Minister blames 'slow' EHRC for trans guidance delay

[IwantToRetire]

Asked why the publication of the guidance had been delayed, Phillipson told the BBC: "I asked the EHRC for information that I needed to inform that decision.

"That unfortunately was slow in being forthcoming."

She added: "I asked for the information you would expect routinely as part of this process, for example an equalities impact assessment, that the EHRC just checks that this doesn't mean a burden on business.

"This doesn't have to be a long and drawn out process. I'm determined to do this properly but I absolutely am committed to making sure that women, whether it's in rape crises centres, women's refuges, or in access to other provisions and accommodations, have got what they need to feel safe."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr4k61dqnzlo

Is this Govt DARVO? Since when does guidance to enforce an existing law need all this stuff?

It’s slow because the law is unequivocal, but they know that will upset a lot of men, so it takes a lot of time to fudge the wording effectively to make it somebody else’s fault.

“Clarification is not to clarify things. It’s to put one’s self in the clear.”

And when she talks of women having what they need to keep safe, which type of women is she referring to?? Why wouldn't she say 'we'?

I cannot understand the prevaricating and procrastinating. What the heck is she waiting for?
Or is she wanting to ensure there are no slippery loop-holes?

Funny how they were able to make everything mixed sex without bothering with impact assessments but now it's vital.

I think the delay is because they're scared of the reaction from certain parties if single sex spaces are explicitly protected.

She had better get it right or the 51% will mutiny!

I watched her on BCC2 Politics Live talking about this today. The Conservative MP accused her of not knowing what a woman was, she was pretty annoyed with him saying he’d never done a thing about women’s rights when in power and neither had Kemi Badanoch.
She said the Law was very clear about knowing what a women was and that they should be given “safe spaces”. She seems pretty genuine to me but we won’t know until that guidance is out.

I will never forget or forgive this woman.

Ah the old “safe spaces” - I want her to say clearly “single sex spaces” which really shouldn’t be too much to ask.

I really hope the EHRC publish their correspondence with her and rat her out. She has been utterly appalling on this issue.

I have sympathy with how long it’s taking. There is going to be a lot of fallout economically and policy-wise, and I only know about toilets! A lot of businesses including schools have ‘inclusive’ toilets and this will have to change. To be fair, if offices and venues had followed building standards, they would be fine. It was designers trying to reinvent toilet designs without understanding H&S legislation and regulations. But even Document T wasn’t retrospective.

Isn’t it just.

Didn't Kemi try to table a Friday morning bill to make sex mean biological sex whilst a back-bencher, which Labour MPs promptly blocked by filibustering?

I think they are doing what it appears the Government in Scotland is trying to do via a legal challenge, which is to say that to implement the application of the ruling that sex means biology is "unfair" (and by implication "discriminatory" as it allows women to say trans women are not the same as biological women.

In effect (and repeating myself from the other thread) they dont want the application of the ruling to mean that society as a whole, let alone the businesses etc., who have to implement be able to say, and implement a provision of services that makes it clear that biological women and trans women are not the same thing.

For years now, Stonewall etc., have been providing guidance that says they are. Many people fell for this lie, and now rather than thinking we were misled, are saying but we were told we are they same, and the court shouldn't make as feel we aren't.

And the current Labour Government thinks this groups of people are more important than women.

That's why Philipson is trying to blame the EHRC. When it seems obvious (IMO) that what they are trying to do get the EHRC to water down when, if at all, TW can be excluded from women's services or provision.

At all cost TW must be given the right to insert themselves into women only provision because it is essential that women submit to male demands. And Labour is prepared to service this demand.

Clip of this

https://x.com/i/status/2008892427890045083

And one from an unknown date

https://x.com/i/status/1805352140275147000

The EHRC website says
The draft code was submitted to the Minister for Women and Equalities for approval on 4 September 2025. The next stage is for a draft code, as approved by her, to be laid before Parliament.
On 15 October 2025, we wrote to the minister to ask for:

• an update on that process
• the revocation of the 2011 version of the code, as it is now out of date in various respects

so it looks like they are waiting for the Minister and the Minister is waiting for them.

It probably won't happen under current management, but I can imagine Baroness Falkner calling the Minister's bluff and saying very publicly -
'Here is all the information you said you were waiting for, so there's no justification for any more delay, Minister'

'"This doesn't have to be a long and drawn out process. I'm determined to do this properly but I absolutely am committed to making sure that women, whether it's in rape crises centres, women's refuges, or in access to other provisions and accommodations, have got what they need to feel safe."
She said "we're making progress" and the watchdog's new chairwoman Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, who took on the role in December, was "going to do a fantastic job".'

That may be positive, actually.

You note she mentions the HSE as well as the EHRC. The HSE has a huge responsibility to keep people safe and healthy. Adding unisex provision for example will mean they have to change all sort of legislation and regulations. It really is complicated and that’s just for toilets. It is huge economically, socially, logistically and all should be underpinned by health and safety. This interview gives me hope they really are trying to do this thoroughly.

Read this this morning and thought of you @Keeptoiletssafe

https://www.thetimes.com/article/c20128eb-d2bc-4359-8132-70820746e1f8?shareToken=be4ea34e547b5e4e2b614137e990e866

The law is the law and has been clarified by the Supreme Court for the hard of understanding. The pending guidance is supplementary and its absence should not be used as justification for noncompliance with the law. Phillipson is awful.

Thank you. Yes women have never had equality with toilets - the fact that there were no women’s toilets was given as an acceptable reason not to employ women (in living memory).

Why does Phillipson keep talking about “ safe” spaces rather than “ single sex” spaces ?

My last post just highlights the complexity of the task. As a country we know more about how many street lamps we have than how many public toilets we have. There are a few toilets researchers out there who have been saying we need to fund study into toilets for decades. It appears to be under no one’s remit and everyone’s remit, such is the necessity.

Because Labour think we're stupid

Because it could be argued that trains, planes and small cafes should have single sex toilets.

edit: as a guess

Because a safe space can exclude all men who are not women, while a single sex space can exclude all men even if they claim to be women.