House Of Communions, Early Day Motion tabled - Draft Code of Practice on Services, public functions and associations

Although there are 650 MPs, no government minister or whip or the speaker or deputy speaker can sign.

In addition no parliamentary private secretary can sign and there are at least 50 of those. So over 150 Labour MPs can't sign without resigning their government post.

I don't know how many are lawyers, but three are doctors. Whether they re medical Drs, I don't know: Simon Opher (Labour), Danny Chambers (LD). and Rupa Huq (Labour). How can you be a doctor and sign this rubbish?

You actually get replies, Marie? I've written to the Labour MP of our reorganised Welsh constituency more than once since he was elected two years ago and haven't even had the courtesy of an email acknowledgement, let alone any attempt to respond to my concerns. He has of course signed the EDM so I feel obliged to try yet again...

Labour did that for last month's Senedd election in Wales and we ended up with a minority Plaid Cymru administration and Reform as the official opposition. They need to be careful what they wish for.

How many of those signatories are lawyers?

I used to think there were too many MPs who were lawyers but now I'm not so sure if it results in such ignorant parliamentarians.
See one can change one's mind.
IANAL

Thing is, she doesn't really believe men can be women or vice versa either. She says sex and gender are different. She acknowledges that there are issues around sport and prisons. She didn't give the TRAs enough of what they wanted at the leadership election. She has signed this EDM but has never been able to suggest any workable gender-instead-of-sex solutions.
She is trying to play both sides in the hope that no-one will notice. She is another privileged, middle-class woman who seems to have spent her working life in academia or the charity sector. I don't think that she cares enough to understand how dangerous this ideology is nor how disproportionately it affects teenage females and poorer, more vulnerable women.
I won't vote for her, because I'm GC, but I wouldn't vote for her if I were a TRA either.

Agreed. Chowns is not GC. She's doing what she thinks will promote her political career, as most MPs who signed EDM 240 are. Adrian Ramsay has not signed it. Women who kneel at the altar of patriarchy in the hope they'll get or hang onto a seat at the boy's table. Pathetic.

This is what I also suspect. I do think a lot of them haven't the first fucking clue about the subject.

Tbh I'm surprised Tim Farron signed in the first place, however it's a difficult one for him given he was thrown out as leader over his personal views (which don't reflect his voting record) on being gay.

I suspect he's trying to work out where the public stand on this - it would explain why he initially might have signed (as he's told by fellow MPs this is the thing to do) and then had correspondence or views from gay constituents / friends explaining things in full.

Others will be supporting/ not supporting on the basis of what they think constituents want. So student heavy MPs will be more inclined to support. (Which is why it wouldn't surprise me if there were GC signatories).

The key take away is NOT who has signed it though. It's the number of MPs who have not. Remember parliament COULD in theory change the equality act to fuck over women and gay people and effectively over rule the SC ruling.

As I've suspected for a long time, there just aren't the numbers to do that. And even if there was a rainbow collation, I still think it would be difficult to pass such a change. They KNOW how unpopular and controversial doing this would be. They know the subject is utterly toxic. And that is the most important take away from this.

The objectors couldn't lay a prayer motion since the code of practice is not a government-created statutory instrument or secondary legislation. It's guidance from an independent regulator.

I get the impression that having been vocally and publicly one million percent in favour of TWAW in the past leaves politicians in a very awkward place now the shine is wearing off the theory of TWAW, and the societal damage it has done in practice becomes more and more obvious, and less and less acceptable to the general public.

They would have to admit that they were spectacularly wrong, and continued being wrong in the face of reason and logic and scientific fact, in
'very ungraceful distress, in which they can neither retract with dignity nor persist with justice'
[Edmund Burke - seriously wrong in some things but very quotable in others!]

Or, in the words of The Firm's song Startrekkin':
'Startrekin' across the universe
Boldly going forward
Cos we cannot find reverse..

So they just keep digging.

My backbench Labour MP hasn't signed. Initially I was surprised as whenever I've emailed her she has always been "be kind, most marginalised, case by case...blah blah", but, actually, I think she does tend to follow the party line, so I can understand her not signing in that context.

Plus, I think a lot of Labour MPs think the party has bigger issues to deal with at the moment. I think those in seats threatened by the Greens at the next election are more likely to make a fuss about the code of practice.

Only the truly zealot TRA MPs (mainly the EDM sponsors and a few others) genuinely want to amend the Equality Act. They will definitely be in the minority with this aim. What right-minded politician wants to go there?

Although there are 650 MPs, no government minister or whip or the speaker or deputy speaker can sign.

They can sign it's just that they would have to resign their post to do that. This shows that even if there are TRAs among that group they don't feel strongly enough about it for it to be a resigning matter.

For the sake of statistics, all these percentages that are calculating the numbers as out of all MPs have missed the important bit for who is and is not allowed to sign.

Although there are 650 MPs, no government minister or whip or the speaker or deputy speaker can sign. There are 105 MPs listed on www.gov.uk/government/ministers and none of them would be able to sign whatever their views.

The speaker and the 3 deputy speakers aren't included in that page so call it 109 out of the 650 who can't be assumed to believe one way or the other.

It's still very much a minority view that women's rights should be discarded and that "woman" should no longer be a term that has any legal meaning by being made a status that anyone can adopt or discard at will. So that's a relief, but without knowing how strongly this is believed among the government ministers who can't express a public opinion, it's important not to be too complacent about how low the number is.

'The code is not, and does not amend, legislation.'

On a t-shirt please, size M😄

😂 That community note on Creasy's video.

Adrian Ramsey of the Greens won't sign.

The Lib Dems are just exhibiting what absolute idiots they are with 41 out of 71 MPs in favour or 58%.

All four Plaid Cymru MPS are also demonstrating what absolute idiots they are.

The really important number here is that only 38 out of 402 Labour MPs have signed or less than 8% of the total.

The TRAs in the Labour Party have been utterly humiliated & this is proof that there can be no attempt to change the Equality Act to suit their agenda.

Running total is now 93 signed 2 withdrawn which 14.3% of MPs. One of the Lib Dems who withdrew their signature has flipped back.

It is at 41 signed out of 72 Lib Dem MPs. So clear internal divisions there and notably still no Ed Davey.

Not likely to be a huge surge in signatures now. The TAs in Parliament are very much outnumbered.

Not that many more signatures added today. The Lib Dems are embarrassing though.

You know things are fucked up when the Sunday Sport's X account makes more sense than 70 MPs: here's the text of a tweet from them yesterday:

There's confusion, so here's that EHRC guidance in plain Sunday Sport language: 'Lads, if you want to play dress up and have a wank, crack on. Just not in the ladies' shithouse, eh?'

One of the three withdrawn signatures has vanished.

I can't see her on the signatories.

Sometimes I wonder if they have a clue what they are signing on so many levels.🥴

I worked with her on a project before she became an MP. She’s pushy and ambitious (she was a right PITA to work with on that project and I held my nose to vote for her as a result) but she’s generally been a good MP so far.

Which makes it even more disappointing.

Good letter. She's another fool, and probably hasn't given it any thought, not even for her daughter's sake. People never worry about these things until it's happening to someone they care about. I'd be amazed if she reads further than your second paragraph, but glad you sent it anyway. It'll weigh on her conscience, if she has one.

I’ve written to my female Lib Dem MP that has signed this EDM:

Dear X

I’m sure that you agree with me that transgender people are entitled to the same human rights as non transgender people, and that it’s important that we remain an open and inclusive society.

However, I am disappointed that by signing this EDM you have ignored the rights of women and girls to enjoy the protections of single sex services where these are important for reasons of privacy, safety and dignity.

Last year, the Supreme Court confirmed that service providers providing separate services for men and women where it is a proportionate means for a legitimate aim should do so on the basis of biological sex, and not on gender identity.

How do you propose that women (biological females) - and in particular traumatised women, women of different faiths and cultures, women with disabilities - should access single sex services such as refuges, rape support centres, medical care etc unless they can be sure that it is the female only service that they rightly expect and are entitled to?

The EHRC CoP is a document that provides guidance and clarity for service providers to meet their legal obligations under the Equality Act. Striking down the guidance does not change the law, that has been settled by the Supreme Court, but it does make life uncertain and difficult for many vulnerable women and girls.

Additionally, LGB rights have been protected under the Supreme Court confirmation of the Equality Act, because how else can you protect the rights of same sex attracted people unless you can define sex?

An attempt to disapprove the CoP is detrimental to women and girls who deserve the rights and protections of the law. The Equality Act does not (and never did) confer any entitlement to self-identify into the legal rights of the opposite sex.

As a woman MP with a young daughter I would hope that you have considered that there will be times when your female sex means that it is important to be able to access single sex services - whether that’s on a hospital ward, or in girls and women’s sport, or in changing rooms.

I would urge you to reconsider your support for this EDM.

Yours etc

She’s got a young daughter FFS.

Three withdrawn signatures now