Delighted to see so many lovely people at @readingprideuk.bsky.social today. 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ Enormous support for our petition agains the ban on puberty blockers, and we've had Councillors, MPs and even a Mayor come by our stall. We're still here at King's Meadow - come and say hi! #Pride #Rdguk
![[The first page of a letter on House of Commons headed paper to the Rt. Hon. Bridget Phillipson MP at her Cabinet Office address, with a footer indicating Marie Goldman MP's email address.]
The letter reads:
Dear Bridget,
Re: the EHRC's statutory Code of Practice
The EHRC's new Code of Practice was supposed to give people and organisations clear and workable guidance to protect everyone from discrimination, harassment and victimisation. After studying it carefully, I'm afraid we have to conclude that it has failed that test.
We have heard from many people across our society who are deeply concerned about what it will mean for them as they go about their daily lives. We have also heard from businesses and charities who still don't see how they are supposed to implement the code while complying with their existing duties to customers, clients, and staff.
These concerns are naturally most acute among trans, non-binary and intersex people. They understandably fear that this guidance could lead to them being shut out of vital services and unable to go about their daily lives. As the government's own impact assessment says, "trans people could be barred from the space aligned with their gender and the space aligned with their birth sex, effectively leaving them with no service at all." They are also concerned at the risk of being forced to out themselves unnecessarily, and the increased threat of being harassed, abused and attacked just for being who they are.
But the risks of this guidance go much further. We have heard from many women who fear the rise of "gender policing", where they are accused of not looking "feminine enough" and challenged to "prove" their sex - just to access the women's services and facilities that are their hard-won right.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:wyulwp6r3w7cxmdaiok2qqil/bafkreihapf2rgzqrofkfdg3rkhr5slkvpb3xjr37uxlfcoumf6ux4d3kdm)
![[the second page of a letter on House of Commons headed paper, with Marie Goldman MP's email address in the footer]
The letter reads:
Businesses, charities and other organisations have also raised concerns about the costs of complying with this guidance, and the legal uncertainty they face. This guidance was supposed to provide clarity, but instead the confusion it creates - including over how it interacts with other legal duties - only increases the threat of complicated and expensive legal cases against organisations who are just trying to do their best.
For all these reasons, we do not believe that the new Code of Practice is fit for purpose. It does not provide clear and workable guidance, and it does not do enough to protect everyone from discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
More than that, we do not believe that this guidance is compatible with the longstanding British values we hold dear: tolerance, decency, respect for individual liberty and the rule of law. We do not want to become a country where people are barred from accessing essential services simply for who they are, or where women are asked to prove that they are women, just to go about their lives.
The truth is that the issues that are now so sensitive and contentious were never discussed in Parliament when the Equality Act was passed 16 years ago. Now, we fear the government is seeking to compound that by imposing this new guidance without any real debate or scrutiny in Parliament. That is wrong, and undemocratic. It is past time for Parliament to step up and grapple with these issues properly.
We therefore urge you to withdraw the guidance, and instead support our proposal for a joint committee of cross-party MPs and peers to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of both the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act 2010, taking evidence from all communities who have been impacted in order to propose amendments or new legislation it sees as necessary to ensure existing [con't]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:wyulwp6r3w7cxmdaiok2qqil/bafkreiaifrnpb5ivyduspd5erae3axozplqy3h4a5eum36abxrqtblgm44)
![[the third page of a letter on House of Commons headed paper, with a footer showing Marie Goldman MP's email address]
For the purposes of the Alt-text, the final part of the second page was:
...necessary to ensure existing rights are protected.
The letter continues on this page:
I hope we can agree that we need legislation that properly protects everyone's safety, dignity and wellbeing. We are committed to upholding women's rights and trans rights, and do not believe that the two are in conflict.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
[Ed Davey's scribbly signature]
Ed Davey MP
Member of Parliament for Kingston and Surbiton
Leader of the Liberal Democrats
[Marie Goldman's loopy signature]
Marie Goldman MP
Member of Parliament for Chelmsford
Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Women and Equalities](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:wyulwp6r3w7cxmdaiok2qqil/bafkreiapjiudpr6cu7pebm5vfbzvdjpbjv76g2ux3gbzszuy6iomajahym)
