Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Brigitte Phillipson blocking EHRC guidance

1000 replies

lcakethereforeIam · 18/12/2025 20:55

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
46
GallantKumquat · 18/12/2025 22:45

Labour wants to be a party that's an agent of social change for the better. Pillipson's department sits at the centre of that project and Starmer's rhetoric often articulates that vision. But you can't mediate social change through government if you don't have coherent law, policy and regulation, that's an obvious precondition.

Pillipson stalling EHRC guidance for the sole reason of political expediency makes a mockery of Labour's generations social project. What other explanation is there than valueless cynicism and political expediency if you refuse to follow the straight forward implications of your own regulation while simultaneously refusing to modify the law to make it say what you think it should? It's self refutation of Labour's reason for existing.

Reform is clamouring for the repeal of the EQ 2010 and the EHCR, but Labour is making their case for them, plainly - if you're not going to abide by either why have them?

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 18/12/2025 22:50

GallantKumquat · 18/12/2025 22:45

Labour wants to be a party that's an agent of social change for the better. Pillipson's department sits at the centre of that project and Starmer's rhetoric often articulates that vision. But you can't mediate social change through government if you don't have coherent law, policy and regulation, that's an obvious precondition.

Pillipson stalling EHRC guidance for the sole reason of political expediency makes a mockery of Labour's generations social project. What other explanation is there than valueless cynicism and political expediency if you refuse to follow the straight forward implications of your own regulation while simultaneously refusing to modify the law to make it say what you think it should? It's self refutation of Labour's reason for existing.

Reform is clamouring for the repeal of the EQ 2010 and the EHCR, but Labour is making their case for them, plainly - if you're not going to abide by either why have them?

Edited

Reform is clamouring for the repeal of the EQ 2010 and the EHCR, but Labour is making their case for them, plainly - if you're not going to abide by either why have them?

Yup. The Left continue to hand victory to the Right, and we all suffer.

Tunnockstester · 18/12/2025 22:52

How can Labour announce the ambition to reduce violence against women and girls and at the same time not support the Supreme court ruling?

MrsOvertonsWindow · 18/12/2025 23:03

What's most worrying is that she's the Education Secretary - and is also sitting on the draft guidance about gender questioning children that schools are crying out for.

Presumably she and her toxic crew of transactivist supporters haven't quite worked out how to tell parents that girls will be compelled to undress in front of teenage boys & any male PE teacher who claims to be a woman. That Gendered Intelligence, Stonewall etc will be writing fact and science defying propaganda to ensure that all children understand that sex change is desirable for children below the age of consent, that boundaries for girls are irrelevant and that safeguarding is (as Lord Cashnman states) right wing bigotry.

IwantToRetire · 18/12/2025 23:59

MrsOvertonsWindow · 18/12/2025 23:03

What's most worrying is that she's the Education Secretary - and is also sitting on the draft guidance about gender questioning children that schools are crying out for.

Presumably she and her toxic crew of transactivist supporters haven't quite worked out how to tell parents that girls will be compelled to undress in front of teenage boys & any male PE teacher who claims to be a woman. That Gendered Intelligence, Stonewall etc will be writing fact and science defying propaganda to ensure that all children understand that sex change is desirable for children below the age of consent, that boundaries for girls are irrelevant and that safeguarding is (as Lord Cashnman states) right wing bigotry.

Edited

Not often I would post a link from the Sun!

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/37643976/ministers-break-pledge-schools-trans-pupils/

Dithering ministers will break pledge on trans rules for schools

DITHERING ministers are expected to miss their pledge of publishing trans guidance for schools this year. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has failed to release the advice to teachers in her …

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/37643976/ministers-break-pledge-schools-trans-pupils/

GoldThumb · 19/12/2025 00:42

Tunnockstester · 18/12/2025 22:52

How can Labour announce the ambition to reduce violence against women and girls and at the same time not support the Supreme court ruling?

Because they’re fucking evil

SionnachRuadh · 19/12/2025 01:24

It's not that complicated. Bridget is not a stupid woman. She isn't being led by the nose by woke civil servants and GLD lawyers. She has proven herself to be very comfortable with exercising power.

Bridget wants to be PM. There's a reasonable chance there may be a vacancy after the May elections, and she will be aware that a large number of Labour MPs, perhaps the majority, belong to the anti-reality community. Hence her kicking the can down the road, and possibly planning to have the guidance so riddled with loopholes that it de facto restores Stonewall Law.

See also, Wes Streeting.

It's also quite possible that Bridget and Wes are being leaned on by Starmer, who I don't believe has ever really retreated from his TRA position. This does not contradict them both wanting Starmer's job.

I don't imagine MAS is thrilled about this. She may be more mild-mannered than Baroness Falkner, and she may be more of a natural compromiser, but she is only a couple of weeks into her very prestigious job and is already being made to look a fool by a here today and gone tomorrow minister.

It turns out that, when it's a matter of burnishing your image for an internal Labour audience, Supreme Court rulings can be set aside to avoid the intolerable possibility of making Lord Cashman sad.

teawamutu · 19/12/2025 05:46

SionnachRuadh · 19/12/2025 01:24

It's not that complicated. Bridget is not a stupid woman. She isn't being led by the nose by woke civil servants and GLD lawyers. She has proven herself to be very comfortable with exercising power.

Bridget wants to be PM. There's a reasonable chance there may be a vacancy after the May elections, and she will be aware that a large number of Labour MPs, perhaps the majority, belong to the anti-reality community. Hence her kicking the can down the road, and possibly planning to have the guidance so riddled with loopholes that it de facto restores Stonewall Law.

See also, Wes Streeting.

It's also quite possible that Bridget and Wes are being leaned on by Starmer, who I don't believe has ever really retreated from his TRA position. This does not contradict them both wanting Starmer's job.

I don't imagine MAS is thrilled about this. She may be more mild-mannered than Baroness Falkner, and she may be more of a natural compromiser, but she is only a couple of weeks into her very prestigious job and is already being made to look a fool by a here today and gone tomorrow minister.

It turns out that, when it's a matter of burnishing your image for an internal Labour audience, Supreme Court rulings can be set aside to avoid the intolerable possibility of making Lord Cashman sad.

I hate that this makes so much sense.

SigourneyHoward · 19/12/2025 06:00

SionnachRuadh · 19/12/2025 01:24

It's not that complicated. Bridget is not a stupid woman. She isn't being led by the nose by woke civil servants and GLD lawyers. She has proven herself to be very comfortable with exercising power.

Bridget wants to be PM. There's a reasonable chance there may be a vacancy after the May elections, and she will be aware that a large number of Labour MPs, perhaps the majority, belong to the anti-reality community. Hence her kicking the can down the road, and possibly planning to have the guidance so riddled with loopholes that it de facto restores Stonewall Law.

See also, Wes Streeting.

It's also quite possible that Bridget and Wes are being leaned on by Starmer, who I don't believe has ever really retreated from his TRA position. This does not contradict them both wanting Starmer's job.

I don't imagine MAS is thrilled about this. She may be more mild-mannered than Baroness Falkner, and she may be more of a natural compromiser, but she is only a couple of weeks into her very prestigious job and is already being made to look a fool by a here today and gone tomorrow minister.

It turns out that, when it's a matter of burnishing your image for an internal Labour audience, Supreme Court rulings can be set aside to avoid the intolerable possibility of making Lord Cashman sad.

She may want to be PM but I can’t see how she’d get it. I don’t think the Labour Party voted Lucy Powell in as deputy leader with a view to giving BP the top job. I agree it’s BP playing to an internal party audience but I think it will be in vain for her ambitions. But good to know that Bridge is willing to throw women under the bus for her unachievable wishes…..

LivelyFinch · 19/12/2025 06:11

GoldThumb · 19/12/2025 00:42

Because they’re fucking evil

Yep, absolute women hating scum.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 19/12/2025 06:12

She's not scared of the alphabetties she's one of them, and she's not doing this alone, she's got the support of the government, so none of them can be trusted, they're all two faced lying woman hates, especially Phillipson. 🤬

Kucinghitam · 19/12/2025 06:13

This is part of the TRSOH fightback that we knew was coming. And surely we already knew that Bridget was 100% on TRSOH based on her other actions and policies?

(I'm bloody furious, to be clear, just also so very fed up with this shit).

MrsOvertonsWindow · 19/12/2025 07:29

IwantToRetire · 18/12/2025 23:59

Thank you. The Sun are spot on.
Selling vulnerable children down the river and failing to safeguard them because of adult vested interests in sex change for children.

Repellent the whole lot of them.

Cars4Gov · 19/12/2025 07:41

What makes me so angry and depressed in equal measure is that Labour will hand power to the hard right due to these policies. Why haven't they learnt from the USA electing Trump?

Whilst they might think it only affects a small minority they don't seem to care that the majority of the population of voters see this issue as "fitness to govern" i.e if they support TRA then the MP can't be credible.

ColdOut2025 · 19/12/2025 07:51

Cars4Gov · 19/12/2025 07:41

What makes me so angry and depressed in equal measure is that Labour will hand power to the hard right due to these policies. Why haven't they learnt from the USA electing Trump?

Whilst they might think it only affects a small minority they don't seem to care that the majority of the population of voters see this issue as "fitness to govern" i.e if they support TRA then the MP can't be credible.

I'd go further:fitness to recognise basic reality. Lie to me on this (TWAW is a lie) then you'll lie about anything

Dancingsquirrels · 19/12/2025 07:51

DworkinWasRight · 18/12/2025 21:19

You can’t overrule the Supreme Court - the clue is in the name.

Michael Foran said TRA, having lost in Sipreme Court, are now focusing on trying to nanipulate EHRC guidance, as that's what HR managers are most likely to refer to when making workplace policies

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/12/2025 07:55

EasternStandard · 18/12/2025 22:23

The Supreme Court covered the infant part. What’s going on?

She still hasn't read it, nor have any of her advisors.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 19/12/2025 07:55

Despite the chaos and incompetence of the last government they completely recognised the safeguarding issues for children (what responsible adult doesn't?) and made a good start at untangling the issues for schools. The draft guidelines weren't perfect but they started to untangle the issues about honesty with children, avoiding coercive control by activists in schools and families, safeguarding all children - both those caught up in it and the rest of the school community, while laying down age appropriate guidelines.

It's very telling that Phillipson has no interest in safeguarding children or supporting schools throughout all this. They're just impediments as she climbs the greasy pole.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 19/12/2025 07:56

Cars4Gov · 19/12/2025 07:41

What makes me so angry and depressed in equal measure is that Labour will hand power to the hard right due to these policies. Why haven't they learnt from the USA electing Trump?

Whilst they might think it only affects a small minority they don't seem to care that the majority of the population of voters see this issue as "fitness to govern" i.e if they support TRA then the MP can't be credible.

Exactly. Most people don’t care about “trans rights” particularly and it comes fairly low down their list of priorities either way. However, it’s so unconvincing an ideology to those people that politicians who promote it come across as unreliable, identity politics obsessed and untrustworthy.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 19/12/2025 08:02

Is it just me who finds it slightly terrifying that our government are so comfortable with publicly going against law. If our government can break the law with impunity what example does that set the rest of us.

If the government disagreed with the SC ruling they should act to change the law, not simply ignore it!

I feel a bit Tin Foil Hatty saying this but this seems to be Not A Good Thing at the start of a very slippery slope that leads to Very Bad Things.

GallantKumquat · 19/12/2025 08:03

Kucinghitam · 19/12/2025 06:13

This is part of the TRSOH fightback that we knew was coming. And surely we already knew that Bridget was 100% on TRSOH based on her other actions and policies?

(I'm bloody furious, to be clear, just also so very fed up with this shit).

This, in part, is a legitimacy crisis. If Labour won't follow the law and its own regulations when it doesn't suit them, then what's the purpose of the party that loudly promoted those those laws an regulatory body? Parties have to stand for something, you can only accomplish so much with messaging if you don't.

But it's also a political crisis of epic proportion. New Labour practically invented the modern age of political polling - tactical repositioning and re-framing to capture public sentiment. To poll at 14% isn't just undesirable, it's bewildering -it's like an animal that tracks by scent being caught in a forest fire. Where's the bottom? What does the Labour rump look like? Can Labour resist calls for a general election, especially if Starmer goes? Would ANY Labour MPs actually survive a general election? It makes just as much sense to say: "well, if we can win back half of the polling we lost to the Greens that would at least give us a floor", as it does to try and carve out Labour's center left, major party ruling stance.

Put differently, I'm sympathetic to Labour's plight, many of those in leadership are men and women of ability and principle and their decisions aren't easy, but in times of governing stress, sometimes you have to standard on principle and character - polling be damned. It's the right thing to do. And, usually, with some degree of irony, that stance is also the best thing (or least bad thing) to do from a polling perspective.

Freda69 · 19/12/2025 08:03

Women are 51% of the population. Why is our privacy, safety and dignity ignored all the f*cking time?

AgnesX · 19/12/2025 08:10

For heaven's sake what is she on about. Noone cares about women's small sons. They're worried about the adult ones.

It's odd as she comes across as if she'd toe the SC ruling if left to her own devices so she's obviously playing some kind of politics. Is this what's really going on in Labour?

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/12/2025 08:12

Cars4Gov · 19/12/2025 07:41

What makes me so angry and depressed in equal measure is that Labour will hand power to the hard right due to these policies. Why haven't they learnt from the USA electing Trump?

Whilst they might think it only affects a small minority they don't seem to care that the majority of the population of voters see this issue as "fitness to govern" i.e if they support TRA then the MP can't be credible.

But in the UK the political landscape is more complex. In the U.S there are really only two parties.....both very polarised from each other at present; but here we have a growing multi-party system.

This issue represents a strength for Kemi Badenoch and her Tory party, and Claire Coutinho seems to be doing a good job on this issue too. I suspect it is they, not Reform, who are going to be holding Labour's feet to the fire on this issue. Reform don't really care about women's rights, they are just using this as a club to beat Labour with.

Labour are fearful of losing members and MPs to the Greens, with a few already having departed. Problem is, there are so may TRAS on the Labour party benches.

Cars4Gov · 19/12/2025 08:14

@GallantKumquatbyt but surely polling would tell them how most voters feel about this? The majority of women and most men don't want other men in their daughter's spaces. If you include those who cultural segegrate women, such as Muslims, then it's the majority of voters would be against this policy.

I can't see how they win by this strategy other than beating the Greens.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.