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.

How can Jess Phillips do all that work on VAWG, and not see...

Miller is now the chair of Safe Lives. The same argument applies to her too.

Let us never forget that Jess Phillips supported this nonsense.

Thanks for that reminder.

And yes, how anyone who works for support services for women who have survived male violence can think like this is just a step too far to understand.

But then we know that some running not only domestic violence refuges but also women runing rape crisis support who support this.

So strange that so many women who seem strong, and call themselves socialists who seem to not see the disconnect.

But we only have to look slightly further back into left politics and remember which future Labour politicians were supporting PIE.

And as members of the National Council of Civil Liberties (now Liberty) said it was against men's human rights to have women only support and discussion groups.

Funny how human rights, when it comes to the crunch is always about giving men's rights over women's rights and autonomy.

Have only just realised that Save Lives is the group who produced DASH, supposedly a tool to help the police etc., recognise domestic violence situations, that has been condemned.

Whereas before you thought who did this get written, and how did it become an accepted tool, now it looks like it wasn't a professional decision but a who do you know decision.

The same as Refuge, formerly excluded from being part of WAFE because of its founders reactionary attitudes towards women, getting the contract to run the national DV helpline, and just happened that is founder and Blair's wife were great friends.

Its sickening that politcs continues to be a cess pool but still have the power to control people lives.

Just as current politicians are denying women the rights that the Supreme Court has said we should have.

Edited to add link https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr4e7yrxkgvo

And yes, how anyone who works for support services for women who have survived male violence can think like this is just a step too far to understand.

She was a business manager, not front line.

Remember how people work for the NSPCC and dont know the first thing about safeguarding children?

Yet these people pretend that their experience makes them more informed about DV...

Many things in the wider world happen based on connections, relationships and networks rather than any meritocratic reasons. That's why networking is so important to businesses and careers.

I think that's generally useful to bear in mind when evaluating initiatives, appointments etc.

I think most of us know that.

But the whole point about what used to be called the Voluntary and Community Sector, and then became the Third Sector under Blair, was that it should NOT replicate underhand personla networks, and above all should be based on best practice and evaluation of what would serve users the best.

That is why it is so shocking.

Because the very people who would not doubt stand on a soap box about corruption, once they get into decision making positions, forget the ethos and revert back to not just bad, but corrupting practices.

And I very much doubt those who are evaluating businesses for their standard of work etc., in any way accept that networking, and those in positions of power feathering their nest, are the best option for businesses.

Lets not forget the Post Office scandal.

It isn't about being meritocratic, but about ensuring that the services users are the touchstone of which decisions are based.

Don't take your frustrations out on me. I did not cause them and I will not be your punching bag.

Why would the third sector magically be different to the rest of the society in which it operates?

And I very much doubt those who are evaluating businesses for their standard of work etc., in any way accept that networking, and those in positions of power feathering their nest, are the best option for businesses.

I didn't say that and nowhere have I defended corruption.

I was making the point that we shouldn't wear rose tinted glasses or complacently expect things to happen for virtuous reasons. It's wise to critically evaluate rather than just assuming that something like DASH was adopted due to a robust evidence base because that's how we would like the world to operate.

Well the third sector seems to be one of the most easily captured areas. One only has to look at LinkedIn to get the picture there.

and the charity sector in particular

What a curious response.

It is an opinion.

And especially important as funded organisations can be monitored down to the last 5p in the petty cash.

By the very people who in their own work place are operating as those values like this are not relevant.

Finally managed to archive this Telegraph article

https://archive.ph/M1KvM

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/12/29/civil-servants-defying-supreme-court-trans-ruling/

Something else for Labour to drag their feet over.

I am so confused; how can we say that we live in a democracy when Bridget Phillipson and 0.1% (men identifying as Trans women in the 2021 Census) of the population able to hold biological women hostage to their demands?

Sometimes I think PCS is the worst union in the country, but then I remember that UCU exists.*

Whitehall departments won't update their guidance until Cabinet Office updates its model guidance, and we might speculate that CO are reluctant to introduce new guidance that might make PCS and the rainbow community staff networks cross.

You can see why some people, even in the civil service, might think Danny Kruger has a point when he says that ministers should tell officials what's going to happen and not vice versa.

*(I sometimes hope naively that FDA might adopt a policy that's actually in accordance with the law, but that would go against FDA's long term strategy of having basically the same policies as PCS, but couched in a more understated style that allows them to sneakily attract recruits who believe they're less bonkers than PCS. On some issues yes, but on genderwoo they're firmly captured)

Wow! Ministers saying how it's going to be, and the Civil Service facilitating this.
How revolutionary!

Even Mrs Thatcher struggled with that! Yes Minister was not her favourite show for no reason.

I suspect it's always been this way, within living memory at least. I don't entirely agree with Dom Cummings, but it's telling that, when he comes up with examples of times when Whitehall worked well, he's usually talking about the 19th century.

Actually, it was her favourite show, I'm sure I've read that.
Have you seen Trump, he's returning to 19th c spheres of influence.
Maybe a 19th c civil service is what we need.

In the Times this morning:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/92041c04-583f-4b37-a1ea-93cef51d0476?shareToken=0e0853a2fbaca26db701f6579ec17e5c

Also in the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/dec/31/new-ehrc-chair-mary-ann-stephenson-lgbtq-transgender-groups

It's so ridiculous that the article says she was seen as taking a side in the Allison Bailey case by donating to her crowdfunder. She took the side of the black lesbian who had been discriminated against and lost her job. But this position is seem as being at odds with inclusivity? Really?

This sounds promising:

"She said it was “important to make sure that there are services provided for people who can’t or don’t want to use the services for their biological sex. It is about recognising that everybody has rights in this situation, but where you are providing single-sex services, the supreme court has said those have to be on the basis of biological sex.”

This is pretty much what Baroness Faulkner said, but I think MAS is trying to say it in a more diplomatic way. The more reasonable she sounds, the more unreasonable the TRAs responses will come across.

A comment from Reddit

"I don't know how old this privileged white middle-aged cisgender bigot is, but there is a very good chance that I am more hormonally female than she is at this point.

This 'biological male' is more hormonally female than you are, you scientifically illiterate dimwit.

EDIT: not to labour the point, but if we were admitted to or excluded from public toilets based on our hormone profiles, I'd be allowed in the women's toilets and many of these bigotted biddies would be sent to use the buckets out the back (aka, 'third spaces'). Oh! How awful for them!"

The misogyny of these men really takes my breath away sometimes.

If there is an estrogen shortage at some point in the future (quite likely, considering we make fuck all drugs in the UK anymore, don't get me started on insulin) he'll be in trouble.

A few of these need to be sent to Philipson.

They don't care. My MP is a mansplaining tra twat and would find that all entirely in order.

I'd hope we have the same MP, but no, I'm very willing to believe there are two of them....

I suppose the newspapers would be better. Really important that the absolute rabid prejudice, intolerance and hatred of women is evidenced. They'll look straight at it and swear it isn't there, or it says something different, or the words mean other things in other contexts on the third Tuesday of every Mornington Crescent, but the general public are much less batshit.