House of Lords debate today on the Supreme Court ruling

[IDareSay]

As many of you know, statements read in the Commons have to also be read in the Lords, so today it was the turn of peers to have their say.

Rewind Parliament TV live from the House of Lords to 12.01pm for 35 minutes of sense (and some NONsense!)

parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/1347dfc8-1a24-46eb-b999-9d3e63483a30

First draft of Hansard is up:

hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2025-04-24/debates/07510F28-E453-4EBD-83AF-385A0C991955/“ForWomenScotland”SupremeCourtRuling

Cashman lived down to my expectations 🙄

And the question raised about the living in acquired gender (🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄) for 2 years to apply for a GRC only emphasises why it is a ludicrous piece of legislation that needs to be repealed

Watching on rewind now, thank you for the heads-up.

Have they debated why it is legal for people with a criminal record to name change and or/gender self ID? That should be up as a priority IMO.

Yes, I definitely think we should have a national conversation about that.

It would be interesting to know why, when all trans people are apparently so quiet and universally harmless, it was so important to ensure that a criminal record does not preclude a man being able to get a new birth certificate and effectively wipe his slate clean.

If trans people really wanted to put clear water between themselves and criminals for PR purposes, this would have been the perfect opportunity but they emphatically declined. Why would that be?

Does anyone know who the first speaker is in the Hansard transcript above?

Hmmm, I’m puzzled, Bundle! But whatever the reason, it’s always been insane that people can (effectively) wipe out their criminal records like that. All on the basis of self-ID, which has never been legal in England.

It’ll be nice if the police and courts start applying the law of the land and stop telling rape victims to call their attackers ‘she’.

interesting
Cashman stated that trans people are considering seeking asylum in other countries
that should be interesting

Fab, thank you. I'll stick this on the politicians respond thread.

Interesting: Baroness Stedman-Scot was a new one for me.

Baroness Smith of Malvern wondering what protection will be offered for transwomen forced to used the men's toilets. Did she give a moment's thought for all the women who were alarmed by the presence of a man pretending to be a woman in their loos?

Asylum?!

On what grounds?!

all the persecution they will now experience

The Lords were for the most part sensible on this previously. So I don't see it will have changed much.

Errrr what persecution?

Where are they planning to go to be 'less persecuted'?!

The "transwomen will get attacked in the gents" argument pisses me off no end. I have found no stats whatsoever to back up these claims. I would be so grateful if anyone could provide a link I would be so grateful. I won't be holding my breath though...

That is just absolutely ludicrous. There are no ends to co-opting other causes are there???

He should be ashamed of that remark. Living in the cushy safety of the UK where transgender people have full protection of their human rights. It feels like he is mocking all those who are experiencing actual risks to life.

exactly

He vehemently hates women and our rights. He is an utter embarrassment to the HoL.

Baroness Fox:

Does she agree that the problem is that, as legislators, we misled trans people and institutions about the law by encouraging the myths of gender ideology or gender identity being the same as biological sex? Will she ensure that the Civil Service is now properly informed so that we, as lawmakers, no longer peddle mistruths—and, in fact, misinformation—as we have been for some time?

Glad someone has made this point. It was the complicity of those who should have known better. Or rather not been so cowardly.

I'm assuming it was read out by the Minister delegated to lead this debate.

Baroness Smith of Malvern

Who turns out to be Jacqui Smith. ie one of the 2 headed Minister for Women.

So all the statements by "the minster" are from her!

(or have I misunderstood?)

tranada?

That same old nugget of misinformation being repeated by Baroness Levitt:

My Lords, once again I declare my interest as the parent of a trans child. As a matter of law, the Supreme Court’s decision does not require the exclusion of trans people from all single-sex spaces; rather, it declares that, provided an organisation makes a proportionate decision, then that will not be unlawful. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that these are complicated issues, which involve balancing rights and risks? Does she also agree that what is needed now is calm consideration, on a case-by-case basis, so as to ensure that all our fellow citizens feel safe and are protected?

And being promptly shot down by Baroness Smith of Malvern:

It is clear in the Supreme Court’s judgment that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, where single-sex spaces are being provided, they will be provided on the basis of biological sex. That does not, of course, prevent the provision of inclusive services where there is clarity that those services are being provided on that basis.

Baroness Smith of Malvern's rebuttal seems sadly ambiguous: "That does not, of course, prevent the provision of inclusive services where there is clarity that those services are being provided on that basis."

This could be taken as meaning that it is legal for an organisation to provide a "single-gender" service (women plus trans-identifying men) in the baroness's view. Perhaps that is not her view (and by "inclusive" she meant unisex) but I feel she could certainly have been clearer, and if I had been Baroness Levitt listening to that, I might have thought that "inclusive" meant any service that chose to include trans-identifying men and that this was fine provided that the organisation concerned gave "clarity" that the services were "provided on that basis"... whereas actually such an inclusive service wouldn't be legal.

Interesting titbit about Baroness Levitt - she's married to Lord Carlisle (former Lib Dem MP), of whom Wikipedia says: "Carlile was the first Member of Parliament to campaign for the rights of transgender people.[citation needed]"