6 London councils to ignore EHRC guidance

It’s because many men calling themselves “non binary” are essentially TIMs and want into women’s spaces. The female NBs generally want everything to be mixed sex or often they want unisex single facilities where they don’t have to see anyone at all.

Their request:

1. Confirm that the EHRC Code of Practice cannot be interpreted to exclude Trans+people from services and must be used to create inclusive services;
2. Introduce legislation which protects the rights of Trans+ people, ensuring that they are able to participate fully in public life and access services safely, with privacy, and with dignity;
3. Create an equalities framework that protects trans people’s safety, dignity and humanity.

I think this is all already covered by the Equality Act and the Guidance, at least so far as it relates to people with the PC of Gender Reassignment. The only gripe the council seems to have is that the legislation also protects sex based rights.

However, as an aside it's the concept of 'Trans+' that has led as to where we are now, because it makes the concept of 'trans' meaningless.

I certainly wouldn't trust these people to manage my bin collections.

Two questions for people with more knowledge of local councils:

1. Do local councils rely on commercial insurance companies to underwrite their activities, with policies that stipulate lawful action as a condition of cover?
2. Can wayward councillors be recalled and booted out of office by constituents?

If yes, those are potential routes to shifting the dial.

I'm interested to know whether they have informed their public liability insurers that they don't intend to comply with building code standards. Also whether they have informed their employer's liability provider that they don't intend to comply with H&S regs.

What i find shocking is that there don't seem to be any consequences for councils that don't comply with the law. Why isn't there a system for firing councillors under these circumstances? Or not allowing votes for "motions" that are unlawful?

I lived in Brixton in the 1990s when Lambeth council were always in court for breaking the law. So its perfectly possible for this lot to find themselves in the dock. Ironically Linda Bellos who I didnt agree with back then is a sex realist and I agree with her now!
Also I know its not the point but Waltham Forest? I used to live there and the council were sort of dull. Im in Lewisham now, we are rarely off the front page of the Daily Telegraph. This is such a crazy time to live through.
Julie Bindel says there is bound to be a fall out amongst the Greens over this issue because of the tension between the trans policy and the pro Palestinian supporters.

@KingdomofsleepIt’s not new guidance though, it’s old guidance that had to be confirmed when folk thought self ID is a thing in England like it is in Scotland and Ireland. You hear a lot of representatives from trans groups starting with “I don’t quite understand”, because they don’t…

It is new guidance published in June of this year. I agree that no rules have actually changed in terms of single sex spaces remaining so. But it is still a new "code"

Separately this was making me wonder - why do we even elect local councillors when their role is more similar to the civil service than to that of an MP? They don't really have any law-making decision power, they just administrate local services. Surely this role is better suited to qualified professionals and continuity of provision, rather than short/medium-term elected people with political motivations.

We just want pothole free roads, reliable transport, regular bin collections... why is this even election-based?

We don't vote for our water or gas providers, why do we vote for the people in charge of the bins?

"Bristol city council said services could admit people according to their gender identity, meaning trans women could be allowed into women’s services. However, it said any service operating in that way must not be described as female-only and should instead be labelled “single-gender” or “trans-inclusive”"

So a round about way of saying that all their facilities are now mixed sex.

Have they done an impact assessment? Do they think all their facilities meet standards of the relevant building code? If they have done this and come to the conclusion that it is all legal, why not just call them mixed sex?

My most immediate question would be whether their employees have facilities that comply with H&S standards.

And then I would be wondering which other laws they are breaking.

The parents of young women (who don’t want to use women’s toilets) also are vocal about mixed sex toilet designs, as they don’t want their daughters using the men’s. Campbell, Maugham, Hale.

This is a typical result (this one from a schoolgirl who campaigned for ‘gender neutral’ toilets):

‘The gender-neutral bathrooms are both horrible and amazing. I am so glad we have them, but they are disgusting,
mostly because of the way students treat them. The issue mainly comes from how small and how few they are, and
it’s not uncommon that the four small bathrooms are filled with sex, drugs or vaping. We need to address these
problems, or the gender-neutral bathrooms will continue to be the most disgusting in the school….I consider everything in the third floor bathroom a biohazard. Almost every time I make the mistake of going in, I leave trying to purge my mind of the horrors I just witnessed. Whether it is people having sex, poop smeared on the walls, or the toilet being clogged with an entire roll of toilet paper, horrible things have happened in that bathroom.’

This is the typical response from the teacher trying to safeguard: ‘It’s not great because you’ve got a private space that’s publicly accessible and difficult for school staff to monitor.’

The girl’s solution was to have more gender neutral toilets to spread the sex and drugs and misuse out so she was more likely to find a clean one.

I have got many examples of ‘gender neutral’ designs going wrong. Schools have been the guinea pigs (because they are exempt from certain legislation) and pupils, especially girls and medically vulnerable, have paid the price. Let’s learn from where things have gone wrong for schools and not repeat the same mistakes.

If anyone from the above councils wants to chat about toilet design and safety, please ask me.

p.s. If people think schools are special cases, they are not. I have the evidence for that too.

Their request:

1. Confirm that the EHRC Code of Practice cannot be interpreted to exclude Trans+people from services and must be used to create inclusive services;
2. Introduce legislation which protects the rights of Trans+ people, ensuring that they are able to participate fully in public life and access services safely, with privacy, and with dignity;
3. Create an equalities framework that protects trans people’s safety, dignity and humanity.

I think this is all already covered by the Equality Act and the Guidance, at least so far as it relates to people with the PC of Gender Reassignment. The only gripe the council seems to have is that the legislation also protects sex based rights.

However, as an aside it's the concept of 'Trans+' that has led as to where we are now, because it makes the concept of 'trans' meaningless.

I certainly wouldn't trust these people to manage my bin collections.

The parents of young women (who don’t want to use women’s toilets) also are vocal about mixed sex toilet designs, as they don’t want their daughters using the men’s. Campbell, Maugham, Hale.

This is a typical result (this one from a schoolgirl who campaigned for ‘gender neutral’ toilets):

‘The gender-neutral bathrooms are both horrible and amazing. I am so glad we have them, but they are disgusting,
mostly because of the way students treat them. The issue mainly comes from how small and how few they are, and
it’s not uncommon that the four small bathrooms are filled with sex, drugs or vaping. We need to address these
problems, or the gender-neutral bathrooms will continue to be the most disgusting in the school….I consider everything in the third floor bathroom a biohazard. Almost every time I make the mistake of going in, I leave trying to purge my mind of the horrors I just witnessed. Whether it is people having sex, poop smeared on the walls, or the toilet being clogged with an entire roll of toilet paper, horrible things have happened in that bathroom.’

This is the typical response from the teacher trying to safeguard: ‘It’s not great because you’ve got a private space that’s publicly accessible and difficult for school staff to monitor.’

The girl’s solution was to have more gender neutral toilets to spread the sex and drugs and misuse out so she was more likely to find a clean one.

I have got many examples of ‘gender neutral’ designs going wrong. Schools have been the guinea pigs (because they are exempt from certain legislation) and pupils, especially girls and medically vulnerable, have paid the price. Let’s learn from where things have gone wrong for schools and not repeat the same mistakes.

If anyone from the above councils wants to chat about toilet design and safety, please ask me.

p.s. If people think schools are special cases, they are not. I have the evidence for that too.

Does anyone know that “Trans+” means please?

Have we now ditched the LGBetc and are now admitting is all about the T+?

Afaik they make by-laws? Some services are discretional, as well and they make and enforce e.g. HMO rules (some councils are strict and some very strict on these - as they should be, of course).