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This is not a prayer motion, the only thing that could reject the draft guidance.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 think that many MPs haven't realised the full extent of FWS. They understand that sex = bio sex but they still believe case-by-case is applicable and a trans-person can only be excluded from the opposite sex space if proportionate.

They haven't realised that Sch 3 para 28 has been clarified as applying to proportionate exclusion from a same sex space eg the option of excluding a TIF with a male presentation from a women's support group in an RCC.

I sent off my email to my MP (previous experience suggests that I will receive some meaningless waffle in about six months time) but I am kicking myself because there's an angle I completely forgot about:

The part of the Code that is being objected to (exclusion of opposite-sex individuals from Schedule 3 single-sex services) was already a part of the Interim Update which was unsuccessfully challenged in the High Court.

Who are these MPs, who are so arrogant that they think they know better than a High Court Judge? Swift J was very clear, that this so-called 'trans-exclusion' is not just a correct interpretation of FWS but also not a breach of the HRA.

Just mentioning, in case anyone who hasn't sent their email yet is looking for material....

I see that both Jeremy Corbyn and Emilly Thornberry have now signed.

Yes, proportionate was never meant to be applied on an individual case by case basis, but in the first instance before deciding whether to create a single sex facility or category. Once the decision has been made that this is a proportionate measure then the case is closed.

There is no requirement for your date of birth, only name and full address with postcode. You may leave your phone number if you wish.

She may be short staffed, as it is most likely her constituency office manager who will first recieve the email and then send out an automated recognition of receipt.

Most of the new ones are Lib Dems.

Not all surprised about Corbyn. Thornberry is such a disappointment. Comes across as massively egotistical with leadership ambitions. Willing to throw women under the bus to signal her progressive badge.

Burnham doesn't understand what he's letting himself in for. I cannot imagine he'll want to add a whole new debate on women's existing legal protections to his mounting crisis list...what with the defence secretary now resigning over lack of defence spending, and pressure to deal with illegal migration as well the fall-out of the Henry Nowak murder.

I suspect he'll be under immense pressure to call a general election because he has no legitimacy in the country at large.

My feeling is that she's given up on leadership hopes, hence signing it. No serious contender could abuse parliamentary process in that way and not be expected to justify it.

No Tories have signed. Kemi has them all singing from the same hymn sheet.

Yes, trying to frame it as the EHRC causing issues with their guidance, when the EHRC are simply stating what the law is, is so dishonest. I know these are a particular brand of renegade activist MPs, but it is making me lose faith in politics.

I think it was Christine Jardine who said that there is no way to check someone's sex, now that we're not allowed use our eyes anymore, because people can change their legal documents. Well, yes, clearly this is an issue, but Christine Jardine seems to think that the solution is to let any man who self IDs as a woman into women's spaces.

And what is worse, these MPs are emboldening all the men who are claiming that the law is unenforceable and that they are going to carry on traversing women's boundaries.

We are going to have issues where there will be men in women's changing rooms, in leisure centres, for example, and staff won't be able to do anything because they will say that their passports prove they are female.

Thornberry occasionally mentions her female relative who identifies as trans. If she ever had a capacity for independent thought, she lost it when she decided that 'supporting' this relative in her chosen identity was more important than protecting women from predatory men.

Sobel's missive shows a lack of anything at all to do with women.
Ditto Whittome, Jardine etc
We have rights too, you &@£%
Transpeople feeling 'unsafe' is something we hear all the time but in what way? How?

Again I ask- which side does the abuse, the threats, the nastiness, the shouting-down, the book 'bans', the jibes at JKR, Maya, Helen J et al come from? How can people not see this?
Was there any comment when M-AS mentioned having to move offices ir RD mentioned 'piss protests'?

Can these elected representatives think of all constituents not just the previous few?
I'm absolutely sick of all this

We are going to have issues where there will be men in women's changing rooms, in leisure centres, for example, and staff won't be able to do anything because they will say that their passports prove they are female.

I'm not sure that the Draft Code explains the legal position sufficiently robustly, what with all the pussy-footing around regarding whether sex is special category data.

It is not illegal sex-discrimination, and it never has been, for a provider to exclude, from a single-sex service, someone who looks like they are not the sex for which the service is provided, irrespective of what documentary or other proof they offer as proof of sex. Because Schedule 3 provides immunity from liability for perceptive sex-discrimination.

It is illegal gender reassignment discrimination to exclude a transman from a women-only service, or a transwoman from a men-only service, other than as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. I don't believe this will be hard to police, even without documentation, because a) transmen are not dicks, and b) unicorns transwomen who pass will be trying it on in the Ladies, not the Gents.

That’s what I thought, I mailed back a contact number and year of birth jyst so that she has no excuse not to reply. I’ll nudge her next week.

Thornberry has always been TWAW. I think she has a close trans relative?

They certainly are on X over the past couple of weeks.

Emily Thornberry has skin in the game. She has a cousin who calls herself a transman.

Cousin's not that close though. I have a trans relative as close as that, and in my demographic it seems to me that almost everyone does!

I agree, but Emily has used her cousin to bolster her stance on social media more than once.

With apologies to previous posters for the copy below.

This is all I can find on this thread. Is there a definitive date when the 40 days are finished? Anyone know for certain?

Thanks!

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 03/06/2026 14:34
PrettyDamnCosmic · 03/06/2026 14:21
The guidance was laid before parliament on Thursday 21st May so by my reckoning the forty days is up on Tuesday 30th June.
21 May 2026 = day 1
22 to 31 May = excluded
counting resumes 1 June
40th day = Thursday 9 July 2026
Strictly, it does not automatically come into force on 9 July. EHRC says that if Parliament does not disapprove the Code, the UK government will then set a date for it to come into force.

Being messaged on X is not the same as being held accountable in public. On X you can pick and choose who you respond do and block anyone you don't want to hear from. Stupid person says something stupid and they certainly get ratioed with a lot of people telling them how stupid they are but they aren't being put on the spot and don't have to respond. Yes there are plenty of responses on X telling the MPs that they disagree but there's no good-faith dialogue. Where are the TV and radio interviews where people are asked to provide a justification for campaigning to eliminate the legal rights of women? X is not a suitable place for such conversations.

Emailed my hand-maiden MP this afternoon. I expect it'll be treated with the same respect as all my other emails to her have been, ie ignored. What is wrong with these people??

I've given up emailing my MP (Minister). Never had more than an boiler-plate response.