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

Starmer says he has asked Labour's National Executive Committee to set out a timetable for a Labour leadership contest, with nominations opening on 9 July.

Politics latest: Starmer announces he will resign as prime minister | Politics News | Sky News

Interesting date to choose! That should distract from the guidance quite nicely!

Also my MP is still sending me his weekly newsletters to the same email address he's ignored my email from

I'm not sure whether to resend it asking him for a response or whether the lack of response is the answer.

Unless a constituent is actively harrassing them, I don't think MPs should be able to block voters.

I decided not to phone my Liberal MPs office to ask if he'd blocked me because I'd end up talking to a staffer who would probably plead data protection and not answer my question anyway.
What I did was create a new email address and email my MP again ...... and this time I instantly got the normal Automated Reply.

So it seems clear to me that my original email address was blocked by my MP. Wonder how long it will take for my new email address to be blocked🤔

It's not too late, the polls are still open...Vote Binface!!

The only candidate that makes sense.

It seems highly likely that this is what will now happen:

Absolutely hee-haw.

Cynics might say many of the signatories were banking on exactly this outcome.

Someone else worked it out earlier in the threads on this.

Note after the 40 days when Parliament can stop it there still could be delays as the government will then set a date for it to come into force. However I think they will want to do it fairly fast. Labour don't gain for this debate to continue.

Thank you for this, have been hoping for a definitive date!

The 40 Days are up on Thursday 9 July 2026.

21 Days to go.

Signatures at on EDM now at 142.

No real sign from Labour government of them caving to the critics who signed the EDM. Labour have u turned before frequently on other issues. The TAs inside Labour are too weak to pull this off now.

47 out of 72 LIb Dem MPs have signed showing the significant split inside the party over gender/sex issues. Sir Ed Davey still has not signed nor have a bunch of other Lib Dem MPs.

The Supreme Court, the High Court, and the EHRC have all embraced this idea (that making someone use the service for their own sex can be traumatising). Which I thought was very gracious, and would soften the blow.

Were they grateful? They were not.

It's 'unworkable' to ask men to use men's facilities &c.

Divvies.

I guess we've all seen those internet memes about male and female office colleagues swapping email addresses for a week...

I suspect that both your MPs know exactly what a woman is when deciding which constituents to not bother replying to.

This is because what men want is considered at least as important as what women need.

A scenario where they're told no, and just have to fucking lump it, isn't remotely 'workable' because the starting premise of 'workable' is that men are not inconvenienced in any way.

And yet you still have people claiming that unless there is a gender-neutral option, excluding males from women's facilities will leave them with nowhere to go...

People - well, women, I don't know what happens in men's toilets - being challenged when entering toilets is nothing new; it's been seized on now - as if the TRA movement really cared about butch lesbians and gender-non-conforming women🙄

In the past the challenge has been on the assumption that some bloke took a wrong turn and has blundered into the ladies'. 'Excuse me - this is the ladies'! usually resulted in embarrassed bloke apologising and leaving.

Occasionally, 'Excuse me - this is the ladies'! resulted in the gender-non-conforming women - me, for instance - replying 'It's OK, I'm in the right place'
and the second glance, and the tone of voice, reassured the women that it was OK and I was in the right place.

'Excuse me - this is the ladies'! has only become problematic since men started deliberately accessing women's spaces, where they know damn well they are not supposed to be.

'Excuse me - this is the ladies'! is nothing new and was no big deal when the good men stayed out so the bad men stood out, and it's obvious that TRAs and their allies are using it cynically as a way of undermining the SC ruling and EHRC codes.

The most straightforward solution is for people to use the toilets designated for their sex, which able-bodied transpeople can use, they don't need adapted toilets; they choose not to use the available toilets.

Disabled people are only entitled to 'reasonable adjustments', and the definition of 'reasonable' relates to things like practicality, disruption, impact on other users, and cost.
I think the provision of gender neutral toilets everywhere, for such a small percentage of the population, fails the 'reasonableness' test.

The building regs [for England] seem to back this up - there is no requirement to provide 'unisex' toilets. As long as there is enough space in a building, separate men's and women's toilets must be provided. Gender neutral/mixed sex/ unisex/ toilets may be provided, but as an optional extra.

Mary-Ann Stephenson mentioned this a few times. That we should be able to trust most people to follow the rules.

It's bizarre that in this one particular area, MPs are suggesting that most people can't be expected to follow the rules, and organisations can't be expected not to break the law.

It worked for a hundred years, it'll work for a hundred more.

The guidance is perfectly workable in a functioning society where the social contract allows single-sex spaces. It just relies on MEN NOT USING WOMEN'S FACILITIES and vice versa. How much more fucking simple could it get? The problem is with the men invading, so tackle that.

The myopic over-focus on people being challenged when entering toilets.......when the obvious solution, and one which has been detailed in both the original ruling and in the guidance, is to create on additional 'gender neutral' facility, or to maintain single occupancy facilities that are open for everyone to use.

Hopefully, all sensible organisations will take appropriate legal advice and just get on with it in the same way just get on with taking into account having to provide disabled accesss and facilities.

The Guardian's belated 'exclusive':

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jun/16/labour-mps-ehrc-guidance-biological-sex-ruling-transgender-commons-motion

God knows. Logic is not strong with this sort of idiot. They think sexual assault is about sex, rather than power.

I'm still just trying to get a look at how sex toys are supposed to combat VAWG. Is she honestly suggesting that fewer sexual inhibitions mean that men are less likely to abuse or rape women?

What is the fucking logic, here?

Pure comedy. It has to be a spoof.

" Have you read "The Handmaid's Tale"?
" Oh, I just love anything that's hand-made"

Thank you RoastOrMash, I will give that a go as well and report back.