"Defending Women’s Privacy, Dignity, and Safety Across Bassetlaw" Proposed Reform motion at Bassetlaw Council

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

Why do we have to wait for Reform to make this proposal? It's very well written, and hits every beat that I'd want it to. What is there in this statement any right minded person could disagree with?

It's scheduled to be considered at the Bassetlaw District Council’s Extraordinary Meeting on 3 February 2026.

There is a 38 degrees petition to reject it...

“Defending Women’s Privacy, Dignity, and Safety Across Bassetlaw

Bassetlaw District Council notes:

1 That the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the legal authority of single-sex spaces under the Equality Act 2010, recognising sex as a biological fact, not a subjective or fluid concept.

2 That women and girls—because of their biological sex—face unique vulnerabilities, and risks, that necessitate protected female-only spaces.

3 That countless women rely on single-sex provision for their personal safety, privacy, dignity, trauma
recovery, and ability to participate fully in public life
without fear.

4 That services such as domestic abuse refuges, changing rooms, toilets, health services, and intimate-care settings depend on clear safeguarding rooted in biological sex.

Bassetlaw District Council believes:

1 That women and girls have the right to safety, dignity, and privacy based on their sex, a right grounded in both law and lived experience.

2 That recognising biological sex is not discriminatory—it is a safeguarding necessity, especially for survivors of male violence, trauma, or exploitation.

3 That women should never be made to apologise for needing female-only spaces, nor should their legitimate concerns be dismissed as prejudice.

4 That Bassetlaw District Council must show leadership by protecting women’s rights with clarity, compassion, and courage.

Bassetlaw District Council resolves:

1 To fully implement the Supreme Court ruling across all Bassetlaw District Council buildings, services, policies, and commissioned activities, ensuring that female-only spaces are reserved for biological females.

2 To undertake a review of all policies to ensure that any provision involving safety, privacy, or intimate care properly recognises biological sex as the determining factor.

3 To provide clear written guidance for staff, service users, and the public detailing how single-sex spaces will be protected and why they matter for the wellbeing of women and girls.

4 To ensure all staff receive training on the legal definition of sex, the lawful basis for single-sex provision, and the gender-based violence realities faced by women.

6 To reaffirm the Council’s commitment to women’s rights as foundational—not optional—and to the principle that upholding female-only spaces is an act
of protection, not exclusion.

7 That any cost implications be met by the current years under spend.

This Council makes a profound and unequivocal statement:

That women and girls, as a sex class, deserve to feel safe.
That their biology matters.
That their dignity matters.
And that in Bassetlaw, their rights will not be diluted, ignored,
or negotiated away”

Link to document https://bassetlaw.moderngov.co.uk/documents/g1073/Agenda%20frontsheet%2004th-Dec-2025%2018.30%20Council.pdf?T=0

32 degrees petition
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/open-letter-to-the-bassetlaw-district-council-in-defence-of-trans-residents

Should be one in favour of the motion :)

TIM is also sad. https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1qf846l/reformukaretryingtointroducebathroombans/

I also don't support the banning of Grok/TwiX because it's not the only AI that does this, they all do, it's being going on for a few years now. Grok, however, is the only one that's being talked about because it's owned by Musk, who is not afraid to call out Two Tier about how he's removing Free Speech in the UK. Drama Starmer is just using the undressing of women as an excuse to shut down a critic.

I don't care if Reform is behind this proposal, much more of this type of positive action from them and they will definitely get my vote in all elections.

Just like Trump, Reform is the reaction, it's the situation that caused Reform to be come popular that you should be focusing on. This proposal is a good hint to the other parties about where they're going wrong.

Oh dear, these childish student politics are so boring. And i dont understand why as a feminist forum letting other women know about a proposal that is pro women's sex based rights then gets this inane I am here to tell you that Reform is bad as thought the rest of us are idiots.

This is about a proposal by a local council that most of us would support. And if we were residents would probably ask whoever our local councillor is to support the motion.

Many of us live in areas where councils are run by political parties we dont agree with, but that doesn't stop us interacting with them.

You are the one who is falling into the trap. The usual leftie virtual signalling, more important to show we are against the right than supporting women.

If everyone was as politically imature as you we probably wouldn't have the right to abortion, let alone (in theory) equal pay.

Surely the huge benefit of having a forum like FWR is we dont have to go through this male stance on politics.

We have the opportunity to discuss how in a world dominated by men, TRAs and hand maidens, we can work the system or use opportunities to help further women's sex based rights.

Its not only that it is such a trite comment, but it is insulting to the rest of us that contributors to FWR cant distinguish between the issue and the proposer.

I think most of us left the 6th Form some years, if not decades ago.

(And just to add the usual additional point, which is that if the so called left and liberals parties were supporting women, we wouldn't have to take into account what Reform or whoever is doing. )

It's less wolf in sheeps clothing than men in single sex female spaces, which is what every other party except for the Conservatives (more latterly) have been actively enabling.

They've LITERALLY been encouraging wolves in sheeps clothing causing real physical harm. Like the child attacked by Dolatowski.

And more importantly, if Reform can get this staggeringly morally easy position right, why can't the rest of them? (Conservatives aside - Kemi in particular has been very good on thinking women are full humans).

I'm sorry but this is on the other parties - anyone who doesn't agree with the motion is acting like the fucking Taliban and as if women aren't real humans. It's about BASIC rights for women.

Why do they give Reform these easy wins? And HAND OVER votes.

Do you really think that the women on here are in any way uneducated about who Reform are?

If Reform are literally rhe only party willing to put policies in place that MEET THE ACTUAL LAW then what exactly do you expect?

Go have a pop at Labour or the Tories not the women on here for wanting their councils to comply with the actual law.

The troube is I suspect that many of the politicians (particularly Labour) are just as tribally bad.

Can you imagine forwarding this proposed motion to your own council / councillors and their response on seeing it was written by Reform.

ie they will put their party loyalty about supporting women.

Maybe we should be really naughty and send it round saying my friend has sent me this proposal made by her Labour council and she is so impressed she thought I would like to ask you as my Councillor to put this forward at the next full council meeting.

My only comment is that the EA2010 and the FWS judgment are scrupulously symmetrical as to single sex for women, and single sex for men. This, deliberately, isn't.

Explain please.

Single sex services are vastly more advantageous to women than to men, and that the impact of permitting self-selection for sexed areas and services falls vastly heavier on women than men. Its great to see that finally judically acknowleged in the Darlington judgement. Its bad that it needs to be the subject of a council resolution, but it does, and there's nothing wrong with the council resolution saying so.

It's also true that in statutes we maintain what is in effect a legal fiction, that the EA2010 and FWS protects both men and women from discrimination, when in reality and in practice it (mostly) protects women.

I do think there's value in that pretence though, that things are or (should be) equal. It gives judicial imprimatur to the concept that in the sunny uplands of the future utopia in which we all yearn to live where men and women are both equally in need of anti-discrimination legislation and symmetric laws and resolutions will actually make more sense.

So on that basis, I think I would have preferred if resolutions 1, 3 and 6 referred to single-sex spaces rather than women-only spaces.

I should add that I initially thought on reading the resolution - and when I posted my prior post - that there was an element of condescension towards women in the wording of the resolution. That may have been prompted by the discussion of which political party drafted the text. I'm not so sure now, after re-reading it.

Thanks for the explanation, I understand why you would want it to be fairer and more equal but the title of the proposal is “Defending Women’s Privacy, Dignity, and Safety Across Bassetlaw", which is why it might be weighted towards women.
I also think that it's very clear that it's women's spaces that are being invaded wholesale not men's, and where as all things being equal men's single sex spaces should be involved in the discussion, it's not men's rights that currently under assault.
I see the proposal as defending those who are under attack, and it wouldn't surprise me if it hadn't been written by a women.