New head of EHRC is "more pragmatic" apparently.

[deadpan]

Mary Ann Stephenson is supposedly more pragmatic than Kishwar Falkner and is considering the effects on trans people and businesses.
Fair enough, but get on with it and stop kicking it down the road.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jan/27/ehrc-guidance-single-sex-spaces-new-chair-mary-ann-stephenson

She can try to be more pragmatic if she likes.

But if that's not legal, then it's tough shit.

Thanks for the link, I'm not clicking because I hate the paper, but if the guidance is being adapted, why hasn't the one that's been given to parliament been withdrawn for a re-write.

As far as I know Phillipson didn't send it back, although that was an option she, didn't do it, she's just been sitting on the one's she's been given.

She will have to pragmatically follow the actual law and not Stonewall law however.

There is no way around it; men are not coming in spaces designated single sex for women. That's the law.

She and Phillipson can pragmatise all they like about any additional spaces they may want to create.

Phillipson's now more or less admitted that she's sitting with her thumb up her behind waiting in case the Fox Botherer's case manages to prove its against the human rights of men with trans identities to not provide them with 24/7 access to non consenting women in a state of undress. To meet their needs. Or something.

She apparently hasn't realised that the activists are incapable of seeing women as human and the human rights route won't work for this, as women have rights too. Equal to those of the men. The most anyone can do is separate parallel facilities; neither group can be sacrificed for the other.

I would take this with a pinch of salt.

This in fact was reported a while ago and was from a Labour source.

It is part of the slur campaign against Baroness Falkner ie she was just a trouble maker.

And it may well be that just out of self presevation MAS is playing it low key. Who wants the type of vitriol not just Labour but all the TRAs flung as Falkner.

So can see why the Guardian is spinning this.

(Of course it may also be that MAS is being a realist and knows from her experience of being cross examined at the WEC that the mean girls aren't going to give way. So long as she holds the line and doesn't let Labour try and take away the existing sex based rights that we have as women.)

I think this makes it clear the TRAs are trying to create the impression that it is all the fault of Lady Falkner, and now that she is gone Labour will get the TRA agenda back on track.

As this pinknews story makes clear!
https://www.thepinknews.com/2026/01/27/ehrc-trans-guidance-changed-under-review/

Where was all this fucking angst when the decision was taken to allow men with special ladyfeelz to barge into women's single sex spaces?
Oh that's right, no one gave a shit.
But tell them, actually er... no - turns out those women have rights after all and suddenly the whole country goes into a tailspin with business owners and public services alike crying "ooooh noooo whatever shall we do? Those poor transladies wherever shall they piss?"

Sickening!

So - if they do manage to make this shitshow stick, is everyone on for kicking off the Campaign For Recognition and Rights for Biologically Female Humans?

Everyone declare themselves agender and focus on the history of oppression and sexual exploitation of our body type. When we get butt hurt TRAs whining about excluding trans women look puzzled and say that being biologically female is nothing to do being a women, so we don't really get their point, and that we don't discriminate based on gender, we are here for all female people whatever their gender.

Just posting to show how the TRAs are spinning this.

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/01/28/ehrc-rewrite/

I wonder if anyone will stand up for Baroness Falkner or whether over time this will be how she is spoken about.

They've successfully made up the law for a decade without being stopped; the SCJ is a bit of a shock. And it's entire belief system based on 'inconvenient facts don't exist'.

The idea that the EHCR even if run by activist central, could not produce guidance that doesn't match the law, and women have rights too, doesn't seem to be able to sink in. There is no way to get around that bit, unless the plan is to remove the law and women's rights in law plus women having human rights too.

And yes, I fully believe this bunch would be all for it, but it's going to take them a few years.

Phillipson's responsible for this because she's not put it before parliament, the loonies are pretty good at making up stuff without encouragement, she's just giving them fuel to make up a whole lot more.

Perhaps it's time the new head of the EHRC made a statement of her own, seen as we're not going to get clarity or leadership for the government on this.

What a shit show this government is. 🤬

The strategy of orgs that support removing women’s sex-based rights has been to seed as much uncertainty in this area as possible to leave everyone unsure as to how to comply with the law. So this latest crop of media reports condemning Falkner for her ‘unreasonable behaviour'’ and celebrating the new EHRC regime for finally being a new broom is just more of the same chaff…

They will run out of road with their objections. There are enough MPs out there who want to see the new guidance brought in and the law upheld that it won’t quietly slip away. It’s very frustrating having to push and push despite the law being crystal clear and clarified.

As if to confirm what we already know, now a charity "leader" also says it is just not fair on trans people. No acknowledgement of women.

https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/debra-allcock-tyler-charities-need-legal-regulatory-support-navigate-hostile-debate-trans-inclusion/governance/article/1945156

This is very worrying

I’m relaxed. A very terfy friend knows her well and was thrilled she got this job. She will be strategic but is not bonkers or deluded.

Thinks this maybe behind paywall.

If so archive link https://archive.is/Wxssu

I'm not massively concerned about this, although I agree it'll be more fighting, campaigning and gardening from us if she digs her heels in.
The fact is that even if she were a full TRA, she'd face a real battle in putting out anti-women's rights guidance.
We have a pretty clear supreme court ruling on our side, and as is clear from the Scottish government's behaviour, we're not going to back down on taking them to court if they're against the law.
Additionally, men in women's private spaces is now massively unpopular with the electorate. Anyone trying to force it on us, is going to struggle to convince groundroots party members to support them.
I'm not going to pretend it'll be easy but the momentum and tide is with us. The days of 'no debate' are long gone and the difference from five years ago is staggering.

LGB Alliance has a response to Alcock Tyler:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uks-biggest-charity-magazine-thinks-its-better-bekind-than-grh9e

Good response from the LGB Alliance.
Worth remembering that these are people who until very recently were never told NO. They've been able to trash their way through women's organisations, women's sport, society in general and every single place that children gather.
Finally the law has been clarified. Now that much of the media are finally doing their job and accurately reporting all the crime, the anti social bullying, the gaslighting of children and the young and all the incoherent, delusional demands made by lobbyists, the public are looking on in horror.

I reckon (hope) MAS is pandering to them. Lots of soothing words, head patting and empathising while reinforcing the boundaries. Just as we all do with stroppy teenagers roaring that "it's not fair!"

Guidance has to meticulously reflect the law, as the buck stops with the actual legislation.

However 'pragmatic' they want to be about it.

However 'pragmatic' they want to be about it.

Exactly that's why going back to the OP this is all about spin by the TRAs, because they know (and that's why they hate her) Lady Falkner's guidelines dealt with the reality.

ie that sex means sex, and women have the right to have their sex respected.

That's why the headlines are always about trans rights.

If only the media etc., had been so concerned about women's rights in the 15 years instead of helping trans ideology undermine them.

That’s encouraging.

Even Pink News acknowledge this:

'Under UK law, changes to a code of practice handed to ministers can only be made if the draft is rejected and amendments are requested.'

So actually, nothing has changed and we are no further forward.

Not to mention that the requested amendments are likely to be ones that would be against the law. That's likely to be one of the main reasons it's thought better to just leave it as stalemate, which at least enables the indefinite breaking of the law and women's rights nicely existing but only on paper where no one important is inconvenienced.