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This is not a prayer motion, the only thing that could reject the draft guidance.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

I didn't see it, but that sounds like her.

https://x.com/i/status/2062252205051117613

I'm sorry, but Ellie Chowns is not GC. She barely mentions women when questioned on gender ideology and her answer to single-sex services is 'case-by-case'. She is also in favour of the puberty blocker trial. Ellie chowns is pro-Ellie Chowns and is happy to give away women's rights to further her career.

yes she was...

So we have 81 MPs signed 2 withdrawn now out 650 which is 12.46%.

Some takeways so far.

It does not look like it is going to get to a politically significant number of MPs which I would mark as getting to around fifth of the house around 140 or so MPs.

No Ed Davey signature after making a massive fuss.
Many Lib Dems have not signed which probably explains why Davey hasn't.

No Jeremy Corbyn!
No Tories at all. A few years ago there would have been some.

It seems that because Whittome, either through incompetence or deliberately, did not use the correct wording for a Fatal Prayer motion so the EDM is of very limited significance even if it gains more signatures.

As has been pointed out consistently even if they passed a Fatal Prayer motion refusing to adopt the code does not change the law.

https://open.substack.com/pub/withinthelaw/p/early-warning?r=8hk512&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

Akua Reindorf KC

I gather there is a system delay after signing before people's names show up so I wouldn't get too excited about numbers or not seeing certain names just yet.

My MP has signed it so I've written to her:

I am writing to register my disappointment at your lack of support for the right of women and girls to single-sex spaces, as demonstrated by your signing Ms Whittome’s Early Day Motion referring to the EHRC guidance to the Equality Act 2010.

Toilets, changing rooms, prisons and medical facilities are all places where women have both a need for and the right to privacy and dignity. The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling gives force to that. If you think that the Supreme Court’s ruling should be overturned, then I suggest you should work through the parliamentary process to change the law, and to justify that action to your constituents.

I also think it’s disgraceful that you clearly have no regard for the large number of your female constituents whose religion demands sex segregation. That is the only conclusion I can draw from your apparent support for the demands of men to use women’s spaces. I have voted for you in every GE since I moved to this constituency in 2007. I can’t do that again in good faith after this.

Good article, thanks. It emphasises that the EHRC has the expertise to produce the guidance whereas Parliament doesn’t. What then is the point of having to lay the guidance before Parliament? As the article emphasises, it’s only guidance, not law (unlike statutory instruments).

My Lib Dem MP signed it, I have written to her to express my disappointment and ask whether she thinks the code is wrong (and if so, how) or if the law is wrong (and if so, what changes does she want to make).

I suspect she hasn’t actually thought it through and that some TRA in her office has signed her up.

Good letter squeaky but I would omit the following paragraph. No need to give the opposition information that could harm a lot of people. These lot don't care about their constituents and I suspect a majority of MPs don't.

If you think that the Supreme Court’s ruling should be overturned, then I suggest you should work through the parliamentary process to change the law, and to justify that action to your constituents.

The thing is, in many ways she's a very good MP. I actually went to talk to her about this a few years ago, and she did appear to listen (once I had silenced her slippery young aide who kept trying to contradict me). And she seemed genuinely startled when I said that 80-90% of TIMs don't undergo any form of surgery.

In the shitshow of current UK politics, it would be grimly funny if the EDM signers did campaign for the EA to be repealed. Last time I looked, the other people who think that are Reform.

One silver lining I suppose is that their names are out in the open. If it all goes south, we can then write to every single MP who signed and congratulate them for being partly responsible for removing theirs, their daughters', and their mothers' rights to same-sex intimate care should they ever request it.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that. I'm convinced that 85% of these fools haven't even begun to think about the implications of what they are signing. It will just mean more lawsuits. It won't change the law.

I guess the other side of this is that as long as the law remains as is, the war against it - alongside the flouting of it- will continue.

My best hope is that a significant number of TRAs will shift their focus to securing suitable ‘third provision’ but there are plenty who will go all out to prevent this.

Three withdrawn signatures now

I’ve written to my female Lib Dem MP that has signed this EDM:

Dear X

I’m sure that you agree with me that transgender people are entitled to the same human rights as non transgender people, and that it’s important that we remain an open and inclusive society.

However, I am disappointed that by signing this EDM you have ignored the rights of women and girls to enjoy the protections of single sex services where these are important for reasons of privacy, safety and dignity.

Last year, the Supreme Court confirmed that service providers providing separate services for men and women where it is a proportionate means for a legitimate aim should do so on the basis of biological sex, and not on gender identity.

How do you propose that women (biological females) - and in particular traumatised women, women of different faiths and cultures, women with disabilities - should access single sex services such as refuges, rape support centres, medical care etc unless they can be sure that it is the female only service that they rightly expect and are entitled to?

The EHRC CoP is a document that provides guidance and clarity for service providers to meet their legal obligations under the Equality Act. Striking down the guidance does not change the law, that has been settled by the Supreme Court, but it does make life uncertain and difficult for many vulnerable women and girls.

Additionally, LGB rights have been protected under the Supreme Court confirmation of the Equality Act, because how else can you protect the rights of same sex attracted people unless you can define sex?

An attempt to disapprove the CoP is detrimental to women and girls who deserve the rights and protections of the law. The Equality Act does not (and never did) confer any entitlement to self-identify into the legal rights of the opposite sex.

As a woman MP with a young daughter I would hope that you have considered that there will be times when your female sex means that it is important to be able to access single sex services - whether that’s on a hospital ward, or in girls and women’s sport, or in changing rooms.

I would urge you to reconsider your support for this EDM.

Yours etc

She’s got a young daughter FFS.

Good letter. She's another fool, and probably hasn't given it any thought, not even for her daughter's sake. People never worry about these things until it's happening to someone they care about. I'd be amazed if she reads further than your second paragraph, but glad you sent it anyway. It'll weigh on her conscience, if she has one.

I worked with her on a project before she became an MP. She’s pushy and ambitious (she was a right PITA to work with on that project and I held my nose to vote for her as a result) but she’s generally been a good MP so far.

Which makes it even more disappointing.

One of the three withdrawn signatures has vanished.

I can't see her on the signatories.

Sometimes I wonder if they have a clue what they are signing on so many levels.🥴

You know things are fucked up when the Sunday Sport's X account makes more sense than 70 MPs: here's the text of a tweet from them yesterday:

There's confusion, so here's that EHRC guidance in plain Sunday Sport language: 'Lads, if you want to play dress up and have a wank, crack on. Just not in the ladies' shithouse, eh?'