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 can't bear to watch it, but from what's been described above, it all sounds fairly predictable? Is there any indication that the code will be blocked though? Because I'm fine with the usual activist MPs having a rant and a vent, so long as the code passes unimpeded.

Interestingly, Zarah Sultana doesn't seem to have commented on it from I can see...

I suppose we'll see. But there weren't many there, just the committed TRAs from the sound of it. Interesting how many of the house didn't see this as something to be present at or speak for. Including the ones who do care about women and their rights.

I will stay in the Bluestocking and subsist on a diet of grilled dead cow, roast chicken, potatoes, seasonal greens, good quality red and white Burgundy and a steady flow of G&T until this nonsense disappears.

Sorry, that was my dream. In real life I will keep saying "this is stupid; how is this fair? so how do you see this working?" Etc.

Goldman's contribution today is very interesting in this context.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Marie Goldman
(Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. After the Supreme Court’s ruling last year, the Government’s job was to give people, businesses and organisations clear, workable guidance. The code is instead unworkable, exclusionary and expensive for businesses. As the Minister knows, the Government must ensure that they meet the legal obligations placed on them by the public sector equality duty. That requires the Minister to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct, to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not, and to foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not.

Yet the Government’s own equality impact assessment identifies disproportionate harm to those with protected characteristics, and a failure to set out how that harm will be addressed. Can the Minister really say, hand on heart, that she believes the guidance does that? The impact assessment notes how the guidance will likely impact women who are not trans, yet do not meet cultural and social expectations around what a woman should look like. There have already been stories of women with mastectomies being challenged when accessing women-only spaces because they do not look like women. Has the Minister truly considered that?

For trans, non-binary and intersex people, the code operates from a position of exclusion. It risks driving those small minorities away from public life, as leading mental health charities have since warned. The guidance conflicts with our core British values of tolerance, decency, respect for individual liberty and the rule of law. That is why I urge the Minister to withdraw it and to accept that this issue needs to be resolved by Parliament as law makers. To achieve that, I beg the Minister to adopt the Liberal Democrat proposal to appoint a joint committee of cross-party MPs and peers, to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, taking evidence from all communities who have been impacted, in order to propose amendments or new legislation that it sees as necessary to ensure that existing rights are protected. If we work together we can fix this; sowing division will not.

Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and question. I again highlight how the draft code does provide further clarity on how service providers can follow the Supreme Court ruling in practice, and we can ensure that we both protect single-sex spaces and have services and support for trans people. It is important to recognise that although it cannot cover every scenario, the EHRC has provided key explanations and worked examples, also based on wide consultation, that every organisation can take and apply in its own context with common sense. If a service provider is not sure, it can and should take legal advice.

I also want to mention the burden on business. The EHRC expects that for most aspects of the draft code, businesses will already be compliant, and for some businesses there will be no cost at all. For example, a small café might have one individual lockable toilet for use by all customers, and it would not need to change anything. It may be helpful for the House to know that the EHRC will be running a session to answer questions from Members of Parliament later this week, and there may be some matters that the hon. Lady wishes to raise directly.

Note Goldman does not back up her suggestion for a committee with any kind of a threat that the Lib Dems will attempt to reject the guidance if they are not listened to.

It seems an obvious play. Parliament does use prayer motions against legislation every so often. It doesn't work but it registers a protest. So why are the Lib Dems not trying that.

As I and others have said it does seem possible the Lib Dems are

more interested in just registering a protest and not actually follow through in parliamentary action. It is an interesting choice to say the least if it happens.

For the TAs the attempt at a Fatal Motion though doomed to failure would be symbolic. The interesting thing for the pro-women side is the issue of who would sign it? How strong are the TAs in Parliament?

As has been pointed out here the 4 Green MPs didn't turn up for the debate today. Carla Denyer is taking time off for mental health reasons she is the most active in the TA cause Would all of them sign the motion? .Adam Ramsay on the other hand has made reality based comments before.

Would ALL the Lib Dems sign up to such a motion? It maybe that some of the Lib Dem MPs have grown a spine secretly and Sir Ed knows it. That maybe why Sir Ed rather than using Parliamentary procedure which puts names on record is calling for a committee to reconsider the guidance a concept which Labour can just ignore. He doesn't want to cause a debate or civil war inside the party.

Also very important is how many Labour MPs would actually sign. Indications are the real number of TA hardcore inside Labour MPs might be 20 or 30 at most. That is in fact pathetic.

Remember many Labour MPS inside this Parliament have been rebellious they forced u turns over winter fuels and welfare plans. If many Labour MPs wanted to they could actually cause the government to be more anti-women. I think that though most won't go on the record to say it openly many actually think biology is a thing. They want the gender debate to go away.

A solid attempt to attack the guidance in Parliament would be a gift to the Tories and Reform as the Tory performance in the mini debate today indicates.

I still think that a fanatical TA MP or two will register a fatal motion, but it might not be an official Lib Dem move. If that is what happens we need to watch who signs because that will really show how powerful the TAs are.

Astonishing that Marie Goldman claims that women have have had mastectomies don't look like women. Can she hear herself?

It would seem not

'women without breasts due to an illness look like men'

Important In The Lords yesterday Lib Dem Peer Lord Strasburger was demanding Labour implement single sex spaces properly. This could be why Sir Ed is following the tactic he is. He knows he can't get his Lords and possibly his MPs to sign up to an full on anti-women position.

Lord Strasburger

To ask His Majesty’s Government which government departments have not yet fully implemented the Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers.

The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity
(Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Supreme Court ruling that the noble Lord’s Question refers to brings clarity for women and service providers. We expect all duty bearers to follow the law and to seek legal advice where necessary, and that includes government departments. Departments have been reviewing and updating their policies and guidance following the Supreme Court ruling. This includes the new internal Civil Service guidance that has been shared with departments. We will ensure that any policies and guidance are consistent with the draft code of practice for services, public functions and associations that was laid in Parliament before the Recess.

Lord Strasburger
(LD)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Over the last year, Government Ministers have repeatedly told this House that all service providers must get on with implementing last year’s Supreme Court ruling, but it seems that the NHS did not get the memo. The cases of Sandie Peggie and the Darlington Toggle showing location of nurses show that the NHS still expects female nurses to undress in front of males. Will the new Health Secretary be any better than the previous one at getting the NHS to obey the law?

Baroness Smith of Malvern
(Lab)
Of course it is the case that the NHS should be obeying the law, in terms of both the provision of goods and services, which this code covers, and employment practices, on which further guidance will come from the EHRC. On the provision of the services that the NHS is responsible for, it is of course thinking carefully about both the ruling and the guidance, and it will be coming forward with more guidance in the near future.

More contributions follow in debate:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2026-06-01/debates/7BAE213A-9D03-41A3-BF3D-1C762FD4BEBF/ForWomenScotlandLtdVScottishMinisters

V interesting @fromorbit

Here we go….28 signatures so far

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/65938

Signed by the usual suspects.

Basically, Ed DAvey is saying that women's sex-based rights are counter to "British values."

I think we have to keep calling it out this way - nothing at all to do with trans-identified men & public fetishists, but to focus on women's sex-based rights.

The strong argument of the FWS case was to preserve women's sex-based rights. That is, rights which are attached to the protected characteristic of sex, and which recognise that - given our current society - there are areas where women need specific sex-based accommodations and rights.

In the - I don't know, it wasn't a debate - ranting yesterday in the HoC there was no mention of women at all, never mind their rights. Or why single sex spaces are being preserved. You'd think the whole thing was merely a stupid idea to piss off trans people rather than there being women as a group with actual rights and needs too.

The term 'British values' is not as cosy, chummy, coherent, or universally shared as Ed Davey suggests.

But taking 'British values' at its most benign, does he not think that they include the values promoted by Wollestonecraft and the suffragists and women trade unionists and so many others over the centuries?

And I suggest that 'Terf Island' is the result of clinging-on-by-the-fingertips to those very 'British values'.

Who needs Lib Dems when you’ve got Labour . 19 out of 28 signatures are Labour. They haven’t got the memo yet.

For trans, non-binary and intersex people, the code operates from a position of exclusion. I

I wonder what she thinks non-binary people have been doing up until this point - using which ever loo they prefer on the day? Does she think it helps her cause to suggest this option?

And who is she referring to when she mentions 'intersex people'? People with a DSD have a legal sex, and if the law does impact them, it doesn't help to lump them in with people whose concerns are more philosophical.

It risks driving those small minorities away from public life, as leading mental health charities have since warned.

And women who need single sex services? Are we just ignoring them?

Did anyone speaking yesterday suggest concrete alternatives

There have already been stories of women with mastectomies being challenged when accessing women-only spaces because they do not look like women.

Stories or just one story?

Even if one ignores the rest of their female physiognomy, (and ignoring the very small number of men who have surgery for breast cancer and gynaecomastia) mastectomy scars are a very reliable indicator of sex.

Probably one story of a woman with a mastectomy being challenged. Allegedly.
One gender non conforming woman who from the photo looks 100% like a gender non conforming woman challenged. By a man!
Some GNC women removed from women's toilets by security staff. Allegedly, In the USA.
Various GNC women, butch lesbians, women with DSDs, women who are taller than average, being 'hounded out' of women's toilets. Allegedly.

Lots of samey 'allegedlys', little evidence.

It was likely Jolyon’s wife - re mastectomy

Good for them. The EA was never meant to count trans people as their birth sex, especially as it was passed after the GRA.

No. None. Just that the guidance shouldn't exist and men should be in women's spaces.

No mention of women at any time. None. It reminds me of those reports where it's framed as a woman just died somehow, without ever mentioning she is dead because the man - normally the focus of the article with lots saying how lovely he is - killed her.

Strategic myths.

And again total lack of reference to women who have actually been harmed, excluded, raped, due to men permitted into their spaces on the watch of several governments.

The distress of women only ever matters when it's useful to men.

If politicians couldn't write that into law in 2004, how can they can achieve it now?

Are they going to just wish sex out of existenc, but still have single sex facilities?

The Labour line for years has been in essence 'We will have single sex spaces! And men can be any sex they like.'

They've now added in that no one is allowed to challenge anyone.

It is important to recognise that although it cannot cover every scenario, the EHRC has provided key explanations and worked examples, also based on wide consultation, that every organisation can take and apply in its own context with common sense. If a service provider is not sure, it can and should take legal advice.

It's interesting to contrast the obligations in the context of disability discrimination, and those based on transgender discrimination.

In the context of disability, only 'reasonable' adjustments are required. The meaning of 'reasonable' includes cost, effect on other people, resources available, practicality, etc.

In other words, it is accepted that there will be circumstances where that it neither practical nor affordable to make certain adjustments for, for instance, a wheelchair user, and therefore is not 'reasonable' and not required.
Other adjustments must be made, but the law accepts that there are limits.

Contrast that with what seems to have become the norm to avoid discrimination against transpeople: transpeople 'must not be left without provision', and that is interpreted as either access to whatever toilet/changing room they choose, the provision of extra 'fourth spaces' or, as seems to be happening a lot, complete removal of single-sex provision and replacing it with all-mixed-sex individual lockable 'universal' toilets.

No weighing up of the cost, the disruption, available resources, the negative effects on other users, the practicality - in other words, the reasonableness of the adjustments to existing toilet provision, which is perfectly adequate for the huge majority of the population.

I don't understand why adjustments which are actually physically needed by people with disabilities may be subjected to a 'reasonableness' test, whereas adjustments which are not needed but simply 'preferred' by transpeople have to be provided, with no reasonableness test.

In reality no transperson is 'left with no provision', as long as there is a men's, women's, and accessible toilet. The provision is there, they are not physically unable to use it, but they choose not to use it.

And on that basis, existing toilet provision can be removed and replaced by an inferior, unsafe, inadequate, unpopular alternative in order to cater for a tiny percentage of the population, without any consideration of whether or not these adjustments are 'reasonable'.

IANAL, and I can't understand - why is there a 'reasonableness' test for adjustments on the basis of disability discrimination, but none on the basis of transgender discrimination?

It's interesting to contrast the obligations in the context of disability discrimination, and those based on transgender discrimination.

Exactly! but doesn't the same apply to all protected characteristics?

E.g if you work in Greggs you might need to be able to handle sausages, regardless of your religion.