FINALLY, the Government has published its guidance on single-sex spaces. More than a year after the Supreme Court told the Government all it needed to know, Bridget Phillipson, the Minister for Women and Equalities, spoke to Parliament to admit that the legal separation of males and females is policy . . . but there’s a catch.
In April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that transwomen (to the vast majority of us, men pretending to be women) are not legally women for the purposes of the Equality Act.
The Conservative government of Rishi Sunak, to its rare credit, had already clarified that transsexuals are not entitled to enter spaces reserved for the other sex. Kemi Badenoch, then Minister for Women and Equalities, issued a call for information on any organisations that were pretending otherwise. That was on May 1, 2024, as a procedural step towards new guidance. But then Sunak stupidly called an election – which, more stupidly, he lost by a landslide.
So enter Sir Keir Starmer’s Government from stage left.
Labour did not issue its call for comment until December 2024 (I commented. I never heard anything further.)
So that got us well into 2025, when the government used the Scottish, Welsh, and UK local elections as successive excuses for delaying all political business – except, you know, the political business that really matters, such as re-joining the EU, throwing money at mosques for security against exaggerated threats, receiving politicised Islamic leaders in Parliament to celebrate Muslim holidays but not those of any other faith, covering up the scandal of how Lord Mandelson became Ambassador to the US despite being known to maintain business and personal links with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and Chinese clients, covering up how China got approval for building a super-embassy adjacent to the City of London’s telecommunications, and . . . oh, I don’t have the space.
Meanwhile, the Government tasked the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) with drafting guidance. Because who could expect ministers to draft guidance on their own policy? Perhaps assisted by civil servants who had been working on the issue under the Tories? No? Too much to expect, apparently. Let’s farm it out to another unaccountable quango.
The EHRC submitted its conclusions in September 2025.
Phillipson sat on it for more months, scared of what the lunatic left wing of the Labour Party’s base would do. More lunatics would find an excuse to defect to more lunatic left-wing parties, such as the Green Party, which somehow mixes lunatic transgenderism with lunatic Islamism.
Anyway, Phillipson spent months claiming to be too busy or too diligent to do anything with the EHRC draft.
Months later, Phillipson requested from the EHRC some tweaks which could have been wrapped up in September. For instance, she demanded more examples of how institutions can be ‘inclusive’ and can ensure that transsexuals have access to toilets and changing rooms (as if they don’t already).
On Thursday, Phillipson uncomfortably told Parliament that the new guidance would clarify to those in charge of schools, hospitals, and prisons that ‘sex means biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010’.
‘A Gender Recognition Certificate does not change a person’s sex for the purposes of the Act,’ she said.
Sounds clear, right? It was, until she added the proposition ‘that trans people are still protected by the Act under the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment”.’ This muddies her previous statements, and provides an opportunity for lunatic leftist officials to make allowances and accommodations for the ‘gender reassigned’.
Who would qualify as gender-reassigned? Does it mean the man who has his penis removed? Or does a man in a dress count too? Phillipson slyly did not clarify.
‘Surely, activists would not be so opportunistic?’ one might ask. Yet it is the new norm for public bodies to do whatever they want, and to hell with the law.
They behave as if they’re not accountable to the law or to government as long as they’re in tune with the new social mores of their woke bubble. If you step out of that bubble, and say Britain is a Christian country, or show videos of Trump supporters during a class on American politics, or tweet your outrage at the propensity of young adult male illegal immigrants to commit sex crimes, then damn you, you should expect the criminal justice system, the Government, your child’s school, and perhaps your employer too, to ruin your life.
And don’t kid yourself you can write to your MP, the responsible minister, or whichever of the millions of ombudsmen (sexist) are responsible for your particular grievance, because all will reply that they cannot possibly interfere in the independence of the judiciary, the quangos and local government.
Maybe you’re thinking of suing in civil court? Do you have a million quid to pay the lawyers? Good luck finding a lawyer.
This institutional collusion is suppressing majority common sense in favour of a tyranny of the minorities. Since the Supreme Court ruled in 2024, most public bodies and private companies have pretended to be too ‘confused’ to implement its clarification, and so some single-sex spaces have remained open to transsexuals. They are disingenuous. The Supreme Court ruling could not have been clearer. The subsequent non-compliance proves that the lunatics run the mad house.
It’s not just local bodies. In November 2025, the Government approved the NHS’s request to re-start chemical experiments on gender dysphoric children, which had been suspended in the wake of the Cass Report.
In February this year, the Government released new guidance on safeguarding children, with more poorly-worded loopholes for schools to avoid telling parents about gender dysphoria if teachers think telling parents would cause undefined ‘harm’ to the child. The guidance contains no admonishment against the normal practice of woke teachers to encourage children to believe in dozens of genders, and that male and female are the least desirable.
Like the guidance on safeguarding children, last week’s guidance on equality law is spun by the government as ‘clear and accessible’. It is not.
