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.

As of September 2026 children will be taught that biological sex affords rights that are different to ppl with a transgender identity. (Statutory)

so I don’t know how that circle will be squared

Yep pubs usually have separated loos with cubicles. Labour will have to get guidance out at some point.

I don't know what that even means, let alone how any circles will be squared! 😀

Impact assessment and the statutory guidance

How can you tell when Starmer is lying? His mouth is moving.

The simplest explanation is that the government genuinely wants to blow holes in the EHRC guidelines to allow organisations to continue to let men into women's spaces under certain circumstances. The appointment to the women's and equalities committee of the midwit trans activist Nadia Whittome doesn't show much support for protecting women's 'safe' spaces since Nadia believes saying that they're women instantly makes a man no threat at all to women. Despite this, I still have a dream that somewhere in our government there are intelligent and somewhat devious people who might be trying to stitch up the GLP and the trans lobby good and proper. I mean pregnant women having to go to the men's toilets? That's just not a thing.

If there are intelligent and somewhat devious people in the government, we haven't seen much sign of that in any area, as they blunder from one crisis to the next. I fear 'tis but a dream' is most likely.

now I am reading the submission I’m not sure my earlier post stands - the queer AF article also puts a different spin on it all

at the same time, the law is the law. And unless they’re going to re write the rshe guidelines to say the opposite, they do have to make it work as it’s written very simply there

Its funny, somewhere in the back of my mind I have some half remembered childhood remembrance of being told that politicians, like the police and judges, would act by the strick code of their profession.

But judging by current events, this isn't true. Politicians (and the police and judges?) are doing that job because it gives them a position of power and influence to inflict on others their personal set of beliefs.

We could save a lot of money by doing away with judges spending hours weighing up arguements and putting in their place people who responds to their "feelings" about a situation.

At least that way we wouldn't have to pretend that education and experience were / are of any value.

Always the statutory ego stroke about 'respect', ensuring the understanding of all that this group are particularly special and there is a required deference and signalling. It's the intended sop to make even the slightest levelling of status palatable, I know; to the gender movement anything less than absolute domination and prioritisation at all times is literal genocide, but it's so short sighted.

All children should be treated with respect and dignity, end of. No one group should be singled out as different or entitled to more or less, for many reasons. No other characteristic group gets this special othering. It's going nowhere good.

I'm done with Labour for life after they've turned into women haters. And they still are, they're just hoping to hide it better, like the antisemitism issue few years ago.

Phillipson can crawl under the rock after this, shameful.

Well yes but that’s the FWS ruling!

It is, it just grates. Always that reminder to doff your cap. With children it's so very not helpful or sensible.

Sorry, that's my fault, mistyped her name in the thread title.

It will certainly be misused

maintaining the scared caste and all that

the only positive is that “transphobia” isn’t to be statutory at all. It’s not mentioned anywhere. Homophobia, misogyny and racism is though.

Surely it can't be, because how can you define 'trans' in a legal setting? It was hard enough to come up with the very imperfect definition of Gender Reassignment in the EQ, but 'trans' is even more nebulous, as it's down to whatever any individual claims at a given moment (which might be different a week later).

This is indeed a big positive. That had passed me by so thank you for flagging it.

With homophobia being called out but not transphobia, that matches up well to the schools' KCSIE guidance. It helps to reiterate that being LGB is not the same as being "T", just as the KCSIE guidance does.

Blimey, that QAF article gave it top spin that would make Ronnie O'Sullivan green with envy.

I'd just ask which is more likely:

1. Labour don't like the SCJ, and while paying lip service to the SCJ are punching holes in the guidelines to allow Stonewall Law to continue.

2. Labour are carrying out an incredibly clever and devious manoeuvre of pretending to be sabotaging the guidance, up until the point where Jolyon loses his case and Labour can then implement the guidance (which is what they really want to do) while escaping the wrath of transactivists, who will meekly accept Phillipson telling them the courts gave her no choice.

Do we think this government is full of genius-level Machiavellian operators who could pull off the second scenario?

(This was ages ago now but I've only just come back to the thread).

Hi @Justme56. Many apologies, I misunderstood your point. Agree! I'm just so bloody raging at this nonsense right now, so sorry for going off on one 😬.

Thanks for your (much more civil!) response x

I'm not buying scenario 2, either.

If the GLP fail, wouldn't the TRA just pressure for a law change?

I'm assuming the TRA are backbenchers, so could threaten to move to the Greens if the government dont change the law.

They're not just backbenchers by any means, but lots of Labour MPs are hanging onto thin majorities. Threatening to go to the Greens might play OK in one or two places, but not where many Labour MPs are.

It's very strange, because mathematically far more Labour MPs are threatened by Reform, but they seem to be a lot more rattled by the Greens. My best theory is that they're more alert to the Green threat because they see the Greens as basically their kind of people, while Reform is like some alien force that their brains can't comprehend.

That also tells a story about the class makeup of Labour MPs and members.

I think you're dead right there, Sionnach. It's not just Reform that their brains can't comprehend, it's their own constituents.

I may be jumping to conclusions here, but I can't see antidiscrimination rules being ignored for any other group. Women, though? So uncool. Who wants to stand up for them? All the other kids in the lunchroom will go sit at another table.