House Of Communions, Early Day Motion tabled - Draft Code of Practice on Services, public functions and associations

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

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

This is not a prayer motion, the only thing that could reject the draft guidance.

See here for more info https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/edms/

I do not think there is much chance of a prayer motion being voted on, given the timetables, who controls the timetable etc etc. But the chances are not zero.

The guidance is perfectly workable in a functioning society where the social contract allows single-sex spaces. It just relies on MEN NOT USING WOMEN'S FACILITIES and vice versa. How much more fucking simple could it get? The problem is with the men invading, so tackle that.

It worked for a hundred years, it'll work for a hundred more.

Mary-Ann Stephenson mentioned this a few times. That we should be able to trust most people to follow the rules.

It's bizarre that in this one particular area, MPs are suggesting that most people can't be expected to follow the rules, and organisations can't be expected not to break the law.

People - well, women, I don't know what happens in men's toilets - being challenged when entering toilets is nothing new; it's been seized on now - as if the TRA movement really cared about butch lesbians and gender-non-conforming women🙄

In the past the challenge has been on the assumption that some bloke took a wrong turn and has blundered into the ladies'. 'Excuse me - this is the ladies'! usually resulted in embarrassed bloke apologising and leaving.

Occasionally, 'Excuse me - this is the ladies'! resulted in the gender-non-conforming women - me, for instance - replying 'It's OK, I'm in the right place'
and the second glance, and the tone of voice, reassured the women that it was OK and I was in the right place.

'Excuse me - this is the ladies'! has only become problematic since men started deliberately accessing women's spaces, where they know damn well they are not supposed to be.

'Excuse me - this is the ladies'! is nothing new and was no big deal when the good men stayed out so the bad men stood out, and it's obvious that TRAs and their allies are using it cynically as a way of undermining the SC ruling and EHRC codes.

The most straightforward solution is for people to use the toilets designated for their sex, which able-bodied transpeople can use, they don't need adapted toilets; they choose not to use the available toilets.

Disabled people are only entitled to 'reasonable adjustments', and the definition of 'reasonable' relates to things like practicality, disruption, impact on other users, and cost.
I think the provision of gender neutral toilets everywhere, for such a small percentage of the population, fails the 'reasonableness' test.

The building regs [for England] seem to back this up - there is no requirement to provide 'unisex' toilets. As long as there is enough space in a building, separate men's and women's toilets must be provided. Gender neutral/mixed sex/ unisex/ toilets may be provided, but as an optional extra.

And yet you still have people claiming that unless there is a gender-neutral option, excluding males from women's facilities will leave them with nowhere to go...

This is because what men want is considered at least as important as what women need.

A scenario where they're told no, and just have to fucking lump it, isn't remotely 'workable' because the starting premise of 'workable' is that men are not inconvenienced in any way.

I suspect that both your MPs know exactly what a woman is when deciding which constituents to not bother replying to.

I guess we've all seen those internet memes about male and female office colleagues swapping email addresses for a week...

It's 'unworkable' to ask men to use men's facilities &c.

Divvies.

The Supreme Court, the High Court, and the EHRC have all embraced this idea (that making someone use the service for their own sex can be traumatising). Which I thought was very gracious, and would soften the blow.

Were they grateful? They were not.

The 40 Days are up on Thursday 9 July 2026.

21 Days to go.

Signatures at on EDM now at 142.

No real sign from Labour government of them caving to the critics who signed the EDM. Labour have u turned before frequently on other issues. The TAs inside Labour are too weak to pull this off now.

47 out of 72 LIb Dem MPs have signed showing the significant split inside the party over gender/sex issues. Sir Ed Davey still has not signed nor have a bunch of other Lib Dem MPs.

Thank you for this, have been hoping for a definitive date!

Someone else worked it out earlier in the threads on this.

Note after the 40 days when Parliament can stop it there still could be delays as the government will then set a date for it to come into force. However I think they will want to do it fairly fast. Labour don't gain for this debate to continue.

It seems highly likely that this is what will now happen:

Absolutely hee-haw.

Cynics might say many of the signatories were banking on exactly this outcome.

It's not too late, the polls are still open...Vote Binface!!

The only candidate that makes sense.

I decided not to phone my Liberal MPs office to ask if he'd blocked me because I'd end up talking to a staffer who would probably plead data protection and not answer my question anyway.
What I did was create a new email address and email my MP again ...... and this time I instantly got the normal Automated Reply.

So it seems clear to me that my original email address was blocked by my MP. Wonder how long it will take for my new email address to be blocked🤔

Unless a constituent is actively harrassing them, I don't think MPs should be able to block voters.

Also my MP is still sending me his weekly newsletters to the same email address he's ignored my email from

I'm not sure whether to resend it asking him for a response or whether the lack of response is the answer.

Starmer says he has asked Labour's National Executive Committee to set out a timetable for a Labour leadership contest, with nominations opening on 9 July.

Politics latest: Starmer announces he will resign as prime minister | Politics News | Sky News

Interesting date to choose! That should distract from the guidance quite nicely!

Hope your MP doesn’t block your new email… I agree with PP MPs shouldn’t be able to block constituents unless they’re harassing.

After my previous msg I did actually get a reply from my MP but not on the EDM thread but on an earlier thread (re going to Lib Voice for Wonen fringe event at conference and general women’s rights stuff). Like PP I also get regular constituent news update emails.

So I’ve come to conclusion I’m not blocked but rather their email system finds it hard to differentiate between new enquiries vs ongoing email conversation (shouldn’t be hard but oh well)…

I will follow up with her re EDM when I get time but busy few weeks at mo…

Good luck and thx for comparing notes :-)

16 days till July 9th

148 signatures 2 withdrawn
(Most recent: 22 Jun 2026)
Signatures by party:
Labour: 80
Liberal Democrat: 53
Scottish National Party: 6
Plaid Cymru: 4
Green Party: 3
Independent: 2
Your Party: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1

Still 18 Lib Dem holdouts including Sir Ed, 2 Greens Adrian Ramsay and Denyer though Denyer is off work.

Though given it is pretty clear that many of the signatories can happily sign because there is obligation to actually do anything like debate or argue their case.

Am I right that this EDM isn't actually the formal process by which you would seek to reject the guidance anyway?

I misunderstood this at first, but I am pretty confused now. Apparently to stop a Statutory Instrument you need to use a fatal prayer motion, with specific wording. See here:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02569/

What we are dealing with is a change to guidance to a Code of Practice which is described here for an old code:

"Before being published the Secretary of State would be required to place a new code of practice before Parliament in draft form. The Secretary of State Homelessness Reduction Bill may then issue the code if, within 40 days, no negative resolution not to approve the draft code is made by either House of Parliament.

So you need to pass a negative resolution, but I am unclear whether the wording matters for stopping a Code or not. Does anyone know? One thing is pretty clear no-one is bringing this EDM before the House of Commons anyway.

More to the point what is key is that while it is difficult for anyone except Labour or Tories to force a vote on the code in the Commons, that does not apply in the Lords. Backbench Lords have way more leeway to create a debate and vote on secondary legislation.

The House of Lords held an oral statement on the draft code on June 3rd at 3.53 pm, where Equalities Minister Lord Collins of Highbury outlined the government's approach following consultations with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and there was a short debate.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2026-06-03/debates/cea4d016-a32b-4ec8-b1ab-e6e0e915fe20/LordsChamber

A Lords committee have looked at the code and had a bunch of questions 5 days ago which the Lords could raise in the House:
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/255/secondary-legislation-scrutiny-committee/news/214466/lords-committee-raises-questions-about-equality-act-code-of-practice/

So why have no Trans rights supporting Lords pushed for another debate on the code or raised the committee points ? Generally the Lords are reluctant to use their powers without need. Yet if the Code is as awful as some are claiming it is odd that nothing is happening. Are they planning to do something later? Are they waiting for the government to respond to the committee. There are only 15 days left.

Does no-one in the Lords care enough to push for a vote? Alternatively perhaps they fear triggering a debate in which the importance of safeguarding is discussed and having a vote which they would lose and which would put on record the Lords voting for the Code and those who vote against it. Maybe they are just scared of going up against Baroness Faulkner.

We have discussed on this thread that some MPs may be signing the EDM not because they truly believe it, but because it is a risk free gesture and in fact they would run a mile before debating it in the Commons. Worth bearing in mind for the Lords.

For Labour MPs, signing this EDM is basically criticising their own Labour government, which issued the EHRC guidance.