Written statement at 2.30pm today: First Anniversary of the FWS v SM ruling

[Forresty]

Just pointing this out, separate from any threads it may have been mentioned on, so people not involved on those threads can be aware.

Does anyone know where/when it will be published?

Thanks for that. It is currently 89% no 😕

“FWS director Susan Smith told the Press Association they had been “a little nervous” amid concerns about it having been toned down, but – while they were not given specifics of the changes that had been made – they understood this included adding more examples for service providers on how to implement the updated code.

She told PA: “I don’t think the guidance can be watered down in the sense that whatever the EHRC comes up with has to adhere closely to the Supreme Court’s ruling.”

Thinking rationally, there’s been so much stonewall unicorn shite spread everywhere, the guidelines have to really spell out examples for a wide ranges of service providers.

Apart from anything, to really close those loopholes that are allowing males to accessing female spaces.

Single sex spaces are essentially safeguarding guidelines.

Sonia Sodha in The Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/de344ce6-0c24-4be2-97a2-e4e3be9fb8ec?shareToken=2826e01db5c7fe404a99863849860d47&ver=article

I wish someone would ask Philipson, bluntly, why she and the govt are so utterly desperate that women should not be permitted any space without a penis in it.

Wtf is this absolute disdain they all have for women? On a sexed, binary basis, they can't possibly argue that they see these men as anything other than of the much more valued, important sex.

Labour's shameful betrayal of women: Single-sex space ruling is STILL being ignored by hundreds of public bodies... because ministers let them | Daily Mail Online

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/15/how-scotland-landmark-ruling-single-sex-spaces-changed-lives

The guardian getting involved too. I don't think the article is that bad really but the following sentence is quite galling:

"Those who championed the judgment are frustrated at the slow pace of change, while those impacted by it are still trying to make sense of what it really means for their day-to-day lives."

Do they think this ruling doesn't affect women? It impacts us all.

In the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/dc6935c1-f36e-482c-9663-ff1f51ed53c2?shareToken=04df23b202fdaf676065ff701557a77c&ver=article

Also in the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/85a40a53-f3bf-49b6-bd93-bc002dd51eef?shareToken=c49d5790ae2860c77e6a8034bc1b1178&ver=article

As an aside the WI TRA handmaiden Melissa Green is quoted handwringing about how ghastly it is that the WI will be biological women only in future. She boasted that "There are now more than 60 groups taking part in the Sisterhood Initiative, trans-inclusive meetings created outside formal WI membership." Just 60 Sisterhood groups isn't so impressive given that there are about 7,000 WI groups in the UK.

Interesting point that as this issue relates to existing law why is it subject to purdah. I do have to keep reminding myself "this is the law". Like Scottish Labour having it in their manifesto they're essentially saying "if elected, we will enforce the law". Which makes one wonder why they haven't been doing that already. I don't have much time for the Tories on this issue either. They are the ones who oversaw the rollout of this whole debacle and would have introduced self ID if they could!

I think the Guardian article is a good illustration of the progress that has been made in the last year. There is at least an attempt now to present the issues from "the other side". And it was great to see Susan Smith quoted (alongside a lovely photo) talking about rape crisis centres (not toilets!), as well as Fiona Macdonald talking about how much unions have failed women.

And it struck me too that there are only 60 sisterhood groups, whilst the vast majority of them are probably just waiting for all the fuss to die down. And I wonder how long those 60 groups will last? We know many tw don't like being a side act.

I know it's harsh to pick on an individual, even an anonymous one, but this makes no sense, does it? Some days, it's the not making sense that bothers me the most.....

Janey (a pseudonym) still nips into a ..... ladies’ loo. “I just have to get on with my life,” she says. ......She had one unpleasant incident when a service user challenged her. She was worried about her manager’s reaction, who didn’t know she was transgender, but she found her to be supportive.

How can both sentences be true, unless the manager has never met 'Janey'?

'Government by midwittery'

Hear, hear, Sonia Sodha.

And we all know what she actually meant there.

Again women disappeared from the situation.

Because of course no women are still being impacted, daily, by men breaking the law. Women don't seem to exist at all in the 'midwits' of the left.

Gives the lie to no-one can tell clearly someone could tell that 'Janey' was not female.

I'd bet my house plenty of women knew but didn't want to risk their job, reputation or physical safety.

I once went out all day with a mascara smudge on my cheek. Everyone was too polite or shy or reserved or scared to tell me. I still had an obvious mascara smudge on my cheek!

LOL I never understand that I regularly let a woman know her label is hanging out or that she has a smudge (discretely and with a smile). But I’m AuDHD.

I did wonder if it was because nobody likes me...

No, just you need more AuDHD mates. We’d tell you and offer a wet wipe :)

I used the basis of an email from Sex Matters to send to my MP to express my concerns that this keeps getting delayed. Got the standard trite response with the usual words of "marginalised", "vulnerable", "toxic debate" blah blah blah.

I'm sitting on my hands before I send my response as the initial draft was less than polite.

There are some useful statistics in here that refute the “marginalised, vulnerable” nonsense:

thecritic.co.uk/neither-marginalised-abused-nor-vulnerable/

Thank you - do you know if there is there a way to get that without subscribing?

Apologies - I didn’t realise it was one of their older archive articles that you need to subscribe to. Try this:

archive.ph/No4ew

Thank you so much - combined with the wealth of information from other posters on here, I am hoping to put together a balanced response to my worse than useless MP. At the moment it reads:

Oh FFS, really!!!!