Phillipson rejects claim she's delaying trans guidance to not risk deputy PM votes

[GallantKumquat]

Phillipson rebuffed the suggestion, saying the watchdog has only submitted missing documents – including an equality impact assessment, which supplements its code of practice – within the last week. The late additions are on top of the original documents sent to ministers in September stretching to over 300 pages.
“It is disappointing to see the EHRC commenting on this in the way that they are publicly, because we are going to get this right. We will make sure that the Code of Practice gets us into the right place, but the EHRC also need to give us the material in a timely way,” Phillipson told The i Paper.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/phillipson-rejects-claim-delaying-trans-guidance-risk-deputy-pm-3988459

archive

archive.ph/2025.10.20-062955/inews.co.uk/news/politics/phillipson-rejects-claim-delaying-trans-guidance-risk-deputy-pm-3988459

Well she would say that wouldn’t she?

To be fair, it’s a mammoth job to get right. Just looking at toilets you’ve got at least a dozen bits of legislation covering health and safety in various types of organisations, then the building regs which have to align with what you are doing. There are so many different designs of toilets nowdays that it is a minefield. Economically and logistically it’s a lot for businesses, schools and other venues.

This legislation will presumably override all the above. Now’s the time for buying shares in toilet manufacturers!

Given how under attack the Guidance is from the Unhinged Brigade, I could do with a little bit of reassurance from the Minister. Something along the lines of they're blowing smoke out of there arses, the guidance will be accepted.

Aye, right.

gosh if only the highest court in the land had made it more straight forward for everyone.

Does it change colour when they’ve accepted the guidance?

They need to give material in a timely way?

As far as I’m aware, she asked for something (impact assessment?) on the Friday, and received it on the Monday?

Typical crap.

I guarantee this guidance will be more thoroughly scrutinised than some bills 🙄

😂

Just worth noting there is a precedent for the Home Office to be excused complying with the law because it's "too hard".

After a (very very long) court battle over the illegal retention of innocent peoples fingerprints and DNA, the Home Offices repeated refusal to comply was excused as it was "too hard".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_and_Marper_v_United_Kingdom

The Govt claims that the guilty and innocent DNA records are intermingled, so too hard to delete. And these incompetent charlatans want us to trust them with biometric digital ID information?

In my anecdotal experience - I've asked 4 people (5, including me) who i know are Party members and who voted for Lucy Powell - why we did that, it all comes down to one reason.

Nothing at all to do with the trans thing, everything to do with thinking this Labour Government has lost its way a little, and needs steering back on course. It needed to concentrate on the working people, those who earn loads and those who dont.

I wasnt, for example, remotely interested in their views on the guidance regarding the High Court judgment on who was or wasn't covered by the Sex Discrimination Act.

was I interested in electing a deputy who spoke about, for example, Child poverty? oh yes. you bet.

thinking this Labour Government has lost its way a little

😂😂😂

I may be misremembering, but I’m sure I’d read that the EIA she asked for isn’t even a statutory requirement of the EHRC in this process. Which is why they didn’t provide one in their original submission. It’s more smoke-blowing from her.

Philipson has lied and lied and lied. I wouldn't at this point believe her if she told me what the time was.

But yes, noting the ticking off for thinking selfishly about women's rights and existence in law and the massive impact on a lot of vulnerable women, when we should have all been thinking solely about child poverty. Nice, neutral term there that misses the half of the children whose safeguarding Philipson is happily fucking with.

Don't want to be funny but if this government refuses me the right to have a wee without the potential presence of men how the fuck can they claim to respect the interests of women?

Name changed; Ive asked people who have connections to BP about all this; the answer was that to make these things statutory, bullet proof statutory it does take time. A lot of going back and forth between the different departments to agree the legislation.

I’ll admit I find it very hard to believe and am extremely frustrated.

I did note after going through Rosie’s tweets that she twice stated that BP is one of the few that fully supports the FWS judgement.

From an objective point of view I also would prefer the statutory guidance to be very clear. So that we don’t have to keep having more court cases to prove a basic point.

where are the primary sources of her lies?

this is a genuine question; I’ve read all these threads and seen assumptions that she’s not ensuring FWS comes into effect. But no actual quotes that she’s directly refusing to enact it in legislation. But I’m happy to be corrected.

OH is an architect and I know he’s had issues in the past meeting the requirements within the designer’s brief against current legislation.

What’s there now in statutory terms is clearly not good enough as we know how many businesses and services have already fucked it up. And we’ve many examples of leisure centres throwing the baby out with the bath water when they go mixed sex, creating a voyeur’s dream.

We have so much provision that doesn’t meet legislation and a lot of it is new and ‘inclusive’. It is going to be massive economically for some businesses, especially schools, so they’ll be arguing about who pays for changes.

@VelociraptorVal the answer was that to make these things statutory, bullet proof statutory it does take time. A lot of going back and forth between the different departments to agree the legislation.

Then why doesn't BP herself tell everyone that?

Well she wasn’t likely to say “yes, I have been deliberately obstructing the EHRC snd destroying women’s rights” was she?

She has been saying it takes time to be fair.

I remember the Rosie Duffield tweet about Phillipson the Supreme Court decision too. It was partly why I was prepared to give BP the benefit of the doubt, until I read about the briefing of the barrister representing the Good Law Project in the High Court. Reported in the BBC;
'Zoe Leventhal KC, representing the minister for women and equalities, argued that the guidance may have been too simplistic in suggesting that, for example, a trans woman should not use a women's toilet in a public space. She suggested that it could be judged on a case-by-case basis.'

This happened, I think, in November in which case it was after the article linked in the op which dates from October.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddrjq9764yo