run a single sex service?

Appalled by not surprised to see my MP strutting his stuff there. He no longer reads my communications to him. What on earth are they doing? No respect for women or our safety and privacy there. Raging all over again.

And yet, despite that, the government does not deal with the issue, but kicks the can down the road. At best.

Andrew George. Perhaps someone has explained the law to him.

Why can't Jonathan Hinder be running for leader instead of the crap who are going to run? That was the best sofa interview Labour have done in years. Call it what it is. We need far more of him and far fewer Stella Creasy's in the party.

So at present it’s just virtue signalling?

It's also demonstrating that nowadays only a tiny minority of MPs are in thrall to the TRAs.

It seems some MPs want to do away with womens rights to some female single sex spaces/services,they are going to have to change the law if thats what they want.
Female single sex spaces exclude all males ....
If you don't want to allow any female single sex spaces because you want them to include males, you will have to change the law.
The guidance simply reflects the law.

Any suggestions from any of these MPs for an alternative code that complies with the law?

That's a rhetorical question isn't it?

Am I understanding this correctly?

The EDM signed by these MP’s is just them expressing “concerns” but it won’t trigger a debate and cant “do” anything because it’s outside the required process (which would be a prayer motion) to annul the EHRC Guidance?

And with 42 signatories so far, theyve not managed to raise the sort of support I assume they’d need to get a debate on rewriting sex in The Equality Act?

So at present it’s just virtue signalling?

Any suggestions from any of these MPs for an alternative code that complies with the law?

Who dat?

AR is reasonable. EC is not.

Hmm. I think MPs challenging legislation is a big part of government!

Now that is interesting.

The breakdown of signatories is

20 Labour (5% of all Labour MPs)
16 Liberal Democrat (22% of all LibDem MPs)
2 Green (40% of all Green MPs)
2 SNP (29% of all SNP MPs)
1 Your Party (Zarah Sultana)
1 Independent (Dianne Abbot)

Hopefully the government will stand firm. Afterall, their excuse for sitting on the guidance for a year was that they wanted to ensure it was legally robust before laying it before parliament. So, it's a bad look if they u-turn.

If a handful of MPs are refusing to suport compliance with the law then should they really BE in Parliament at all?

Looks like Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns aren't signatories. I've no idea if that is significant, or if it is just the Green Party trying to cover all its bases.

F knows. Interested to see how this plays out.