Lambeth Council to challenge new “discriminatory” guidelines on single-sex spaces

[IwantToRetire]

Lambeth Council has signalled it will resist new guidance on access to single-sex spaces, over fears that it risked “leaving trans people open to discrimination”.

Councillors backed a call for the council to refuse to implement the “Draft Code of Practice on Services, public functions and associations”, if the council’s legal team confirms the move would be lawful.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published the updated code following a Supreme Court judgment last year, ruling that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to sex assigned at birth.

The draft clarifies that service providers may legally restrict single-sex spaces, including changing rooms, to biological sex.

But a motion to a Full Council meeting condemned the draft code as “incoherent and self-contradictory, discriminatory, and impossible to implement in a reasonable and proportionate manner”. It called on the council to “protect LGBTQIA+ workers and service users” by refusing to implement the guidelines.

continues at https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/lambeth-to-challenge-new-discriminatory-guidelines-on-single-sex-spaces/

Yes the men did say they made a mistake. I believed them the first few times and an older male member of staff told me they all said that and not to engage with them. He was awesome at dealing with the perverts he used to openly mock them in a sort of cool knowing way!
Working for Lambeth taught me more about people and the real world in three weeks than I learnt at University in four years.

Don't feed the squirrel

Here is Lambeth’s 41pg “A Trans Agenda” document.

https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/lambeth-transgender-report.pdf

It actually provides some interesting perspectives. It seems more concerned with general services like public transport and doesn't seem to consider single sex services (if it did I missed it). The people interviewed have a range of perspectives and for a variety of reasons don't all describe themselves as trans:

Our intention was to be as inclusive as possible in this study, as it was felt that exclusion or marginalisation was neither necessary nor useful in terms of gathering insight and understanding. Our respondents, though, did not all agree with these definitions of transgender. For Charlize/Paul, transgender
didn’t mean anything. “I’m not trans-ing from anything to anything else”, he remarked. Indeed, when the research was introduced as being about transgender community, Charlize/Paul initially said that it did not apply to her. When we first met Charlize/Paul, she was presenting as female. During our ethnography, he4 was presenting as male. Assigned male at birth, Charlize/Paul sees his job as to “bring he boy and the girl together”. In practice, his female
wardrobe is as extensive as his male wardrobe, as are his behaviours and habits. “I am a girly girl, a showgirl, and a mummy’s boy”, he said, nail-varnish on his hands, wearing a low-cut men’s vest and drinking a pint of lager in a local Irish pub.

Gabi, too, took issue with the term ‘transgender’ as it did not mean anything to her. For her, it failed to describe her identity: she is a ‘transwoman’– “always have been and always will be” Transgender didn’t capture this for her.

Moreover, the study included individuals who do not identify as transgender because this implies a relationship with the gender they were assigned at birth, with which they no longer associate at all. For example, a man who was
assigned female at birth, but who now sees himself as a man – not trans, transsexual, ‘transman’, or anything ‘transgender’.

The shorter term ‘trans’ is used in this report for ease of communication and understanding, with apologies to those respondents who do not regularly use the term ‘transgender’ to articulate their identities. This is not an attempt by the authors to eclipse their self-identificationmerely an attempt to ensure accessibility for the lay reader."

My overwhelming impression is that the people included have a very personal understanding of their own identity, and it's never going to be possible to map that onto rights that people need for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with their identity.

Please explain why it is “transphobic” for women to want privacy, dignity and safety in their sports, when receiving intimate personal care and in times of vulnerability?

I know it's been said many times on FWR that this is a men's wants movement, but ever since the SC ruling last year, I've been waiting for things to change. I thought that surely there couldn't be THAT many stupid people in charge of public services, the police, the NHS, schools, etc.

Then I waited for the guidance to be published, then for it to be laid before Parliament. Now, I'm waiting for the guidance enforcement date, 5 August. Soon, we'll be waiting for September when the updated KCSIE guidance comes into force. And waiting for someone in Government to finally say "Enough already. Women have rights, too. Get your act together, quit your whining, and sort it out."

And very little has changed.

Now having read the NHS Scotland thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5558835-nhs-scotland-defied-supreme-court-ruling-to-uphold-trans-policies

I have come to the conclusion that, no, there aren't that many stupid people in charge. But there ARE that many people in charge who hate women, and they have been gleefully using this 10-15 year period to screw over as many women as possible. They might all be activists, but I don't think so. It's opportunistic women- bashing, and how horrifying to realize that they've just been waiting in the wings all this time for exactly this opportunity.

I also believe that most of them don't give a monkeys about trans-identified people. All they care about is ruining every possible experience women have in public life, as often as they can.

And THOSE are the people in charge. And they're allowed to get away with it because there are people (mainly men) everywhere who enable them.

THIS is what we are fighting against. I don't even think it's about "trans" anymore. That movement is on its way out. Non-binary is the next big thing. But it will be the same people using the next big thing, to take away women's rights. They're not going anywhere.

I recommend you read The Sunday Times article linked on the thread. It's a real eye-opener. (sorry, Mash is on that thread, as well, not answering questions, of course)

Squirrels should set up their own threads, not attempt to stop progressing and organising for women's sex based rights.

Strange that they never have the courage of their own convictions to do that. Very undermining of their commitment to their cause.

Its just about getting attention

Personally think it is more about an intense emotional identification with a set of causes - which act as articles of faith which cannot be questioned. You'll find these same people also adhere to a whole set of other predictable beliefs and political positions. Group/tribal identity and a feeling of belonging is a strong motivating factor. When you centre your sense of yourself around a particular and 'righteous' set of beliefs and positions there will be fierce resistance to question or to change them.

That's interesting. I wonder if that is normal for a council. 24 salaries.

It could become an intriguing Q&A.

How many work hours does it take 24 legal advisors to agree whether local councillors should obey the law.

24 lawyers! No wonder councils have no money! Well, let's hope one of the 24 knows enough law to tell Lambeth that they can't pick and choose which laws to obey.

When we first met Charlize/Paul, she was presenting as female. During our ethnography, he4 was presenting as male. Assigned male at birth, Charlize/Paul sees his job as to “bring he boy and the girl together”. In practice, his female
wardrobe is as extensive as his male wardrobe, as are his behaviours and habits. “I am a girly girl, a showgirl, and a mummy’s boy”, he said, nail-varnish on his hands, wearing a low-cut men’s vest and drinking a pint of lager in a local Irish pub.

No, no chance in hell am I going to take time out of my life to deal with unhinged nutters like this.

Yes, I can see that in them as well. But, that doesn't explain why everything to do with women-only or women's rights is automatically so bad that they will ignore laws to ensure that women do not have what they are entitled to.

These people will willingly, publicly, repeatedly break the law because they do not want to follow the law. And the law states, and has reconfirmed, that women have rights.

I don't see how that can be swept aside as just part of the Omnicause, or part of a set of "right side of history" values.

If a law stated absolutely that the Israeli flag should be flown in solidarity over public buildings on a certain day (it never would, of course, but it's an example) and these Omnicause people refused to obey this law, how long do you think they'd get away with breaking the law? Would it be 15 years? I don't think so. I think someone would be told within 15 hours to put the damn flag up.

But women? Meh. Let's just break the law for 15 years, and even after we've been told we need to follow the law, let's break it some more.

It's misogyny we are fighting. "Trans" or "Omnicause" or "RSOH" is just a smokescreen.

Lambeth Council wants to break the law because the law states that women have rights. And they don't want women telling them what they can or can't do. It's women's fault we have this law, anyway. And so women are also now responsible for the fact that Lambeth has to break the law.

Nevermind that the law is also about men having rights, disabled people having rights, Jewish people having rights, Zoroastrian people having rights, "gender reassigned" people having rights...

It's just the women we hate, so they can't have the rights they're entitled to have by law. So, we'll just break that part of the law. The part about the women.

That report is from 2011 - a very different climate.

I did find it interesting reading, quite sympathetically so. The voices lack the aggression, division and hatred of may TRA voices now. And those interviewed avoid being in women's changing rooms, anywhere they would be in physical contact with people, or showing their bodies.

Which perhaps tells us something about the male bodied people wo do insist on their 'right' to be in the women's changing room, showers and toilets.

I am sure all those who live in these council areas will be pleased to know that their press release in relation to EHRC guidance makes reference whatsoever to women.
https://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/vale-of-white-horse-district-council/welcoming-and-inclusive-statement/

They are also one of the worst for dangerous disrepair in their social housing. THIS is what they should be concentrating on

but councils are still awaiting information as to the timeline that any changes will need to be made by and whether there is going to be any financial support for local authorities.

Now. It applies now. How have they missed this?

"Across the districts there are currently a range of options for visitors to council buildings with, for example, individually locking toilets in some of their venues."

As opposed to the toilets without locks? What is going on in the Vale of the White Horse?

"We feel strongly that The Code of Practice creates a real risk that trans people will be excluded from essential services and public spaces, and will be barred from services they have previously had no issue accessing."

You should definitely get on with ensuring that appropriate unisex services are available then. The SC judgement only considered people with a GRC and for everyone else the law has been clear since 2022.

"I hope that last week’s motion, and the work we are doing around these changes, goes a long way to provide trans and non-binary residents of our district the reassurance they deserve that they will not be discriminated against in the provision of council services, and that this council will work to ensure equalities legislation protects them."

Yes, that is in line with the EHRC guidance. Now you just need to get on with complying with the law.

Whilst the Supreme Court ruling in 2025 and this year’s EHRC Code of Practice creates a legal minefield for organisations such as ours

The law has not changed since 2010.

following the announcement of the new guidance from the EHRC, we are undertaking a review of our venues so we can assess where changes may need to be made and are working on a staff training plan, so that we comply with the requirements of that guidance and the broader principles of equality.

Talking about inclusivity is cheap, but could you not have thought about this 3.5 years ago when the law was clarified for the majority of trans people? The guidance is not the law.

Both council leaders will also now write to write to government asking for funding to be made available to councils to cover the costs of making services compliant with the EHRC Code of Practice.

Ah! Ye olde It's Going To Be Too Expensive To Follow The Law tactic! How utterly predictable.

...to follow a law that hasn't changed and they should have been complying with already?

🙄

Hmm I was thinking circa 2017!