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

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.

There have been interesting comments to the effect of that if this did go through the ECtHR courtesy of the GLP, it is not unlikely that the decision would throw chaos across Europe as it would legally undo/make very difficult the male-centric decisions in many European countries by requiring equality of consideration and provision for women. Which would make the GLP fantastically unpopular.

I shall turn of course, for comment, to Sgt Major Williams.

There also seems to be a general feeling across European governments that article 8 rights to privacy and a family life have not been correctly balanced against the rights of others when considering asylum law.

https://www.ein.org.uk/news/new-council-europe-declaration-clarifies-echr-interpretation-immigration-and-asylum-law

In relation to Article 8, the declaration confirms that deportation may lawfully interfere with the right to respect for private and family life, provided that such interference is in accordance with the law, pursues a legitimate aim, and is necessary in a democratic society. Legitimate aims include national security and public safety, as well as the prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, the economic well-being of the country, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

If they are confirming that that is the general principle of article 8, then presumably it must apply to any consideration of article 8.

So you're saying we should be rooting for the GLP on this one. 😂
Because I can do that, it would be hysterical if they end up doing us the best service ever, I may never stop laughing if that were to happen. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Has this been posted?

Lib Dems at loggerheads over trans guidance
Sir Ed Davey promises to oppose guidelines on safe spaces for women, to dismay of some colleagues
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/05/31/lib-dems-split-over-trans-guidance/
and https://archive.is/JkwNL

Not yet posted. Important article which highlights the division inside the party.

Sir Ed’s statement drew stinging criticism from Dr Zoe Hollowood, chairman of the women’s rights campaign group within the Lib Dems.
She accused him of ignoring the views of women and prioritising the views of trans people.
“Polling consistently shows that Lib Dem voters and members believe single-sex spaces should be protected based on biological sex,” she said. “Ignoring this reality is a betrayal to women everywhere, including in our own party.”
The guidance from the EHRC advises businesses and public bodies on complying with last year’s Supreme Court decision that the word “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex rather than gender identity.

Important detailed thread which explains the wider context inside Lib Dems.

Liberal Voice for Women
20h
In 2024 General Election, @LibDems had a record result with 72 MPs elected. In LD manifesto we committed to upholding the Equality Act 2010. This was an important step forward after campaigning by many including Liberal Voice for Women:

https://nitter.net/LibVoice4Women/status/2061035555203207336#m

The Lib Dems cannot get away with this fence sitting for long the party is divided. Lets see what happens.

I have written to my lib dem mp about it. I will let you know what she says.

Great keep the pressure on!!!

I would bet folding money Davey does not consider women 'interested parties' to his debate on amending the law.

Christine Jardine, completely deluded:

"If there is a fault, I believe it lies in the fact that the Equality Act, as envisaged in 2010, and the 2004 Gender Recognition Act did not anticipate the assault on rights that we see emerging. Or the fear that well-funded anti-trans campaigns are just the first stage in a general attempt at revision of our rights.
What's next? Abortion, LGBT rights, anti-discrimination laws? This is not alarmist – who truly expected the conversation we are facing now? To have people in this country – human beings – humiliated because of they who they are is not acceptable."

How the hell is it humiliating for men to be banned from women’s spaces?!

(ETA because we know they only care about the men, this is all driven by men like Belcher.)

https://archive.is/aXgWY

This is not alarmist - duh yes it is, well over the top, weapons grade claptrap, you drama llama. Everything's a performance for the unhinged me, me, me gender. 🤯

It's interesting that she didn't come up with a solution.

She doesn't think the law is wrong, isnt saying how the SC came to the wrong conclusion, isnt criticising BP. Shes critical only of the women who challenged employers and services providers interpretation of the law.

She's full of hot air.

This meltdown in response to being required to respect that women have rights too plus entitlement to their own stuff, protected from men snatching it for their own use.

Pretty much an illustration of why women's sex based laws are needed; there's no reasonability possible on the part of the less hinged men.

Have either Ed Davey or Marie Goldman explained why they aren't submitting a parliamentary motion ("prayer") to have the guidance withdrawn? Not that it would necessarily succeed, but now is the window to do so and it's exactly the procedure to obtain what they ask for in the letter. Even if they are just doing this to grandstand, it would surely do that too?

I would imagine that it's because that would be too much like hard work. And not photographically stunt-worthy.

the Equality Act, as envisaged in 2010, and the 2004 Gender Recognition Act did not anticipate the assault on rights that we see emerging.

Almost gets it. They definitely never imagined that a group of unhinged men would decide en masse to declare themselves women, and try to take an entire generation of children down the rabbit hole with them.

He could always dress up in drag to submit it, would that do?

..and water-ski up the Thames😄

Absolutely. Seriously, though, why aren't even the Greens firmly announcing they will table the relevant "prayer" to object? I understand the government controls the timetable, and can simply never give it debate or vote, but doing so seems a free win for those seeking TRA adoration. What am I missing?

Start about 16.41

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/6cf14ecc-c54b-4536-9f93-66c8e8f6334e

What am I missing?

The cold, unfeeling reality of virtue-signalling. Unfortunately for the trans-identified people who went along with the Greens, the politicians never.really. meant.it.

Next week, next month, next year, whenever something better comes along, the Greens will pick up their tents and move them to better pastures. As they did with the climate (emergency? what climate emergency), so they will with gender ideology, until the only ones left will be standing together in a very small, self-perpetuating group, looking at each other, wondering "where did everyone go?" and "is it time to go home for tea then?"

Sigh. Seems all too plausible. Even the remote risk the government might grant a debate and they would have defend themselves in public is too much.

First thought - barely anyone there.

Second - what a lot of waffle padding around 'women definitely haven't won' as the laying of the ground.

Third - clear statement that women's services are women's service on biological basis, single sex toilets are for those of that sex and trans people can use additional facilities which should be provided.

Fourth - a lot of confused stuff about 'no one should challenge anyone' followed by 'there are common sense times to challenge a member of the opposite sex in the wrong place, or to have a word with a member of staff'???

Fifth - you can't ask about sex because special category data but you can ask, ask sensitively and handle data sensitively - ???????

Sixth - if association is women only, it's biological sex. If it wants to be 'trans inclusive' - they can be by choosing membership to be by sex AND gender reassignment...... ?? (this does not seem in line with the SCJ)

Clear as mud.

Oh, no, can't have it out in the light of day, can they? They'd have to actually define things, explain things, demonstrate the actual, measurable value of things, and be prepared to defend their position when challenged. It's all smoke and mirrors, so it's a nonstarter.

That "sex as special category data" was (nearly) a master stroke by Bridget and her team, so I'm glad that Sex Matters are onto it, because it is just wrong. It muddies the waters just enough to make everyone second guess themselves. And they were clearly hoping we wouldn't notice.

I didn't watch far enough - Rebecca Hall

Better late than never

Grateful we have a Labour govt than Lib Dem because they have just stated no respect for rule of law

Please give a copy of the changes made from original guidance to this guidance (asked several times, not really answered)

(Lots of govt repeating if in doubt get legal advice, get legal advice, basically don't really rely on the guidance)

Man ranting hugely about how terrible it is that women should have rights too, and this guidance is evil.

(govt burbling and lots of er er er, no mention of women actually having needs and rights to access too, mumbling around additional facilities being provided)

Sensible question around designated funding grants for building of additional facilities.

(Govt more er er, no basically, but govt will make the govt estate fully compliant)

Another MP: Guidance falls apart on hard contact with real world. Wtf with the challenging, you just said don't challenge, but challenge sensitively - answer should be to get rid of women's facilities all together (wtaf?????)

(govt, still no comment mentioning women's needs or rights in balance to trans, burble, er er, no right for members of public to challenge, but most people will have the common sense to challenge.....)

Every one of the very small group there is a rampant TRA who want women's rights ended basically. One call to re write the GRA and the EqA to destroy women's rights.

(much reassuring re trans people's rights. Still no mention of women.)

I can't watch any more, it's making me too cross.

Edited to add: the poor woman dealing with these few nuts is owed several stiff gins, she's not doing a good job but she's been sent out alone to do this. And I suppose it's encouraging that the massive massive majority of MPs don't seem to see this worth listening to or arguing with.