Bridget Phillipson blocking EHRC guidance - thread 2

[lcakethereforeIam]

Thread 1

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5462015-brigitte-phillipson-blocking-ehrc-guidance

Hope I've spelled her name correctly this time.

Link to the thread with a link to the petition

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/5474328-parliamentary-petition-approve-and-implement-the-ehrc-guidance-on-meaning-of-sex-in-the-equality-act

Currently dying on its arse with just over 1200 signatures. Please sign and share if you can. It's arguably in the interest of TiP to get moving on the guidance. The paralysis that's in effect at the moment is no good for anyone.

If anyone is worried about sharing because of fear of backlash from the people who only identify as kind this could be the line to take.

I think it's more that people know now from bitter experience the very limited effect that such petitions have. The govt have been ignoring women's rights related ones for so long, even the 100k ones only get debated if the govt wants to, and then all we'd get would be the usual suspects making long speeches about the most important thing about women's rights is 'respecting men' as my MP likes to remind me.

Better to throw weight behind the continued court cases, as bad PR and 'negative messaging' is about the only thing anyone in the establishment now cares about.

I don't know what would shift this government. A drubbing in the May elections would help, but when you've got a PM with a 14% approval rating, the chances are that they'll just double down on everything.

And again, the leading ministers in the government are mostly centred in London, to a lesser extent Manchester and Leeds, and their seats are under threat from the Greens who openly deny that biology exists.

We'd need to think about how to create incentives, but I have no idea what incentive is strong enough to induce Starmer/Phillipson/Streeting to do anything that would annoy their colleagues with trans identified children.

The government were convinced that they could handle holding two beliefs at once - sex and gender, but once the SC made their ruling, realised they couldnt. Now they are like bunnies in headlights not knowing what to do.

I dont know how we could even begin to get anything sorted given they say they support it, then everything they do says that they are going to ignore it.

Its true that while labour are threatened on all sides, the ministers are fighting the greens or Muslim Independents, so sex based rights isnt the fight to take. Maybe our hope is that the colleagues with trans relatives lose their seats?

I wish we could have a thread that sticks to the purpose of the thread.

Why not start a thread about political parties?

Not only is it really boring to have the same old she did that, he did that, will political parties every change, blah, blah, blah, blah.

What would be really nice and useful, is if someone sees this thread had been updated they would know when they came to check it would be a post about further moves or obstructions to the Guidelines being published.

Every thread now is the same.

Most of what is posted isn't what we know but just shows which media outlet we listen to or read.

Why not have a thread that is something like Daily Politics News and Reactions.

Labour accused of deliberately delaying publication of new guidance drawn up by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Andrea Williams, Chief Executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “The Government’s continued delay in publishing lawful guidance on single‑sex spaces is now indefensible.

“Every further delay fuels confusion, enables injustice, and exposes nurses to disciplinary action simply for upholding biological reality or acting according to conscience. Guidance must be published without delay so that the NHS and other public institutions can finally operate within the law and protect their staff from further harm.”

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2162233/Labour-trans-woke-biological-sex-NHS

It’s an open forum and discussions on threads evolve and change. There’s no Editor-in-Chief.

A Government spokesperson said: “The EHRC has submitted a draft Code of Practice to Ministers and we are working at pace to review it with the care it deserves.

Bullshit, who do they think now believes a word they say? If this really was them doing something 'at pace' then God help us all. And they don't even bloody need the guidance, they just need to tell the country, particularly the public sector, to follow the bloody law. They're sitting on it because they don't like it.

Like Trump we appear to have an entire political establishment advancing strongly to the rear with drums and trumpets, dementing as they go. And Kemi may be making sensible noises, but she did that before, for years while the Tories were in power while nothing actually happened, and there is no evidence of the Tories putting any real pressure on the government to sort this out. Actions not words.

I think what irritates me most is them stating they have to assess 300 pages - like it’s some Herculean undertaking.

Various EHRC bods have stated that the guidance with changes relating to the Supreme Court ruling is only 11 pages long, the remaining 289 pages guidance is undisputed and not under review.

@SinnerBoy · Today 15:10

Re This you said about Katherine Birbalsingh:

lost a racial discrimination case, brought by a Black girl. She bordered her to shave her hair off, then put her in isolation.

Please would you post a link to this news as I cannot find anything about it. Though I have found there are stories about schools’ unfairly discriminating against African hair and hairstyles, and one about a girl in isolation over her hair, I did not find one linked to Katherine Birbalsingh.

If you had a thread by yourself you'd probably find all the posts talked about what you wanted.

While idly scrolling I came across this

Welcome | Inventories of Living Heritage in the UK https://share.google/hV3a7NZZd3pHfgKii

I was wondering if anyone thought there was any mileage in a bunch of us submitting that in the various components countries of the UK we have a tradition worth preserving of recognising biological men and biological women as distinct sexes with, when necessary, separate spaces for the sexes such as toilets, changing rooms, prisons? Obviously it's not what this was set up for but I'm of the opinion that the more cages we can rattle the better. Or should organisations such as Sex Matters make a submission? Or both? Or neither?

Eta I think it's an interesting and worthwhile thing to do recording and preserving niche traditions and the like. I didn't know the Shetland Isles had their own distinct language.

OK, apologies to K Birbalsingh regarding the racial discrimination case, that was a different school and headmaster. It was not K Birbalsingh.

I may be conflating two different cases, I'm certain I read, in Private Eye, that she told investors that a troublesome girl had left.

I'll carry on looking.

I think there would be no harm. I am enjoying rattling some cages atm.

Answering a question posted in the previous thread, now I have finally caught up:

@nicepotoftea · 20/01/2026 10:55

I thought that BP is delaying because she wants an impact assessment, not because she claims the guidance isn't lawful?

And doesn't she have the option to send the guidance back if she thinks it isn't lawful?

So confusing.

---

The Equality Impact Assessment pretend-issue:

EHRC Statement
Our letter to the Minister for Women and Equalities about government action on our draft code of practice
Published: 15 October 2025

Dear Secretary of State,

Subject: Government action on draft Code of Practice

I am writing to follow up on my letter of 4 September that submitted our draft Code of Practice for services, public functions, and associations (the Code) for your approval for laying before Parliament. Tomorrow (16 October) will mark six months since the judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers was issued, which clarified amongst other things the correct legal interpretation of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010. It will also be six weeks since we submitted the draft Code to you.

Note to self: must stop calling it "Guidance" - it is a "Code of Practice".

As you will be aware, the version of the Code currently published by EHRC (in 2011) is based on an understanding of the meaning of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 which has now been declared by the Supreme Court to be incorrect. The practical implications of this are that our 2011 Code, which remains the published version of the code, now contains some incorrect analysis that is inconsistent with the law in certain high-profile areas of the law. In accordance with the Equality Act 2006, this version of the code remains extant until you make an order to withdraw it and must legally be considered in certain circumstances. In turn, this might create uncertainty on our ability to take compliance or enforcement action for breach of the Equality Act.

Note: so we are also waiting for Phillipson to make an order to withdraw the 2011 Code of Practice. I expect it has been hidden in the bottom of that locked filing cabinet in the basement stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard".

We are aware that some organisations are continuing to refer to and rely upon this outdated version of the Code and anticipate continuing to do so until the revised Code is published. This is in our view unhelpful, including to the EHRC’s objectives. We also note that there are several parts of the Code unrelated to sex and gender law that are inaccurate due to the passage of time and developments in the law.

Note: Ah! So there are other bits of the 2011 Code that were updated in the Draft. I don't recall Phillipson mentioning any of them specifically so I assume that they are not contentious?

As you will appreciate, the longer the period before the new Code can be published, the longer the current unsatisfactory state of affairs will continue, therefore allowing practices inconsistent with the law to persist.

Phillipson: "Am I bovvered?"
Unions for Shitting on Women: "No, not if you know what's good for you!"

As the body responsible for the enforcement of equality law, we recognise our own responsibility to ensure that our updated draft Code reflects the law accurately. We are confident that the draft provided to you now does so. It is consequently our strong preference, having been advised at expert level about its scope and accuracy, that the updated draft Code be brought into force as soon as possible to reflect the law as it has now been clarified by the Supreme Court. This is particularly urgent considering the spread of misinformation and misleading information on the law following the Supreme Court judgment which continues to circulate widely.

Phillipson and Unions for Shitting on Women:

🤭😂🤣😱🤣😭😂👊

We are at your disposal to advise on any aspect of the Code if that would help to speed its progress. I note that the Office for Equality and Opportunity (OEO) requested on 9 October sight of additional information to help inform Ministers’ consideration of the draft Code, including our Equality Impact Assessment. We provided this information to OEO on 13 October. I would consequently welcome a meeting with you on the Government’s next steps ahead of laying the draft Code before Parliament. Our officials have reached out to your office with a request to arrange this.

Phillipson and Civil Service:

🙉🙈🙊🐒🐒🐒🤭👊

In addition, as outlined above, the Equality Act 2006 stipulates that the Secretary of State may revoke a code issued under the Act at the request of the Commission, by order.

Phillipson:

🥱

Given that the published version of the (2011) Code currently contains analysis of the Equality Act 2010 which has been shown to be incorrect by the Supreme Court, the EHRC consequently requests that you revoke the current code as soon as possible now that Parliament has returned, so that courts, tribunals and duty bearers are clear that it is no longer to be relied on. This will also mean that we are no longer in a position of promoting an inaccurate analysis while simultaneously seeking to promote and ensure compliance with the correct understanding of the law. Of course, uncertainty for duty-bearers will be reduced significantly once the new draft Code is laid in Parliament.

Phillipson:

🤷‍♀️

We look forward to hearing from you on the above matters.
Yours sincerely,
Baroness Kishwer Falkner
Chairwoman
Equality and Human Rights Commission

Civil Service:

👹👺

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/our-work/advising-parliament-and-governments/our-letter-minister-women-and-equalities-about

---

And doesn't she have the option to send the guidance back if she thinks it isn't lawful?

I got lazy and asked Grok:

If the Secretary of State considers that a Draft Code of Practice submitted by the EHRC for approval is unlawful, what course of action should be taken?

Grok answered:

The Secretary of State must refuse approval and provide the EHRC with written reasons for not approving the draft (Equality Act 2006, s.14(7)(b)).

If the draft is considered unlawful, that would form part of the reasons.
No further statutory action is specified.

Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/3/section/14

Yes, exactly, they haven’t withdrawn the 2011 one because they want the status quo to continue, at least for now. Lower courts I guess might take that into consideration in tribunals - that the extant 2011 code of practice says men can use female spaces, in the absence of any other (ie the one awaiting sign off), despite conflicting with the SC ruling.

If anyone has been following my efforts to make female changing rooms single sex - you will be interested to know they specifically say they will not make any changes until the EHRC guidance is published (and DFE)

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5461521-single-sex-changing-spaces-in-a-brighton-secondary-school-part-2-the-one-with-the-solicitors-and-the-vexatious-parent?reply=150116455&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

It’s the window in which she must send the guidance back that is key. I do not believe there is a fixed time limit, so it will get forced through the courts again I presume?

Phillipson has no fixed statutory deadline under s.14 Equality Act 2006, but she must decide (approve and lay, or reject with written reasons) within a reasonable time and without undue delay — standard public law requirement.

• 0–3 months: normally fine
• 3–6 months: acceptable if justified (impact checks, etc.)
• Beyond 6 months: increasingly hard to defend without strong, public reasons; risks judicial review for undue delay/prejudice.
At 4.5+ months it’s already stretching the upper limit of reasonable. Further extension without clear justification would likely cross into unlawful territory.
She can’t just sit on it indefinitely.

So unlikely to be able delay until after the may elections?

I'm trying to read through the Guardian's obvious spin and bias to figure out what is going on here:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jan/27/ehrc-guidance-single-sex-spaces-new-chair-mary-ann-stephenson

For example, this bit,

"Any changes will not water down what the government says is a commitment to single-sex spaces, which was the central repercussion of the supreme court ruling. However, the hope is that a more pragmatic approach could limit the impact on trans people, and avoid excessive costs and confusion for businesses in terms of changes to toilets and changing rooms".

The law is the law. How do you maintain that single sex means bio sex, whilst making it more pragmatic for businesses? Does it mean slapping a gender neutral label on toilets? 😕 And TRAs aren't going to be happy unless they have access to opposite sex facilities. That is the only measure that they will argue won't have a negative impact on them.

And the article quotes Rachel Taylor 🙄 The women and equalities committee, given that it is, with a couple of notable exceptions, stuffed full of TRAs, is definitely having a hand in the delay to the code of practice being published.

I think the pragmatism is going to be that unisex spaces dont have to meet the current standards.

For example, if the stalls are floor to ceiling it doesnt matter that the wash basin is in a shared space.

Can we get an FOI on any internal conversations/discussion on Teams, Slack, email, etc on the process for reviewing and issuing the guidance? If there is an impact assessment, how was it designed and who’s involved, etc?

For our dedicated little party supporters, no matter who is in charge we will still need to fight for women’s rights. Don’t expect any white knights to come look after the little ladies.

I also think, that a lot of people don't realise, that despite having 411 seats in Parliament, Labour only had 33.9% of the vote at the 2024 General Election. Add to that the fact, that the turnout was an abysmal 59.7%.