TBH, I couldn't be bothered go into great detail in my response to the above, but this was how i did respond.
The code of practice is entirely legal, proportionate and workable; and in fact most establishments are already implementing it. Take, as one example, the new Yoko Ono Auditorium at the University of Liverpool. It has installed, quietly and without fuss, an additional single occupancy 'gender neutral' facility alongside the single sex blocks - and this is sufficient to meet everyone's needs for dignity and privacy. All that is required in many large establishments is one additional accessible toilet or changing room. Most small establishments already have just single occupancy facilities and so are not impacted in any great way. It is vital that pubic institutions such as the NHS and local authorities abide by the ruling and do what is right by their female users,
The ECHR does not make the law, it simply issues guidance. I watched the Q &A session of the Women and Equalities Committee on Tuesday 9th June - with the ECHR, and I was appalled at the attitude and conduct of a number of MPs, including Labour MPs. They displayed open, personal hostility and a total refusal to engage in a mature and rational way. They compeletely failed to mention the rights and protections of women at any point in that session. Personally, I feel their behaviour and their abuse of parliamentary process merits discipline.
'Trans' people are either male or female like the rest of us. Single sex provsions are predicated on 'sex' not assumed 'gender identity' ( a recent construct). Women and girls have every right to expect that a facility that is designated as 'female only' is for female people only. Schools in the city of Liverpool, such as Chesterfieled High ( I am an ex teacher) which have flouted the requirements for single sex facilities in spending thousands of pounds on non compliant unisex toilets are breaking the law, and furthermore subjecting their pupils to unnecessary indignities. That organisations are having to be takien to court in order to ensure compliance is an affront to democracy and to the hard won proetctions enshrined in the Equality Act.
You have spoken about your trans identified constituents, but what about your female constituents, which is approximately 50% of them? I, and others, expect you to stand up for our established protections and not to sacrifice them on the altar of an ideology. The reason that Bridget Phillipson sat on the code for so long was entirely due to political expediency and to allay the outrage from members of her own backbenches - and when she finally produced it she managed to inject a clause ( which it has to be assumed she thought no-one would notice) which was entirely without legal basis ( and which will be challenged) purely to placate these activists. Your office response to my initial email was to say that you no longer sign such motions as you don't think they are effective. So, I have to wonder why did you choose to sign this one? These measures are purely obstructive and an abuse of process as far as I am concerned - and pay scant attention to legal rulings and what they imply.
For too long the Labour party tried to suppress the voices of people on this issue with the edicts of 'No Debate' and oft repeated mantra of 'TWAW'. In doing so the Labour party, including my own MPs, have alienated many former members and supporters. I don't recognise what the Labour party has become...subsumed in the americanised politics of identity and so called 'progressive' ideology. There is not a chance, going forward, that I will be voting Labour again, until it comes to its senses and starts to reflect the concerns and interests of the majority of the population.