House of Commons this afternoon. Ministerial statement on new code of practice

[impossibletoday]

From c 16.41

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

I do find her mystifying.

In the past she has been very vocal on the indirect discrimination of a parliament designed around men who will never need to go on maternity leave or breast feed babies.

But she doesn't seem to understand that she is suggesting removing the legislation that protects women from sex based discrimination.

Oh, they don't want to do away with "women" as mostly as sex class. That would be too honest and rational.

What they want is for woman to mostly mean the sex class in practice and women's rights and needs mostly be defined by our sex, but also that we are all compelled to pretend some men are also in that sex class based on non-physical feely reasons.

To square that circle,

1. We mustn't draw attention to the fundamental mismatch between "woman" based on the body sex and "woman" based on feely reasons, nor highlight the contradiction between Feminism saying women should not be limited by the cultural stereotypes assigned to our sex and accommodating as women people who, not sharing our sex, can only be differentiated as woman by sharing in those stereotypes.
2. We mustn't have any of the basis for women's rights explicitly tied to our sex, even the ones directly linked to biology like abortion, because having that written down officially means the pretend women get undermined.

Genderist politicians see no issue with this because of course people really know who women are so there's no need to actually have that written into the laws that protect us, handwavy ones that lump us in with feely men are all we need.

Basically, we should trust they will continue to support female people as long as we are never so gauche as to talk about our sex openly.

It will be interesting to see who doesn't sign it.

And I suspect some are signing it because they don't want to face the wrath of their TRA constituents.

Genderist politicians see no issue with this because of course people really know who women are so there's no need to actually have that written into the laws that protect us, handwavy ones that lump us in with feely men are all we need.

Ironically, their case is much more difficult to argue because they have abandoned any argument that is possible to define what trans people really are.

I think some politicians have dug themselves into a hole so deep that they couldn't get out even if they wanted to. (I'm being generous here).

EC supports the puberty blocker trial too.

Tim Farron has now withdrawn his signature. Embarrassing for him that he signed in the first place - a former party leader.

Oooh. I love the smell of ferrets reversing in the morning.

Haha what’s going on in Lib Dem towers?

Weird. Do they sign by accident and then realise their mistake? Or does the long arm of the party whip extend the Tippex?

Unless someone on his team signed and he withdrew it when he became aware?

Also, what the fuck is wrong with the Lib Dems? They are even worse than the Greens now.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/05/31/lib-dems-split-over-trans-guidance/

Civil war, apparently!

They had a large donation from the makers of puberty blockers a few years back.

Ah, but they also consider being expected to argue the case to be incredibly gauche and unsophisticated. We should just ... know.

It feels like this was just a bunch of them getting their own receipts set up for something to point at when the inevitable happens and the law has to be (GASP!) adhered to.

They can all point at this (and the gaping absence of their other party colleagues) as reasons why they should not be hauled up onto the wall for activists' retribution. Or at least not at the front of the line.

'Alongside colleagues, I have tabled a motion to disapprove the Equality Act 2010: Draft Code of Practice for Services, public functions and associations. We cannot support it, and we have a responsibility to our trans constituents to resist it. This motion is currently the only available mechanism through which Parliament can reject the EHRC’s Code of Practice; if it is debated and passed within the 40-day scrutiny window, it would prevent the Code from being issued by the EHRC and coming into force. Please email your MP asking them to sign EDM 240.'
...
'This guidance must not become statutory; the government should withdraw it and instead legislate to clarify and protect trans people’s rights, privacy and inclusion.'

Nadia Whittome

https://x.com/NadiaWhittomeMP/status/2061762711189414024

I seriously want to sit down with this bunch of absolute muppets and show them a quick powerpoint of the social media of the ones who wank in the women's loos with the door open, the ones who wank on toilet paper in the hope of women using it, the ones who wank on the floor of M&S changing rooms hoping women walk in it, the ones who put on lingerie and hang around with the curtain half open hoping a woman walks in on them and better still reacts excitingly with fear or anger...

the ones with swords and machetes in women's toilets

the ones chalking threats of sexual violence and sexual murder

the ones pushing used sanpro up their anuses for thrills

and ask why the actual fuck do they think women should be forced to put up with it, and why women who can't deserve exclusion from public life?

I know, cue much whining about NAMALT but it's not fucking convincing is it?

Edited to add: I wouldn't even start with the women injured and raped in prisons, mental health wards and hospital wards by being forced to endure men performing there using them and stupid, gullible middle class fools busy being Lovely. They stuff their fingers in their ears and run away when faced with that much harsh reality.

I've actually got more respect for the ones who acknowledge that the Code can't be challenged given what the law says, and admit that what they want is incompatible with the Equality Act. They're at least saying the quiet part out loud. On balance I think I prefer that to pretence.

One positive - and it's hard to find any positives in these turkeys voting for Christmas - is that my Lib Dem MP who was previously very much #bekindsillywomen didn't bother his arse to sign it or stand up for it.

Upthread someone quoted Sarah Owens (MP for Luton) saying
Does the Minister share my concern that the new code of practice will only further the UK’s now hostile environment for trans people and not calm it?

Perhaps Sarah might like to attend your presentation and realise why women have become increasingly 'hostile' to TW in their spaces.

'Muppets' is too kind a word...

They’re not challenging legislation though. They’re just trying to throw a spanner in the works.

Might have known that the mighty intellect of Nadia would soon show itself on this. The absolute bird-brained muppet.

maybe they are in a weird bet with ol' Jolyon about who can generate the most case law against themselves?

Well they fucked that excuse when it turned out they didn't even bother to get the data category for !

Were they all playing quoits in the corridors or something for that year to justify the delay?

EDMs:

'Early day motions (EDMs) are motions submitted for debate in the House of Commons for which no day has been fixed.
As there is no specific time allocated to EDMs very few are debated. However, many attract a great deal of public interest and media coverage.

What are EDMs used for?

EDMs are used to put on record the views of individual MPs or to draw attention to specific events or campaigns. Topics covered by EDMs vary widely.
By attracting the signatures of other MPs, they can be used to demonstrate the level of parliamentary support for a particular cause or point of view.

How many signatures do EDMs attract?

In an average session only six or seven EDMs reach over two hundred signatures. Around seventy or eighty get over one hundred signatures. The majority will attract only one or two signatures.

There is no rule whereby the number of signatures affects the likelihood of an EDM being debated.'
...
'A 'prayer' is a particular type of EDM that is used, by convention, when MPs wish to object formally to a statutory instrument. If a motion 'praying' that an instrument 'be annulled' is tabled within 40 days of it being laid before Parliament, a debate may be arranged in a Delegated Legislation Committee or, more rarely, in the Chamber.'

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/edms/

So. This whole exercise doesn't even mean anything unless a debate gets tabled, and a vote taken to reject the Guidance.