Written statement by Bridget Phillipson mis-represents the EA and the Supreme Court ruling

[IwantToRetire]

This government has always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. The Supreme Court’s ruling last year brought clarity for women and service providers such as hospitals and refuges, and made clear that protections for trans people remain in the Equality Act.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is the independent equality regulator and ensures compliance with the Equality Act 2010. Their Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations covers all nine protected characteristics and the steps service providers should take to comply with the law. We share the EHRC’s commitment to ensuring duty bearers have accurate and up-to-date guidance on the Equality Act 2010 including in the light of the recent Court rulings.

We are grateful to the EHRC for their work on the updated draft Code following engagement and further legal analysis. The EHRC is rightly focussed on ensuring the updated Code is robust, accessible and ensures duty bearers can be confident that it is a clear and accurate explanation of the law.

The government received the updated draft on 13 April. The Code will apply across Great Britain and as we are currently in the pre-election period for the devolved administrations, we are unable to make further announcements on this matter at this time. However, we are taking urgent action to meet our intention of laying the Code in May and as soon as practicable after the election period, for Parliamentary scrutiny.

We are getting it right, showing leadership by implementing the clarity the Supreme Court ruling delivers.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-04-14/hcws1509

The Equality Act protected characteristic of Sex was always about biology - ie it was only the transing of society that allow some to pretend it was about "identity".
i) So the clarity was there, but because the Government had not adhered to the protected characteristic of sex that allowed organisations to think it could mean identity.
ii) So the supreme court ruling wasn't about clarity but a reprimand to everyong including Governments who tried to change it under pressure from Stonewall etc.
iii) This is important as confirming that sex measn biology is not just about "safe spaces" but about women's sex based right in any number of areas eg sport, associations, etc..
iv) It confirmed that "legal sex" given to those with a GRC is NOT the same as biological sex.
v) ie any protection for trans people relates to their obtaining a GRC or on the pathway to obtaining one, so (as even Baroness Falkner has hinted) it makes it clear that the GRC rights do not over ride sex based rights.

It is really important to remember that the Supreme Court did not just asset that sex is biological, put also made clear that any attempt to say the protected characteristic of sex could be impinged on by an other protected characteristic is actually DISCRIMINATIONATORY against the protected characteristic of sex. No other protected characteristic is impinged or infringed on in this way.

The statement is either deliberately NOT asserting what the ruling means, or because they are still hoping that they will not have to implement the Supreme Court ruling in full because of prioritising trans rights above women's sex based rights.

It’s the tone police again. You are right, but say it nicer please. Women must phrase things so nicey-nicey to avoid upsetting the deranged violent men.
There’s no tone police for the TRAs.

Perhaps this new thread could be merged with existing threads on this matter - to keep the discussion in one place and not dilute it unnecessarily?

I can't see where that statement misrepresents the EA or the SC ruling.

The opening sentence does misrepresent reality though. Bridget herself was on Times Radio previously, telling everyone that transwomen with GRCs should use ladies' toilets. Hardly a government that has "always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex"

From the Telegraph:

Archive https://archive.ph/gkz2v

Original article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/25/bridget-phillipson-trans-women-female-toilets-labour-gender/

Women's must deliver their opinions in bubble wrap and their bodies in Kevlar, so unhinged nutty males can be made to 'feel safe and loved'. 🤮

In the lived world, the exemptions should have been the few occassion when someone had a "legal sex" that could be said to be the same as someone with an actual biological sex.

I disagree.

In the lived (real) world, the SSEs are about making it an exception for any service, facility, sport etc to legally discriminate on the basis of sex. The law starts from a presumption that everything should be mixed-sex, unless there are clear reasons why a particular service etc should be single-sex. Those particular reasons need to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

In the real world, there are all sorts of services, facilities, sports, charities etc that can demonstrate how they meet that criteria.

The FWS judgement in 2022 made it clear that males without a GRC couldn't access any that were designated for women. The FWS judgement in 2025 expanded upon this, making it clear that males with GRCs couldn't either.

This times article is from earlier in the year where BP made it clear that

Employers do not need to wait for long-delayed guidance on single-sex spaces before implementing the Supreme Court ruling on biological sex, Bridget Phillipson has said.

Don’t wait for more clarity on single-sex spaces, bosses told

https://www.thetimes.com/article/9b847af7-4cc5-4056-9c0e-ec9022767111?shareToken=4d39923e58c9623141d82f2d661828fa

The FWS judgement in 2022 made it clear that males without a GRC couldn't access any that were designated for women. The FWS judgement in 2025 expanded upon this, making it clear that males with GRCs couldn't either.

That was always that case, and why there were the SSE. Even Lady Haldane said that in her judgement.

The problem was that some people under the influence of Stonewall etc., kept trying to say this was the legal situation. ie denying that the GRA only gave people a "legal sex" which is not the same as biological sex.

Anyway most of these type of discussions are pointless because even if we didn't know before it is now clear that even if a Supreme Court ruling says sex is biology, and apply guidelines on that basis politicians are finding ways round it.

I find the written statement totally duplicitous.

I think this is the start of them (Labour) saying it is all too difficult, we will just change the EA to what we always wanted, that women have to accept that TW have the same status as them.

Even though the Supreme Court made clear that one of the reasons for their ruling is that no other protected characteristic is discriminated against in the way. The the protected characteristic of sex has to allow itself to be undermined by the GRA.

If I am right, what a sad state of affairs for the credibility of the EHRC, with a declaired feminist as its Chair, and a slap in the face to Baroness Falcner.

Though given the behaviour of the WEC it wouldn't suprise me that part of the motivation for doing this is so the mean girls can further stomp all over other women.

So if a bloke dressed in normal male attire gets his cock out in women's spaces, that's indecent exposure, but if he does it whilst wearing a skirt, that's all OK? Is that right, Bridget?

Thoughts are not facts.

If it looks like Labour or any other opposition party who might get in are going to do this, we now have enough organisations and lawyers and scientific evidence to fight it.

Realistically, the parties who will do this are the greens and Lib Dem’s.

The way the greens are growing, and how hypnotits is gathering members and supporters, and who those people are, should be of more a concern right now. In some respects they’re hoovering up the Labour Tras which is helpful, but they’re also gaining a great deal of support from really varied backgrounds and communities.

Thanks for recycling this article. From all the flip-flopping, I suspect that Labour don't actually give a shit about either women or trans-identified people and will just do or say whatever they think is necessary to win them votes at any moment in time. It makes all the VAWG declarations seem completely performative; crumbs from the table to provide a CV for some opportunistic female MPs and to keep the wims quiet.

I think many women are definitely primed and ready for round two, if needed!

I am under no illusion that there will have to be further legal action moving forward.

The rot is too deeply embedded.

Is it not round 3? There was the original FWS case, then the appeal last April. If we have to, women will go again. I'd rather not say, 'Bring it on!' as I'd rather it was resolved, but they're really going up against the wrong women if they think incorrect guidance will be allowed to stand without challenge.

Yes round three I guess.

Agree it’s getting ridiculous and we really don’t want to have to go again; the bonus is now I feel so many of us are more up to speed with how to go about bringing court action etc.

Yep, and the clocks continue to strike 13

I'm new to this so I could very easily be wrong, but I'm wondering whether the sudden rash of 'Mumsnet are mean stinky poo pants' type threads means that certain people want us to shut up and go away. If so, then I wonder why they're so desperate to be women because we can be an awkward bunch. Remember Tony Blair and the old style WI?

They seem to come in waves linked to victories, and speaking of which the transgender endometriotis spokeswoman has now resigned.

Spokesman.

True, thanks. I need to extend my vocabulary. If anyone who's easily shocked would like to close their eyes then I'll suggest

spokestwat.