Ed Davey says the EHRC code has failed in its objective and calls for post legislative scrutiny of the GRA & EA. Presumably to legally allow blokes in the ladies.

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

https://x.com/LibDems/status/2060771889295900821/photo/1

I don't think any government will want scrutiny of the GRA in the days of the Internet.

Lib Dems have zero influence. I should know - i have a lib dem mp. Hopefully the gov will ignore this. But I will write to my mp (who I think is secretly supportive).

I still think the chances of the code being rejected are low but there are some MPs trying....

Always about any other group than women! What is wrong with these people? Don't they care? (no need to answer that)

Non-binary has no status in any UK law because it doesn't exist other than as a self-described label like goth or emo..

He's really gone for the full bingo card there hasn't he - 'intersex', butch women having to prove they are women, trans people deprived of 'essential services' [no they're not, they just choose not to use them], rights/tolerance/protection for everybody except women..

Sorry, that last bit is unfair: like many trans allies, he bravely stands up for one group of women - the butch ones who allegedly get hounded out of the ladies'.. all other women are of no importance to Ed Davey & Co.

How people can still churn out inaccurate, cliché-laden, biased stuff like this amazes me.
Wouldn't you love to have him sitting across a table from you, so you could go through it with him, line by line, ending with 'I'm very disappointed, Ed, I expected better of you..'

The worrying thing is, of course, that there are a lot of similar mindsets in positions of authority.

We are committed to upholding women's rights and trans rights, and do not believe the two are in conflict.

Bizarre thing to say. He obviously does believe that they are in conflict or he wouldn't be writing the letter.
I have to say that putting men's desires ahead of women's needs is one thing, but this attempt to use gnc women as a weapon to help to dismantle women's rights is absolutely despicable. I thought the whole 'patriarchy' thing was a bit overdone before gender ideology came along, but it seems it was even worse than most of us ever imagined.
Shame on you Ed Davey, and shame on the Lib Dems.

He makes himself look like an idiot.

It's one thing new MPs not understanding the difference between the guidance and the law, but it's quite another when it's the leader of a political party.

If he wants to campaign to change the law he needs to do that through the proper processes. His letter just gives the misleading impression that the law doesn't apply.

I'm not a UK subject, so it's not my business, but I'd love to print out his letter, annotate it carefully and post it back to him:

'intersex' is not acceptable

'non-binary' is not a legal category

have you any evidence that gender non-conforming women have been having the issues you claim?

no trans person is 'barred from' essential services such as toilets - they choose not to use the available toilets designated for their sex.

women's rights to single-sex spaces are clearly in conflict with transwomen's demands to use women's toilets, which would make them mixed-sex spaces

does your British tradition of respecting the law exclude rulings of the UK Supreme Court?

the issues raised today were in fact raised during discussion of the Gender Recognition Bill in 2004, and several MPs made exactly the points that are made today: that sex is binary and it is impossible to change sex, making legislation based on 'gender' a nonsense.

and so on.

The Lords debate on the GRB is available at
Gender Recognition Bill [HL]: 29 Jan 2004: House of Lords debates - TheyWorkForYou
showing that there's nothing new about the kind of objections that GC women are making today.

Ed Davey became an MP in 1997, acc to google, so he was in the Commons when the GRB was being debated, and would have been aware of the strong objections coming from the Lords.

I agree. I didn't have much respect for Ed Davey to begin with, but I have none now.

Marie Goldman is totally bonkers on this issue, but why is the leader of the party signing his name to this nonsense?

The likes of Davy are convinced that right thinking/ decent women have no issues sharing female only provision with transwomen and therefore they should be included.

They hold an enemy image in their heads of women who object and view all objection as unreasonable as a result.

A quote from the 2004 Lords debate on the GRB, Baroness O'Cathain speaking, following Lord Tebbit
He [Tebbit] has the advantage of having truth and logic on his side because the basic proposition of the Bill is mistaken. A man cannot become a woman. A woman cannot become a man. He also has the advantage of being able to point to considerable disagreement among the medical profession world-wide. I have made the point before that we normally legislate only when we are sure about the science and when we can be sure that what we are doing is the best thing for the people affected. Psychiatrists and psychologists are far from being of one mind that attempting to change sex is the best solution.

" the basic proposition of the Bill is mistaken. A man cannot become a woman. A woman cannot become a man."
As clear today as it was 22 years ago.

Ed Davey, Mr. Gullible at the Post Office and still swallowing bullshit.
He should stick to going down helter skelters on his coconut mat, or whatever wacky I'm mad me, look at me, things he does.

If the SC judged that a man with a GRC could use the woman's spaces, how does Ed think that would be implemented? Men with GRC would be challenged to ensure he has a GRC, and according to his logic, some women would too.

He does realise self id doesn't exist here? And Mays proposal wasn't that men could decide there and then they were trans, the proposal was they could apply for a GRC without a diagnosis.

What he want are single sex spaces where anyone can go regardless of sex.

Does he really think he has the skills to argue that law into existence?

Yes it seems to be a TRA campaigning thing at the moment to say that the EHRC are talking at odds to the Equality Act. Honestly how don’t they hear how nuts they sound at this point

But he's fine with women having none of the things he describes as so important for men with gender identities?

Seriously?

The guidance is a balance between the rights of ALL, including apparently the worthless vagina owners littering the place up. They pay taxes too.

My sheer disgust at this open, proud misogyny just keeps growing. It's like women and their needs are just invisible to these wretched people.

Edited to add: It's apparent from this that he believed the 'objective' of the code was to destroy women and homosexual rights. And we are surrounded by these muppets wailing, who were absolutely fine for years with all of these things happening to women. With no one requiring that additional provision was built for them. They were treated much as these poor girls have been treated in court as their rapists are released with so much concern for their male futures and wellbeing and no thought for their victims. Women are worthless in these people's eyes.

Rather like Burnham's throwaway comment that the only women who could mind were the 'broken' ones who had been assaulted, and apparently were worthless in the eyes of society. Presumably as no longer useful or available to men.

It was one of the most disgustingly ignorant, cruel and prejudiced things I've heard yet.

Do fuck off Ed, there’s a love.

Helen belcher continues to exert his ludicrous level of influence in the Lib Dem's then

I hope this makes the national press. Loudly. In full.

Rather like I suspect no one currently performatively caring would have given a fuck about those girls without the loud negative publicity, these ugly things need as much sunlight on them as possible. The one thing these rotten establishment figures seem to care about is looking bad in the papers.

Fucks sake Ed, I'm a GNC woman who is not 'feminine' in any way and EVEN if every time I went to the loo I was challenged and it took me opening my mouth and a female voice coming out and /or someone looking again and seeing the female gait and female hip to shoulder ratio, my shorter height and smaller hands etc for them to realise I'm female then I'd STILL be in favour of single sex spaces.

Because, in the grand scheme of life, a few awkward and quickly resolved but ultimately safe interactions is better than flashing, voyeurism, sexual assault and rape in what are supposed to be women only spaces. Unfeminine GNC women care about other women, Ed. I realise this is an alien concept 'caring' about people, from the sounds of it. But please TRY and understand (I know it's difficult, please just try).

Me facing slightly awkward moments would be better than some Muslim women (and other faiths) having to completely exclude from public life as their religion prohibits mixed sex private spaces, and they can no longer trust that something labelled 'women only' is in fact so.

It would be better than female survivors of rape and coercive control and domestic abuse not being able to leave the house, Ed, as they're left with literally zero sufficient private space provision which is single sex.

Because not everyone is a totally fucking selfish wanker like you clearly are Ed.

Have you ever been threatened by someone with 160% the punch power of you Ed? Have you? On average any male that has gone through puberty has 160% the punch power of women. Any women, whatever they wear.

How I wish it were possible for you to have to go to the toilet with a load of men who looked like the Rock (i.e. probably not quite the same differential in punch power, but a significant amount) of whom a certain proportion, and you couldn't know which ones, were likely to commit a crime against you and for whom the very act of entering that space with you was a massive red flag.

Fucks sake Ed, do you literally have nothing better to do than shit on women? Including the GNC ones.

Yours a GNC woman.

Edited to add: I'm also a mother, despite not being feminine (pause because your mind is probably literally blown right now, Ed) and I'd put up with even quite aggressive interactions from other women (who note do not have 160% my punch power) for the sake of the safety, privacy and dignity of my daughters. Again, I know altruism and empathy clearly not your thing Ed. But I'm pretty sure my daughters are less safe than I was at their age, partly because of men like you Ed.

Please try and understand. Men, however they feel and whatever they wear have 160% the punch power of women. Some men who want into the women's have bad motivations. Look up 'Katie' Dolatowski. You're on his side, Ed, right now. Not a good look.

Marie, I find this statement bizarre;

Psychiatrists and psychologists are far from being of one mind that attempting to change sex is the best solution.

Not only can humans not change sex, we cannot even attempt to change sex, because changing sex is impossible!

So while she was making sense in the first part of her statement, the latter sentence, as part of the argument, is nonsensical. I just wonder where these slips of the tongue come from. I'm sure that's not what she meant, but it's a very strange thing to say.

I am sick to death of handwringing do-gooders bleating on about how women's rights and trans rights can supposedly co-exist in blissful harmony, but never actually giving details of how this could happen in reality.

"to ensure existing rights are protected"

FFS they're not rights if they are based on a misreading of the law.

going back to article-of-the-week

https://labourheartlands.com/trans-rights-the-conjuring-trick-at-the-toilet-door/

"But rights are not the same thing as demands. And the demand that half the population, fifty-one per cent of the people in this country, surrender sex-based protections won through generations of organised political struggle, is not a rights claim. It is a power claim. It is the assertion that the rights of one in two hundred must take legal and moral precedence over the rights of one in two, and that any woman who objects is not exercising her own right but committing a prejudice."