Brigitte Phillipson blocking EHRC guidance

[lcakethereforeIam]

I'm not sure if there's anything new here though

Phillipson blocks trans guidance after landmark Supreme Court ruling https://share.google/P91PBE5Cy4ROwsdA1

It's a very stark article in the Telegraph.

I don't want adult men in the ladies. "He's with his DD" doesn't stop him from perving or exposing himself. This is classic "not my Nigel" thinking.

That occasionally single individuals are going to have a little difficulty to overcome is not a reason to remove single sex provision from all women in the UK.

As the SCJ explains.

That dad and his dd will figure things out. But his possible little bit of one off inconvenience one day does NOT justify making women's toilets entirely inaccessible for many women on a permanent basis, and removing women's privacy, dignity, equality and rights in law. Obviously.

And let's be honest, waving around these people's possible potential minor inconvenience occasionally is also nothing more than spreading coat tails wide and shouting 'squirrel!' while you enable men to nip in behind you and enact their inner lives and other things on non consenting women in women's spaces. So very very tired of the lies and disingenuity.

It is absolutely the right thing to take a young child into the single sex toilet cubicle of the sex of their adult carer. This is much safer for the child than going into a private unisex toilet with an adult or going on their own, especially if they are a boy. This exception is for the safety of the child.

That male cleaners can go into women’s toilets is for the health of the female users.

Health and Safety.

I said this jokingly last night but repeat.

She is NOT challenging the Supreme Court ruling.

She is saying the EHRC (ie Falkner who Labour hates) went to far in the guidelines.

The "delays" are all about geting the EHRC to back down.

One of the last things Falkner did was to write a letter, made public, saying why wasn't the Government getting on with implementing the guidelines as drawn up by the EHRC which is constituted to play this role.

So either they are hoping MAS will back down on behalf of the EHRC, or as are hoping that the GLP will win. I cant find the link but from memory hasn't she or her department filed an "interested party" submission to that case.

This is typical Labour. Not that they all know the law, even Starmer has made legally incorrect statements. If you remember they had to get Hermer in as an old mate of Starmer's. Although just as likely because Starment doesn't listen to women so poor Emily Thornberry got dumped.

They think we dont see them trying to manipulate us, by saying they are following the law, or an election pledge, when all the time they dont follow the law or keep election pledges.

The only thing they are consistent on is their lack of respect for women.

Because Jenrick is expected by pretty much everyone to replace her, and take the Tories into coalition with Reform.

Why are we posting about Brigitte? Isn't she Bridget or does she indentify as French?

Not really. Maybe a year ago.

She’s heading to the top with approval ratings above all the males.

Kemi's really upped her game in recent weeks and Jenrick is less conspicuous. I think the remaining Tories know yet another leadership election would be mad, especially given the destabilisation of Labour by leadership contest rumours.

yes I believe a submission has been made, not sure if by her herself

The most generous view I can manage is that BP is performatively stress-testing the EHRC guidance in court before its inevitable implementation. BP's mother established a women's refuge, which BP managed for three years. There's no way she doesn't appreciate the need for single sex spaces and women's safety, privacy and dignity, at first-hand.

When the Good Law Project lose their High Court challenge, she has the added bonus of distance when she signs the draft guidance into law, as she's on record as speaking up for trans women in women's spaces.

Like the audible sigh of relief heard from politicians after the SC's April ruling. It took the decision out of their hands.

I’ve literally just read about that, stress test

In this

https://www.wearequeeraf.com/equalities-minister-tears-apart-logic-of-ehrcs-trans-exclusive-guidance-in-high-court/

And links to the submission https://goodlawproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/MWE-Skeleton-REDACTED.pdf?ref=wearequeeraf.com

There's no way she doesn't appreciate the need for single sex spaces and women's safety, privacy and dignity, at first-hand.

There is if she thinks some men are really born a form of woman who should be welcomed into those spaces alongside other women. A lot of people think this is the case, like being born gay.

She is saying the EHRC (ie Falkner who Labour hates) went to far in the guidelines.

Which parts in particular?

I have been wondering if this could be the strategy. The Good Law project have set themselves up as the one voice for trans people. If they lose this case and Phillipson has used it to 'stress-test' the case by case argument then the government can say the EHRC guidance is correct, there's nothing more to do, let's move on. However. given the Sandie Peggie judgement I'm not sure anyone could be confident that this would be the outcome. I'm quite enjoying the thought that Phillipson might be trying a switcheroo on the GLP.

@Lovelyviewwhen i read the queer af write up, I see that view more clearly

This is plausible as a strategy but if this is what she's doing, it's highly irresponsible. While the to-ing and fro-ing in the courts goes on, thousands of organisations, in the absence of the EHRC guidance, have been breaking the law since April.

she not actually saying this

shes saying that the EHRC guidelines don’t work fully in the way they’ve been written because of the examples she lists

they negate themselves

but the examples she gives are common sense examples

so these examples need to be catered for as well as the clear guidelines that trans identified males cannot enter women’s spaces

Have only got about half way through but this is very clearly an attempt to say
(i) that in implementing a women only sex based policy trans people are being discriminated against, and
(ii) that the EHRC guidelines are too onerous on services (ie cafes, changing rooms, etc.) and would be putting staff in the position of discriminating against (trans) customers, service users.

It does make me wonder whether in fact the GLP wasn't in fact "encouraged" to go ahead with the court case.

Suspect that for Labour this is a two pronged campaign.

Discredit the EHRC

Ingratiate themselves with the TRAs

What a shit show.

And how underhand.

I wonder how many people are aware of this devious method of trying to get what they want, rather than making it a clear policy.

That women's rights are only allowable so long as trans people dont have to recognise that having an identity is not the same as the biological reality.

What’s Labour’s plan? The children issue was in the SC judgement anyway. Pregnant women I mean seems odd but ok.

So is your understanding that Labour will add these to the guidelines and still keep to SC ruling? And keep TiM out of female facilities?

Mentions service test, not a stress test. But more detail on what the submission was

I really don’t know but I’m glad @IwantToRetireis reading the submission.

but how will that be put into practice?

I bloody hope not just gender neutral crap

they take up more space than single sex so wouldn’t meet H and S requirements for ratios of toilets to people. Also, so many sexual assaults in mixed spaces

Gender neutral loos won't work everywhere anyway, surely? Might be OK in a coffee-shop, but not practicable in a pub, for example.