So it seems likely the EHRC guidance will be issued tomorrow Thursday 21st May …

[RhannionKPSS]

That is if The Human Paperweight that is Philipson can make her mind up. What should we expect?

There are a total of 15 written statements including this one being laid before the house today, and so far only 6 have been published. The others will be in due course over the day. Long ones (which I assume the Equality guidance one will be) presumably take longer to get into a web-publishable form. You can check them here: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements?Page=1&House=Commons&Expanded=True

All this just to say: you know what? you're not going to be allowed into women's spaces anymore a) because it was never lawful, and b) because you.are.men.

If we had a single politician in power with a backbone, it would never have reached this point.

Thanks @SingleSexSpacesInSchools for the likely timing. But uh oh for the process. If it’s taken eight months to lay the EHRC’s guidance, how long might it take for the government to actually do something to make it live? What with leadership challenges, summer recess and much busy and important work to be done in parliament that isn’t this, I can see a long wait ahead. Hope I’m wrong.

To be honest I think it will broadly go back to how it was before in toilets. Men who quietly go about thier business (old money transexuals) will probably be tolerated but at least women now have the right to have any man behaving in a creepy/inappropriate manner removed.
I think in changing rooms it is a big fat NO.
This right is important and quite frankly anyone opposing women's right to say no is a red flag.

It’s just the guidance though, the law around single sex spaces is already in force as clarified by the SC and the GLP case. If TRA sympathetic organisations breach it, it’s not going to look good for them if challenged in court that they ignored the interim guidance they have and the general direction of travel.

@SingleSexSpacesInSchools That's correct in that the 2006 Act says:

(8)Where a draft is laid before Parliament under subsection (7)(a)(ii), if neither House passes a resolution disapproving the draft within 40 days—

(a)the Commission may issue the code in the form of the draft, and

(b)it shall come into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.

So I wondered what "days" means in this context, and it took me to the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. This sets out that 40 days means calendar days, not sitting days, but the clock is paused when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved, or when both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

On the face of it, it looks like the 40 days should be up before summer recess starts on 16 July, but I'm still a bit suspicious of whether they might find some way to run down the clock.

I have nothing but suspicion, and will continue to feel this even after we see the guidance. I want things to go back to how they were before so many people lost their collective minds, but it probably won't happen until most of the first tranche of younger "believers" have their own children, or are hounded out of their jobs for not being quite RSOH as they should be.

Silly goose!

There’s no such thing as an acceptable celebration.

It’s not what we say, it’s the way we say it, dontcha know?

Why is she conflating some people thinking she is a man with allowing transwomen into female SSS....unless she thinks that transwomen look like men?? 🤔

I don't think that is the case, nor was it ever. Even old school transsexuals are generally and very clearly - visibly male. If anything......that previous assumption that they could use women's facilities will now be very firmly rendered inadmissable. Especially that there is now heightened awareness of the issue.

They really are doing a dump and run at the end of the day on this, all the written statements for today, except that one, are already posted here https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/2026-05-21 with a glaring omission at number 14.

Let's hope it is just a case of cynical politicking and nothing else.

7, 9 and 11 are also missing from that list. There are 15 in total today.

I don't post this to mock anyone, but this is madness

How did people come to think anyone wanted them dead, because women want toilets without men in?

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1tjjurb/fucking_freaking_out_over_the_guidance/

It's just awful I feel so sorry for these people, they have been let down so badly

If a collective group of people with fragile mental health truly believe society (and in particular, women) wants them dead, we are all in a very dangerous position.

I wish the government would take this more seriously.

Indeed, although I think the additional oral statements cover at least one of those.

It is a source of continuing frustration that my trust in the very basics has been eroded by the last few bat shit crazy years to the point that I now have any doubts that this will happen as expected. It's exhausting.

Anyway, you seem to have insider (or maybe just much better!) knowledge of the mechanics of how this works, so I wonder if you could point me to the published running order for today. I could swear I have seen it in passing, but of course I just cannot find it now I am actually looking for it. Thank you 🙂

I can't get the logic of they can't use the gents because they can't mix with male people but women should be happy mixing with male people.

A lot of children and teenagers have been very badly let down over the past decade or so especially, and by teachers, governments, charities, and even sometimes their own parents. Most of them seem to be able to cope with their lives only within a very small, rigidly-controlled atmosphere of power and coddling. Now they are being thrust into the Real World with no tools at all. I see this all the time with my family member and her friends. So I have no doubt that some of them actually believe that everyone is out to get them.

Others, however, seem to revel in the fear and hostility activists stir up for them online.

Who knows which is which on social media?

@BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth agree with this.

But also I wish that orgs like Stonewall could be held responsible for their successful efforts to 'get ahead' of the law. They have milked public bodies by selling training and diversity programmes. They have sold lies to a generation.

It's all in the order paper published here: https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/104766/Html?subType=Standard

But written statements don't have a set time slot at which they appear. They don't exist in the order of business as it were: no-one is standing up to announce that a written statement has been delivered to the house. The vast majority of the house's time today will be spent on the second reading of the Steel Nationalisation Bill.

Absolutely. I'm not sure I ever saw an answer to the "can Stonewall be sued" question (I'm sure someone can point me in the right direction), but if it were up to me, everyone who agreed to follow Stonewall's illegal directives (and force all their employees to go along with them) would be personally sued, and everyone still adhering to "Stonewall law" would be fired immediately without severance.

If this were the US, someone would already have sued Stonewall, or set up a class action suit. It's not the same here in the UK, however, because in the main, in the US, you are responsible only for your own costs if you lose, so the risk is lower, if you see what I mean. It has led to a much more litigious society, but it has its benefits as well.

Oh, dear.

This person needs help. Delusions being supported and affirmed is not good for mental health.

WTF?

What has she done with # 14?!

Bridget! Bridge! it's somehow fallen down the back of the banquettes in the HoC! Hey!

Are they off tomorrow or something I don;t know about?

It is the Whitsun recess which always ends on the Thursday before the bank holiday I believe. Probably a left-over from when it took several days to get back to their constituencies