Lords plot to derail Labour’s trans guidance on single-sex spaces

[GreenUp]

Not sure if this has been posted in any of the threads but the usual suspects in the House of Lords are plotting to derail the EHRC guidance. It all sounds highly duplicitous.

Unfortunately I don't have a share token.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/house-of-lords-trans-guidance-ehrc-t90bkt0rc

The following are some excerpts from the article. The whole article has a lot more detail.

"A group of peers is at the centre of a House of Lords plot to derail guidance protecting women’s single-sex spaces, leaked documents have revealed.
The group, which includes a former head of Stonewall and one of its founder members, is seeking to scupper rules drawn up by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) by delaying the government’s process until a new chair of the regulator is appointed.

A source told The Times that Lord Collins of Highbury, the government’s equalities spokesman in the House of Lords, had been involved in “strategy development” with the group. Neither he nor the Office for Equality and Opportunity has denied the claim, repeatedly refusing to say whether he had met or been contacted by the group.
....
The strategy outlined plans to present the group as “constructive partners” while pushing for additional due diligence on the guidance, which critics suggested was a move designed to delay implementation. It said they would push the government to “use the forthcoming appointment of a new chair and additional commissioners as an opportunity to restore balance and credibility to the EHRC’s leadership”.
....
Peers were encouraged to table written and oral questions to ensure ministers confirm that the guidance has undergone proper consultation, legal review, and equality impact assessments, and to raise concerns about “balance and credibility” in upcoming EHRC appointments.

The group includes a number of peers including Hunt, the Stonewall co-founder Lord Cashman, the former Labour health minister Baroness Thornton, the former Scottish Labour leader Baroness Alexander, the Lib Dem peer Baroness Barker, Baroness Chakrabarti, Baroness Ramsey and Baroness Donaghy."

Why do they think that Mary Ann Stephenson is going to be more willing to take a position contrary to the law than Baroness Faulkner is?

Anyway, whatever they're plotting, it's good that it has been leaked. I'd imagine there are plenty in the House of Lords who will have not time for this.

Thanks for sharing, good for her, considering Lords are made, I'm wondering if they can be unmade. Time for a campaign to reduce the number of Lords that we have no need nor desire for. 🤬

I know the thread title is just repeating the article's wording, but is not "Labour's guidance". (I suspect it would be rather different if it were.)

Labour MP for East Kilbride. So will probably have been following all the Scottish media coverage of the Sanddie Peggie case and be rather better informed than the average MP.

I see Wendy Alexander on that list. Former Scottish Labour leader and sister of Douglas, current Scottish Secretary of State.

She was married to the former Brian Ashcroft, now known as Elizabeth Ashcroft.
He was an Economics professor at Strathclyde University. They appear to have divorced as he ‘transitioned’ but are apparently still very chummy, possibly still living together.

He seems to have deleted his X account. Unsurprising as there was plenty of awful ‘trans rights’ stuff - discrediting the Cass report for example.

And Wendy herself appears to be finding her feet as a trans activist publicly and who knows what behind the scenes.

Influential people, using their connections to attempt to remove basic safeguarding and rights from women and girls. For the sake of individuals in their personal circle. Appalling.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78n9nyvppeo
Nice piece of subtle propaganda by Baroness Alexander here.

Joani Reid and also Tracy Gilbert, Labour Edinburgh North and Leith, are consistently outspoken and supportive of women’s rights. Many thanks to them
🙏

It's pleasing to see Labour women standing up for women's rights and safeguarding children. It did seem that the parliamentary trans bullies had silenced far too many politicians at one stage.

THIS

As someone has pointed out this is the House of Lords. The GRA is quite specific about primogeniture. I guess it never crosses their minds to think whether this fits their views.

Blimey, imagine them thinking that they can run roughshod, packing the EHRC with fanatical ideologues, in order to issue propaganda, which runs contrary to the law. The arrogance required to think that they can officially advise people to break the law, under the guise of following it.

It's simply staggering.

again ....

I mean in light of the SC Judgment, which clarifies the law unequivocally.

We should revert to the Medieval rules for inheriting peerages (in England) which was male preference primogeniture, meaning a daughter could inherit a peerage if she had no brothers - and many did.
I think if we did revert, we could move to absolute primogeniture - but since it is now possible to choose the sex of a child and/or abort an unwanted sex (under some pretext) we should be careful since absolute primogeniture could make it less likely for girls to inherit as is the case with the LibDems ill-thought out act to make the throne be inherited by absolute primogeniture without the proviso being added to 'born of the body of the prince's wife' that the child be naturally conceived (i.e. no IVF, no surrogates, no choosing sex). I always thought the LibDems a bit hasty. (Sorry, that's a long sentence.)

I think that changing the law probably is the long term plan but they’re not going to come out and campaign openly for it at this point because, despite appearances, they’re not entirely stupid.

Instead I see all this activity as sowing the narrative that the current law is inhumane and unworkable. If they can get that narrative accepted then it’s game on.

I think it would be foolish to laugh it off. There’s no way they’re going to pack up and go home; they’re perfectly capable of playing the long game and they still have major public institutions and trade unions on their side.

...they’re not going to come out and campaign openly for it at this point because, despite appearances, they’re not entirely stupid.

I respectfully disagree! You can't think that Bob W and Jolly, or Jane Russel have any rational, logical strategy? They're fanatics, blinded to common sense, they may put some pitfalls on the path, but they'll avoided, or filled in, or the intended prey pulled out to score another point.

Respectfully, I think that’s a dangerously complacent attitude. Of course they have people on board who can think strategically and who are prepared to play the long game. How else were so many public institutions captured?

This doesn’t make sense. What do you mean by “their views”?

All of the shit stirrers are life peers
so heredity is not relevant

key point is that they are advocating breaking the law
(EA2010 as backed up by SC 16/04/25)

What a strange world we now live in when a man feels (and knows) he won’t get condemnation for openly calling for a fight against the safeguarding of children in schools. You’d think more people would be appalled at this, if not outright disgusted by such a bald stance.

There were many failings in the past where children were not protected against predation or grooming. That is why safeguarding was taken more seriously. One wonders what sort of people are advocating their removal now? And why? Are they acting on their own wishes, or on behalf of others or organisations? It certainly doesn’t appear (to me at least) to be for the welfare and interests of children.

I think it isn't so much about getting Starmer replaced or whatever, it is that they think what with comments for the European Court and the potential of a judicial review, that somehow the Supreme Court ruling will be reversed.

With the idea we will be back to women only based on sex "where proportionate" and the next step they having been pushing for, self id.

That comes up a lot now because ironically the Supreme Court ruling has made it clear that in law only those with a GRC are impacted.

But so many have been Stonewalled so either belief or are adament that it should be, that someone just stating I am the opposite sex we all have to share and appear to belief that statement. And it appears all the ever expanding non conforming, genderless or whatever entities that are created.

I would like to claim the identity of angry woman, everyone must believe me that I am really, and more importantly support me in the angrey identity and not keep telling me to calm down, dont take things so seriously, it was only a joke

In a way this Lords rebellion is a good thing. The more the TAs act against the government the more it alienates their potential support base inside the party. The thing with the Starmer government is they are increasingly paranoid, and are not going to take kindly to this stuff. Throw in O'Flaherty Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights attempting to tell them what the law is and that is going to be seen as a threat.

As the recent Labour conference shows the gender wars inside the party are in a new stage. Labour Women's Declaration's stall was very busy and the event sold out with lots of MPs and ministers attending. The TAs are still present, but outside the unions and a small number of MPs their power base is clearly slipping.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5416076-5416076-sex-and-gender-at-the-labour-party-conference

Right now LWD are doing very well as they have Shabana Mahomed as Home Secretary and Streeting in health. I think the TAs are now overplaying their hand out of desperation, and in doing so are pushing the pro-women case even further along.

The last time postmodern ideologies reared their ugly head, they collapsed under the weight of it's own stupidity, I'm hopeful that the latest iteration of this philosophy is also starting to feel the strain of it's own batshitery and will soon collapsed but it's likely to be very messy when it does.

With the idea we will be back to women only based on sex "where proportionate" and the next step they having been pushing for, self id.

They can argue over when services should be single sex or mixed sex, but I think the days of arguing that a single sex space can include e.g. men and women who feel comfortable using services for men is over. It just doesn't make sense.

You would like to think so, but the delay in agreeing the interim guidelines and now them being taken off the EHRC website, when they are in the news and people should be able to see them, is very worrying.

If there is a sucessful challenge of the Supreme Court ruling then we go back to the illogical concept of women (biological females) and "legal women" men with a GRC.

There's no legal mechanism to challenge a Supreme Court judgment in the UK.