4 June 2026: Scottish Court finds that failure to provide single sex toilets in schools (both cubicles and washbasins) discriminates against girls on grounds of sex, with reference to - privacy - dignity - safety - health and hygiene - sex-based vulnerability, anatomical and experiential differences as between girls and boys. There should be no mistake about what this judgment shows. Reliance on gender-neutral and unisex toilets in schools subjects girls -- en masse -- to degradation and increased risk of physical harm, on grounds of sex. Besides being unlawful under the Equality Act 2010, this undoubtedly breaches the human rights of girls under the ECHR, UNCRC, CEDAW, and likely also the Istanbul Convention. Governments and public authorities that fail to restore single-sex toilets in schools will, on this basis, be responsible for human rights violations. scotcourts.gov.uk/media/mv5d…

The EHRC guidance contains contradictions which will damage the daily lives of many only politicians legislating can resolve. Today I challenged the minister to explain how it could work in practice and what the consequences will be using their own words- I will continue to work with colleagues across Parliament who also recognise none of this makes sense.

Find your Peter Murrell item by putting a pound sign against the number of X followers and the last thing you touched in your kitchen. Mine is a £42600 pizza wheel.

Dear @ucu There is something unsettling here. But it’s not the EHRC Code of Practice. It’s the bizarre lengths to which @UCU will go to avoid acknowledging the sex-based labour rights of women – and the total betrayal this entails of the workers, over generations and continents, through whose struggle and enormous personal sacrifice legal rules protecting women and girls against discrimination at work were established. Contrary to such rules, in recent years, female workers in Britain have been denied their human rights to dignity, privacy, equality and labour representation because of profoundly misguided approaches to trans-inclusion promoted and adopted, amongst others, by trade unions. The Supreme Court decision in For Women Scotland merely clarified what was always the law: ‘women’ for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 is a sex-based class. The EHRC revised Code reflects this. ILO minimum standards – binding on the UK and globally – likewise demand it. What @UCU must now do ‘urgently’ is accept this, clean house, and consider how it can best make amends to the female workforce whose interests and representation it has so shamefully abandoned.

Equality is not conditional. Dignity at work is not negotiable. The EHRC Code of Practice has been published. UCU is examining it urgently. This is a significant and unsettling moment and we will not leave branches to navigate it alone. Employers' duties under equality and employment law remain in force; this does not change that. We've written to @UniversitiesUK: universities and colleges are responsible for protecting staff and students, not putting them at risk through rushed or inconsistent decisions. UCU will organise, defend, and fight for the rights of trans and non-binary people.

I am absolutely devastated Men who claim to be women have more rights than actual women in Australia. It is women who are being discriminated against, not the men who claim to be us. But in a sense, nothing has changed: we will all wake up tomorrow & men will still not be women.

📣 @FayeRCTribunal who has won her case against NHS England! Congratulations to Naomi Cunningham and Liz McGlone representing 👏👏👏 Tribunal finds the policy of permitting "trans women" to use female facilities was harassment in relation to sex & GC belief and its trans equality proceedure was harassment in relation to GC belief.

It is a good result but I’m struggling to see in the judgment where it found sex is immutable. I’d love it to be true though so can you point to where I missed that?