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.

Is this the interview?

https://x.com/i/status/2006752300833067388

I think it’s that they haven’t thought about the issue too deeply. They lead hugely busy lives and haven’t thought it through.

There’s a politician that I know would absolutely understand if he thought it through. He saved his child from choking to death and is obviously very pro preventing choking deaths. Do you know what people do when they are in a restaurant and start choking? They rush to the loo. That one of the reasons people die in restaurant loos (it’s usually steak).

If he understood that ‘inclusive’ / ‘gender-neutral designs are all floor-ceiling walls and doors he may decide to start saying single sex toilet designs are better. But what is more nuanced is when it is ambiguous who is outside the single sex toilet cubicle, even those go floor-ceiling. But that’s exactly what’s happening when you say it’s a free for all. And he is very for toilets not being single sex which is for taking away the very design feature that could save someone’s life.

He was on the radio once and I so wanted to phone in and talk it through but I didn’t think it was fair. It’s very frustrating when I know he and I have something in common. The difference is the young woman I saved was a complete stranger and I saw that she had choked and stopped breathing only because she was in a single sex toilet design.

Angela Rayner is on the left wing of the Labour Party, with (to be cruelly dashed) ambitions to lead. She has no choice but to be full on TWAW and No Debate. It's core to her brand image and political survival.

Can you imagine the TRA rage if she were to say the Supreme Court ruling is clear and transwomen must not use women's spaces? They would target & destroy her reputation online, and break windows & spray paint/piss over her constituency office. Her family would not feel safe at home.

It's very, very difficult to change someone's mind if their career/wealth/reputation/safety requires them to believe the lies and close their mind to the truth.

Maybe she's the living embodiment of someone who was truly Working Class to start, but is now decidedly Lanyard Class.

Well, she's seamless with her messaging on TWAW, but maybe that's the only "skil" politicians have, to lie and forge careers on drawing groups (first, other politicians, then, voters) to them.
The Labour clan demands fealty to trans.
We'll find the same with Milliband, Burnham, and even Streeting, who looked like he was circling to at least a GC-adjacent position, is shown to be absolutely compromised re the PB trial.
Only Mahmood of the potential next Labour leaders choice is in any way genuinely GC. And like the Muslim Independent Group of MPs who are victim to the schism with YP on the subject of gender, Mahmood's religion is telling here

There aren't that many key labour MPs who were in parliament before the Equality Act, let alone the GRA. They've not had to debate why trans identifying should be treated as if they are female. To them its an established, successful Act.

So i can see why they seem 'stuck' over what to do about the very clear SC judgment. How can they exclude men from womens spaces when the GRA makes a man into a woman?

Rosie Duffield could help them. Mahmood, even.

Did she complain about the original headline because this ^ was her actual message?

Think the message of that interview is pretty clear: the guidance will be laid.

She is clear that most people understand and agree with the need for single sex provision [she mentions prisons, sport, hostels, refuges]...

She adds unsurprisingly [as she is the minister for equalities] that trans people also deserve respect etc etc

IMO the telegraph & times are [possibly deliberately] missing the core message

Trans people get no more or less respect from me than any other group.
But also, respect has to be earnt.
Gone are the days that we automatically respect older people, more educated people, those of a certain breeding.
Deference to groups is gone.
Trans ideology has tried to re-impose deference as a pre-condition of how the rest of us have to swallow our instincts, what we know is true...and false.
We're meritocratic today.
I'll respect any trans person if
...they don't insist I subscribe to their belief system
...they (TIMs) don't occupy the spaces their biology makes them inappropriate to be in
...they don't support the irreversible medicalisation of youth
None of this reduces one iota the value of any trans, no rights are curtailed by any of this.
Let's see if Phillipson also comes to this conclusion, that reverting to natural justice as we had up until about 15 years ago, is the default for society at large, trans rights unaffected (although their demands will be rejected), women's rights fully re-established and cemented.

The Times have picked this up and predictably all the comments are pointing out the DARVO in what she said. That it's trans activists who are doing the punching with women the victims.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/trans-people-political-punchbag-phillipson-djpqvtjxz

Archive link: https://archive.ph/1Spmg

But shes ignoring that the issue is about day to day single sex spaces like changing rooms and toilets.

Of course most people inderstand that prisons should be single sex. Most people were surprised when it was a possibility that isla bryson could be placed in the womens estate. Same with hospital wards and sports.

But she is manufacturing problems around toilets and changing rooms. The spaces women use more often, need on a day to day basis and where girls can be alone, seems to be the area where single sex is tricky?

So women get single sex services in areas that are important but are rarely used by the average women, and are in danger of losing the ones they use daily.

And men lose the ones that they rarely use and gain the ones they want to use on a day to day basis.

It could be argued that Bridget Phillipson, with her experience of women’s refuges, would realise that the EHRC’s solution of getting businesses to (at great cost and retrospectively so a variety of locations) add a new mixed sex, sound resistant, private toilet, is not always the best solution.

Why were Sandie and the other nurses not using the women’s changing room in the basement? I think it is safer for a young woman to use the women’s rather than have to go to a basement because they feel they have to because that’s where the new gender neutral toilet is.

Edit: I say young because it’s young women’s dilemmas and views I know most about from research.

Well, it's unequivocal, isn't it?

Rosie Walker, head of litigation at Gilson Gray solicitors, said: “All schools in Scotland will now have to look again at whether their toilets comply with the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967, which require half of school toilet facilities to be for boys and half for girls.

You could not in your wildest dreams have predicted just a decade ago, that schools would have effectively unisex toilets, changing rooms, showers a decade later.
That schools, quite rightly highlighting safeguarding and privacy issues, especially for girls, would then both turn a blind eye to this, and shame any parent objecting to it.
Orwell's "1984" misused as an anti-discrimination guide.

Tom Harris in the Telegraph

https://archive.ph/xXSky

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/03/we-wont-forgive-labours-continuing-embrace-of-trans-dogma/

I appreciate that the Telegraph keeps publishing these articles, keeps holding Labour's feet to the fire. It's a bit groundhog's day though. I suspect the newspaper would also like to speak to the politicians involved, Phillipson, Streeting, Starmer. I've not seen any interviews or articles that have them answering questions or making statements elicited by the journalists writing these pieces. Why the silence Labour?

It's so bad that even her "defence" that she used to run DV/rape shelters for women makes her look even worse than if she was a Boris Johnson type prevaricating thru lack of interest or experience.
If as she says it's wrong for women to come across men in a refuge, then it also is in a prison, and sport, and toilets, and showers, and changing rooms, and lesbian speed dating, and social spaces where women reasonably have always chosen to exclude men.
An ex-manager of a refuge not getting this is a huge fail .

Additionally, Phillipson believes TWAW, as does Starmer etc etc.
So, what does she believe re her professed opinion that men need to be separated from women in refuges, which will include TIMs?
What, that they actually are men, and women who've been raped or subject to DV deserve to be separated from them (hoorah!), no TIMs in refuges?
She might stretch this to prisons and sports, because, y'know, men, male violence, male advantage.
So, what, TWAW suddenly aren't women in these categories?
But move into other situations, suddenly we're back to TWAW, objections to TIMs in the broader swathe of social spaces incl gyms, schools, hospitals, dating/social etc are "using trans as punch bags", suddenly women don't merit protection from TIMs?

Also there are plenty of women and girls who have ( male originating trauma) to justify single sex services for girls and women. What exactly is the argument for prioritising men over us.

Great post.
I would love a journalist to put these points to her in this straightforward language. There is nowhere to hide. What are her answers?

The days of the fragrant simpering men who just want to be in changing rooms while women and girls undress are over.

We're not in a Pedro Almodóvar movie any more.

Did I get this wrong? Didn't film critic Mark Kermode always tearfully inform me how much the lauded Pedro A just adored women?

I always liked his films, and I don't think he's a bad person, but I do look back on them a bit differently now.

I'm not sure I've reached the point where I would openly defend that old sexist git Russ Meyer, but I definitely see Beyond the Valley of the Dolls differently now from say 10 years ago.

We need to adopt the tactics like Press for Change which has led to all this capture - maybe we should welcome the start of this walking back by Philipson? Say yes to these partial measures and then press on for the TW removal from other spaces via court cases and tribunals. For reasons I don’t understand Labour are struggling to make a fast change so we will have to go with a step by step to painfully get to the end. Like Nick Wallis says - it will take a generation