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 know I do this too much but, TIM Reddit has said, after reading this letter, Ed is a twat. https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1ts6z47/ed_davey_calls_ehrc_guidance_not_fit_for_purpose/ so it's not like Ed is winning votes with Trans people, maybe it's really just to win votes with the "Be Kind" brigade, performative only and not actually the people in question.

Well, Ed certainly likes to perform. Of course, he didn't actually write the letter. He got some Omnicause minions to write it, thought oh, that looks like the right thing to say today, and signed it. Probably at the behest of his spin meister.

Exactly. Not a single one of these so called 'liberals' from any party have ever had even a half-decent stab at it. They just bleat about inclusion and persecuted minorities and case-by-case and protecting everyone.

I think she was referring to what was called 'sex change' at the time, 'gender reassignment surgery' these days, and that's what she meant by 'attempting to change sex' .
People did, and still do, attempt to change sex, although you, me, the late Baroness O'Cathain, and most other people know it's impossible
She was so crystal-clear elsewhere in her speech, I'm guessing her listeners understood it that way too.

Yup- peas in a pod.

They sustain this position by refusing to engage with women who disagree - on the basis that their unreasonableness towards trans people proves their unreasonableness. It’s circular logic.

They are invested in the position they take and don’t want to change it - so there is nothing in it for them to behave any differently

about:blank Liberal Voice for Women

The LibDems think women's rights are not compatible with 'longstanding British values.' Voices of women who have been self-excluding, including those from religious minorities and with sexual trauma have been ignored for years. Apparently it's the elite 0.5% who matter more...

Joanna Hall

Do you have any sway or influence in the party? I’m not being snarky; genuine question.

Liberal Voice for Women
2h
When we sue they eventually listen. Otherwise they prefer to listen to the men. Especially the men who say they are women.

It will be interesting to see if Ed’s views on this start making the news. I think a lot of people vote Lib Dem as a protest, without realising how nonsensical and dangerous some of their positions are (as some people did Green, until Polanski’s success meant he came under a lot more scrutiny). Sunlight is always the best way forward – and boy does Ed the clown need some time in the spotlight.

So Ed Yes I am Still Here Though You Probably Couldn’t Identify Me In A Line Up Davey has heard from many people. To be more accurate he has had some letters detailing the frothing at the mouth fury of a very teeny tiny proportion of the population - and it is likely that only a teeny tiny percentage of that teeny tiny proportion of the population actually wrote to him - in the mistaken belief that they are losing legal rights . Which of course they aren’t.

The people you should be thinking about Ed is the 51% of the population whose legal and actual rights to privacy and dignity the guidance at last confirms. It’s only taken 22 years, lucky we are a patient lot isn’t it?

I agree, she was probably not referring to actually changing sex, I think it's clear she knew it wasn't possible to actually change sex, but was referring just to the expression sex change. She's saying that the even the shrinks couldn't agree that a sex change, as it was understood then, wasn't the best way to treat men who were having difficulty with accepting who they were. They still don't, most think 'trans' ,as it is now, is a maladaptive coping mechanism, but they're being ignored, just like the Baroness, and others, were all those years ago.

Oh for the path not trod, if only, if only. 🥹

I wonder how much of this was written by him? I assume he has been fed the points about masculine women being chucked out of toilets, but the misunderstanding of statute and parliamentary process is embarrassing . He has been an MP for almost 30 years.

If I were Badenoch I would make a bit of hay out of this.

Even if people did think it was possible to change sex in 2004, that is a very different proposition to what Davey (or whoever wrote the letter) is discussing in 2026 with his mention of non-binary people.

Of course, if he has the courage of his convictions he should just explain how he thinks the code should be changed.

It's very similar to a number of letters sent from backbenchers to BP when she first received the draft guidance, asking for a parliamentary debate. Instigated by TransActual or similar.

The suggestion of shelving the draft, and setting up a cross-party committee to consider changing the law, is new. I suspect the objective of whoever is ultimately behind it is still to stall implementation of FWS, not to have a truly transparent debate.

Davey is all over the place. He welcomed the Supreme Court judgement. Yet now is upset that guidance based on the existing law says what the judgement did.

This plan for another committee is nonsense.

Note there is no mention of actually voting against the guidance. Which MPs/Lords may get a chance to do if they do something where it matters in Parliament. Parliament resumes sitting tomorrow Monday, 1 June 2026.

Lets see IF they do something in the 39 days they have..

I suspect the objective of whoever is ultimately behind it is still to stall implementation of FWS

It's not as though they haven't had enough time to suggest something different, if there is a way to do so and comply with the law.

Instead they suggest committees.

It's smoke and mirrors. I'll be astonished if they get the guidance debated or voted down, or get the law changed, or win the GLP case on appeal (declaration of incompatibility). All they can do is make it look as if those things might happen, to encourage fellow travellers to keep breaking the law. Its going to be a colossal waste of court time all round.

The government mainly decides if there is a debate if someone actually tries to block the guidance. If the opposition pushes for one it might happen. Obviously the Tories are not going to do that though, but the Lib Dems have a possible opening. This is the process:

Fatal prayer motions
A fatal prayer is a motion seeking to overturn a negative instrument. It will commonly include the wording, ‘That a humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that [the instrument] be annulled’. Fatal prayers tabled against a draft negative are often phrased, ‘That the draft instrument be not made’.

A fatal prayer must be tabled within a 40-day objection period, which begins on the day the instrument is laid before Parliament. The objection period is known as praying time. For the prayer to successfully annul an instrument, it must also be agreed by the House within the 40-day period. A fatal prayer has not been successful in the Commons since 1979.

Fatal prayers are not often debated. While the government will typically find time to debate a prayer if it has been signed by a member of the opposition frontbench, it is not obliged to. And on occasions that it does, the instrument may be referred to a delegated legislation committee for consideration, rather than the motion being formally moved in the Commons Chamber. Prayers can also be considered on Opposition Days.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02569/

So what you are most likely to get is an Fatal Prayer - (Early Day motion) against the guidance which MPs can sign to support but has no effect.

However the Lib Dems get three opposition days this session as the third largest party. If one of them falls within the next 40 days they could use one to hear a Prayer against the guidance which could result in a debate and vote.

Will they actual do it? Even if they did the government would win. Having a debate would mean the Lib Dems would face awkward questions about their actual plan and thinking here.

I suspect this maybe just paper opposition they won't follow through. We shall see though.

Committees.... no one not a TRA would be allowed on them, and it would be one long whinging circle jerk going on and on about how these men have needs and silly women don't matter, while going nowhere.

There is no way to square this circle. You cannot make these men happy without destroying the rights and equalities of half the population.

There is, obviously, half the population who are actual women, and they are a different group and population to the men who identify as women.
The group of born women have needs that cannot be met for the population as a whole in mixed sex spaces, their diversity and protected characteristics are equal to those of gender reassignment.
The point of providing single sex spaces for the population as a whole, is to be inclusive of and accessible to the population as a whole. Many women do not find mixed sex spaces accessible and can't use them, this is not ok under equality law.
Not everyone believes in gender ideology and you can't make them: this is also not ok under equality law.
No man at all, ever, has had the right or a 'need' for access to a non consenting woman in a state of undress. This isn't actually a thing.

These are facts.

This boils down to it being terribly inconvenient that women have rights too and some men not wanting them to. Which frankly is tough. The ECtHR would have to give equal consideration to the rights and equalities of women, not just this group of men in isolation. The law of the UK has to give equal consideration to the rights and equalities of women as they do to this group of men.

If you want to end the rights of women so that men can use them without being inconvenienced, and we just exclude from public life and society all women who are 'broken' to use Mr Burnham's interesting view, and no longer of use through not being useful to men - then you're not on the right side of history, you want to live in The Handmaid's Tale. And this is where we start to see why this movement attracts a lot of men who have a lot of problems.

I was replying to someone who was pointing out something from the past, not Ediot Davey's spew of today.

Really interesting. I guess we will see.

Yes, but the point I'm making is that legislation was passed in 2004 because many assumed that it was, to an extent, possible to change sex with sufficient medical treatment and that legislation was required to protect the right to privacy.

By including anyone who just identifies as a bit more feminine on a Saturday night, Davey completely undermines that reasoning.

I think he just wants to delay implementation with endless committees, but there is no way for him to create coherent legislation that serves all the parties he claims to represent.

I remember the first few weeks after the SC ruling. There was consensus that there would be an almighty fuss, but lack of consensus about how quickly (if at all) things would settle down whereby the majority would accept the ruling and switch focus to making things work for trans people within this context.

I don’t think many foresaw long scale denial and obfuscation lasting years.

Failing to seek to prevent the guidance being passed will be seen as a betrayal by TRAs. Even those who do buy the (truthful) claim that legal change can only come from changing the law (EA and GRA), the Lib Dem’s and Greens will need to set out how they are going to do this and a timeline for it. If they include it in their manifestos, the plans will be scrutinised and they will need to defend it as part of their campaigns.

Lib Dems and Greens now consider themselves serious contenders in a coalition government. This means moving on from posturing to laying out the feasibility of their intentions.

My prediction is that they will remain protest parties with minimal numbers of MPs unless they stop making wild claims.

Excellent post.

The ECtHR would have to give equal consideration to the rights and equalities of women, not just this group of men in isolation. The law of the UK has to give equal consideration to the rights and equalities of women as they do to this group of men.

Would the ECtHR definitely do so? Or would it consider only the group of 'women' that includes men?

I have to say as far as I can see the UK is light years ahead of many nations in terms of women's rights so I honestly think - given the SC judgement - we shouldn't give too much weight to external supposed human rights entities. I think there is an argument to be made on excluding ourselves from any influence from these on women's rights grounds. Germany and Spain and the EU in general are in a far worse position than us in terms of women's rights because there have been many policies and laws voted through saying any man who says the magic words has all access to women. Presumably lots of women are self excluding from public life and harmed by this, presumably no-one cares to measure this as I haven't seen any studies and I'd imagine they'd make some waves, at least on here.

With the exception of a few remarkable women, the UN is pretty misogynistic. Many of the nations involved get to pretend their women's rights abuses don't happen, many (most?) of the nations involved have far far worse situations for women than the UK. Iran has been involved in various committees supposedly shaping what the UN does on women's rights. So you know, not a good sign for women's rights worldwide really (understatement). Two of many articles on this. The Cruel Irony of Iran Joining the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women - Women’s Media Center
Democracies Deny Responsibility for Nominating Iran to UN Committee - UN Watch - so many cowardly countries tacitly approving of Iran's appalling slaughter of it's own citizens here, let alone its treatment of women.

I appreciate it feels as if we're going backwards in this country - and we have done very much so in recent years - but the SC judgement was brilliant for women's human rights and I think stands as possibly the best thing worldwide in law protecting women's rights. Really happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, given how many horrors happen here I hope I am wrong...

Obviously law and reality often diverge wildly.

ECtHR would have to give equal consideration to the rights and equalities of women, not just this group of men in isolation. The law of the UK has to give equal consideration to the rights and equalities of women as they do to this group of men.
Would the ECtHR definitely do so? Or would it consider only the group of 'women' that includes men?

They would have to if the women were party to the case which they weren't in any of the precedent-setting trans litigation. In Croft it was even acknowledged that the women employees were unhappy about him using their toilet, but it didn't inform the decision, because a court can only answer a question it's been asked.

We won't make that mistake again.

How does Ed propose women have single sex spaces and he gets to ensure men ‘just live their lives’.

He says there’s no conflict, but how?

Ed's posturing is being called out.

Rebecca Paul MP

EdwardJDavey If you want to see self-ID in law, then just say that. Make the case and lobby for it in Parliament.

If you’re not willing to do that (and we all know you won’t as you like sitting on that fence) then accept and respect the law as it is.

Akua Reindorf KC

So the LibDems accept the SC judgment but reject the Code of Practice.
Clearly they understood neither the judgment nor the issue. It’s an either/or. Either men can be women or they can’t. The judgment says they can’t, under the EqA, so that’s what the Code says. It’s not hard.