Lambeth Council to challenge new “discriminatory” guidelines on single-sex spaces

They’re a bit behind the times, that ship sailed on 9 July.

Panic, entirely of their own design, is setting in. I think most of them will find that they're all still existing on 6 August.

In this case, it appears that it is not the council, but the West Berkshire TransActual Group, and a few "businesses " who have written a letter to their MPs.

“If Bridget Phillipson, minister for women and equalities, does not make provision for a debate, this new code – a likely bathroom ban – will come into effect automatically, without any democratic debate or a vote in Parliament, 40 days after she publishes it.

Oh! now they want a debate, such unhinged stupidity, it's a guidance it doesn't have to be debated, and Bridget did all she could to torpedo it, they're so ungrateful.

No Debate, No Exceptions. Their rules, but it's our game now. 😁

There is no such thing as a squirrel-proof bird feeder.

I'll make a new thread for the good news.

Thank goodness there is at least one council with common sense.

I think we could all use a bit of good news, why don't you make this its own thread! It would be nice to spread the word!

ed grammar

Ladies and germs, we have a grownup in the room!

(I wonder how long he'll last before they drive him out for wrongthink)

Thanks for the update, it was a joy to read.

"It reached its judgement after detailed legal arguments and careful consideration of legislation. It is not the role of this council to disregard that judgement because we disagree with it. Our responsibilities, like that of all public authorities, is to comply with the law as interpreted by the court," he said.

Every council should have this chiselled onto the wall of their chambers.

I particularly liked the last part.

"This isn't a club. You're not in Parliament. This is a local council – get a grip of yourselves," said Cllr Sutherland. 😂

How refreshing for an elected official to say it how it is. 🥳

Hmm I was thinking circa 2017!

...to follow a law that hasn't changed and they should have been complying with already?

🙄

Both council leaders will also now write to write to government asking for funding to be made available to councils to cover the costs of making services compliant with the EHRC Code of Practice.

Ah! Ye olde It's Going To Be Too Expensive To Follow The Law tactic! How utterly predictable.

but councils are still awaiting information as to the timeline that any changes will need to be made by and whether there is going to be any financial support for local authorities.

Now. It applies now. How have they missed this?

"Across the districts there are currently a range of options for visitors to council buildings with, for example, individually locking toilets in some of their venues."

As opposed to the toilets without locks? What is going on in the Vale of the White Horse?

"We feel strongly that The Code of Practice creates a real risk that trans people will be excluded from essential services and public spaces, and will be barred from services they have previously had no issue accessing."

You should definitely get on with ensuring that appropriate unisex services are available then. The SC judgement only considered people with a GRC and for everyone else the law has been clear since 2022.

"I hope that last week’s motion, and the work we are doing around these changes, goes a long way to provide trans and non-binary residents of our district the reassurance they deserve that they will not be discriminated against in the provision of council services, and that this council will work to ensure equalities legislation protects them."

Yes, that is in line with the EHRC guidance. Now you just need to get on with complying with the law.

Whilst the Supreme Court ruling in 2025 and this year’s EHRC Code of Practice creates a legal minefield for organisations such as ours

The law has not changed since 2010.

following the announcement of the new guidance from the EHRC, we are undertaking a review of our venues so we can assess where changes may need to be made and are working on a staff training plan, so that we comply with the requirements of that guidance and the broader principles of equality.

Talking about inclusivity is cheap, but could you not have thought about this 3.5 years ago when the law was clarified for the majority of trans people? The guidance is not the law.

They are also one of the worst for dangerous disrepair in their social housing. THIS is what they should be concentrating on

That report is from 2011 - a very different climate.

I did find it interesting reading, quite sympathetically so. The voices lack the aggression, division and hatred of may TRA voices now. And those interviewed avoid being in women's changing rooms, anywhere they would be in physical contact with people, or showing their bodies.

Which perhaps tells us something about the male bodied people wo do insist on their 'right' to be in the women's changing room, showers and toilets.

It's misogyny we are fighting. "Trans" or "Omnicause" or "RSOH" is just a smokescreen.

Lambeth Council wants to break the law because the law states that women have rights. And they don't want women telling them what they can or can't do. It's women's fault we have this law, anyway. And so women are also now responsible for the fact that Lambeth has to break the law.

Nevermind that the law is also about men having rights, disabled people having rights, Jewish people having rights, Zoroastrian people having rights, "gender reassigned" people having rights...

It's just the women we hate, so they can't have the rights they're entitled to have by law. So, we'll just break that part of the law. The part about the women.

Yes, I can see that in them as well. But, that doesn't explain why everything to do with women-only or women's rights is automatically so bad that they will ignore laws to ensure that women do not have what they are entitled to.

These people will willingly, publicly, repeatedly break the law because they do not want to follow the law. And the law states, and has reconfirmed, that women have rights.

I don't see how that can be swept aside as just part of the Omnicause, or part of a set of "right side of history" values.

If a law stated absolutely that the Israeli flag should be flown in solidarity over public buildings on a certain day (it never would, of course, but it's an example) and these Omnicause people refused to obey this law, how long do you think they'd get away with breaking the law? Would it be 15 years? I don't think so. I think someone would be told within 15 hours to put the damn flag up.

But women? Meh. Let's just break the law for 15 years, and even after we've been told we need to follow the law, let's break it some more.

When we first met Charlize/Paul, she was presenting as female. During our ethnography, he4 was presenting as male. Assigned male at birth, Charlize/Paul sees his job as to “bring he boy and the girl together”. In practice, his female
wardrobe is as extensive as his male wardrobe, as are his behaviours and habits. “I am a girly girl, a showgirl, and a mummy’s boy”, he said, nail-varnish on his hands, wearing a low-cut men’s vest and drinking a pint of lager in a local Irish pub.

No, no chance in hell am I going to take time out of my life to deal with unhinged nutters like this.

24 lawyers! No wonder councils have no money! Well, let's hope one of the 24 knows enough law to tell Lambeth that they can't pick and choose which laws to obey.