EHRC guidance might be delayed for over a year

[OhBuggerandArse]

Ministers really can't cope with acknowledging the law, can they?

https://www.thetimes.com/article/d7cd9e2f-2635-409d-a624-a833611a09fc?shareToken=f3f89ea86fb5c264c18866395c93194d

I hope this is just a flag they're sending up to evaluate how much pushback there might be - let's make sure that the pushback is noisy, articulate and effective.

I have to confess that I know nothing about how Parliament works but I keep seeing Urgent Questions to the Secretary of State. Isn't this an appropriate question: Is there any chance that the SoS will actually place this guidance before Parliament?

The loos at the Lyric Hammersmith are just the usual male and female with the signs changed to unisex, but the only cost would be to put the old signs back and stop the awkwardness of women walking into a loo with urinals on the wall and being confused.

I think quite a high one given that if they don’t lay it, they very much have to say why they didn’t and that why has to be watertight.

When Document T for toilets came in last year, the government did cost analysis and equality impact assessments.

I don’t agree with them but they have already been done!

It isn't about costs!

Its about not upsetting the TRAs.

This is just a made up problem, rather than saying we are more interested in keeping trans happy, not women.

Done.

We all know that. But people are pointing out that the reason they're giving is nonsensical, even if it were true, as there'd be no need for it anyway.

Article in the Times today:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/cae77ba9-cc49-4a52-bcb7-60fb29c19be6?shareToken=31c0ab6729f4150e9f28d50657566b9a

If you need a laugh / late post-halloween scare:
https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1on6kei/trans_lobby_has_fooled_labour_over_cost_of/

Thanks for the Times article.

If I were a business that had taken advice from Stonewall and was now worried about costs, I would be following the Allison Bailey vs Stonewall appeal very closely. I've not seen much coverage of it but I understand that, if Allison were to win, it would make Stonewall liable for providing dodgy advice.

"Hundreds of businesses and groups of all sizes had signed the TSA letter, Guaitamacchi said, adding: “Many told us of the direct financial and operational impact this would have on their business. Some others are digital-first businesses, who told us of their concerns about being able to expand, use office and co-working spaces, and of the importance of standing up for their values.”

If this is the case, then surely having guidance that accurately reflects the law is important, meaning they can design any future office space to comply with this.

And has Labour considered the impact on all the businesses who are are complying with the law and are getting grief from activists as a result? E.g. Virgin Active being subject to a smear campaign from the GLP for following "transphobic law", rather than what GLP (wrongly) considers to be the law.

"We can't use office spaces because we'd have to have sex based toilets or single occupancy cubicles" - (?)

Why? What's the issue? What's the massive revolutionary terrifyingly expensive issue here? What nonsense have they been sold by some nut reinterpreting the law in their own private universe?

There are sex based toilets everywhere. Or single occupancy cubicles. The country is full of them.

Edited to add: ah, read the article. They're 'businesses'. I see.

It's fucking outrageous.

I think Newnham are up a gum tree now legally though if men in general want to go there. You can't have 'some' men and not all men. You're a women's college or you aren't.

Have written to my MP. Enough prevarication, get on with it.

I think they are using this exception

(3)That assumption is that students of the opposite sex are to be disregarded if—
(a)their admission to the institution is exceptional, or
(b)their numbers are comparatively small and their admission is confined to particular courses or classes.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/12

I suspect they won't be challenged, because even if you found a male student who genuinely wanted to go to Newnham, was sufficiently qualified and wanted to make the argument that they should also go there on an exceptional basis, the outcome wouldn't make a difference to anyone else because their admission would be exceptional.

Newnham might try but it's not an "exception" it's a general policy. If they've stated their reason for accepting some male students is "they're trans" (or "they identify as women") then it's not "exceptional" at all. And it is not confined to a specific course or class.

So if a well qualified young man decided to take Newnham on then a decent barrister would have them on toast. I reckon Newnham will end up going mixed sex.

Yes, I agree their understanding of 'exceptional' is questionable.

However, I still think it would be difficult to find a male student who would actually want to go to Newnham and go through the stress of a court case when they could just apply somewhere else.

I think this is a situation where somebody would need to 'have standing' to take the college to court?

I have a patio which is too small for a washing line but I've had this Leifheit for about 12 years. It has blown over perhaps 5 times in total. It's very sturdy and holds loads. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Leifheit-Pegasus-Slim-Clothes-Airer/dp/B0031S9AC2?th=1

It looks a pretty robust clothes drier, but I'm not sure that means it has standing.

https://www.transsolidarityalliance.com/businesses-open-letter

Here's the letter, btw.

I cant believe it is that letter!

There was a whole thread about it at the time, and lots of FWR Investigations Squad found hilarious "facts".

The Guardian should be ashamed of itself scrapping the bottom of the barrel to try and make Labour look like it just had to listen to businesses.

But glad at least the Times are quoting Sex Matters.

Baroness Nicholson has an oral question in the Lords on Wednesday on this issue.

I wonder what JD mobile hairdressing (No 670) are worried about? What would be the concerns of someone who drives around cutting hair in someone else’s house?