Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

WPUK and the attack on the Equality Act exemptions

62 replies

PeakPants · 26/06/2018 10:10

Not sure if everyone has seen this- it's from WPUK's twitter account. As you know, there has been some significant progress in that the government has now officially confirmed that they will not be amending the exemptions to the EA that allow same sex spaces. However, there has been the usual patronising rubbish about how feminists got it the wrong way round and that amending the EA was never on the table (both on here and on twitter). This is a great summary from WPUK showing that it most definitely WAS on the table and that the campaigning has had a real impact.

My view is that the EA must be reformed to place a duty, not an option on service providers to provide same sex spaces where proportionate and necessary for safety, privacy and dignity. But this is a good start to that.

womansplaceuk.org/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

OP posts:
Picassospaintbrush · 26/06/2018 13:22

Because it doesn't actually prove that the government ever proposed changing the Equality Act, though, does it? All it shows is that some organisations suggested possible changes, which were rejected.

I posted this above.

In response to the Inquiry Maria Miller went ahead to try to change the EA2010 and introduced a private member’s bill in the last parliament with the aim of pushing through the recommendation to change the protected characteristic to Gender Identity despite lack of formal government support. It never got past the first reading because Theresa May called a snap election for June 2017.

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-12-01/debates/38CFE29B-D261-45DF-9C31-0546E3CBC3B8/PointsOfOrder

So are you going to explain this away? Or is it imaginary like so much that we hear? Without the election stopping any business that may well have been shoved through, as was intended by whoever lobbied Miller into the Private Members Bill. Unless of course that just dropped down from heaven into her lap?

The never ending lies here are very revealing.

LangCleg · 26/06/2018 12:51

Similarly proper scrutiny is needed for policy impacting medical issues particularly around children. And related to this any educational materials, guidance or policy in schools.

Yes. Policy makers need to understand that safeguarding comes first. Always.

LangCleg · 26/06/2018 12:50

Scrap case by case EHRC guidance and bring guidance in line with objective justification for indirect discrimination

This is an excellent practical suggestion and would greatly improve practice.

LangCleg · 26/06/2018 12:49

But the fact that Women’s Aid are now considering removing single sex provision shows that it is imperative that these exemptions are made mandatory, not voluntary.

Absolutely. I mean, just look at the rage that occurs when this topic is even mentioned hereabouts. How many red flags do we need to say that women subject to DV need their own spaces?

R0wantrees · 26/06/2018 12:45

Damnthatonestakentryanother2

I suggest you read the statement linked below by WPUK before making any further allegations. It may be that you are unaware of the facts.

"In an open letter to Hugh Brady, signatories make unfounded slurs against Woman’s Place UK which we write now to refute and rebut.

Who are Woman’s Place UK?

We are a campaign group run by working women on a voluntary basis. We are from a range of backgrounds including trade unions, women’s organisations, academia and the NHS. We are united by our belief that women’s hard won rights must be defended.

We are against all forms of discrimination. We believe in the right of everyone to live their lives free from discrimination and harassment. Women face both endemic structural and personal inequality. This is reflected, for example, in the high levels of sexual harassment and violence against women and girls; the gender pay gap; discrimination at work. This is why sex is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act (2010) which we believe must be defended... continues

"We have been shocked and depressed at the keen enthusiasm with which so many people are content to see women demonised, harassed, abused, threatened and assaulted simply for asking questions or asserting their rights.

Sadly, Woman’s Place UK members have become used to being misrepresented and slurred. At times, we have to had to seek legal advice and take legal action in defence of our reputations. It shouldn’t be this way."

womansplaceuk.org/womans-place-bristol-university/

PeakPants · 26/06/2018 12:41

They are direct quotes so hardly misleading. Given that the proposal to change it came from a government minister who at the time had responsibility for formulating proposals for reform, I think it’s fair enough to say it was under attack.

Anyway, the feminist viewpoint is that the current protections don’t go far enough. As you guys always say, trans rights are not up for debate. Well soz, neither are women’s. I will happily argue in favour of state obligations to trans people and I will call out transphobia where I see it. This is not transphobia on any level. It is about reconciling competing rights and if people can’t see that, there isn’t much we can do to help them unfortunately and no doubt their inability to see what is there impedes them in other areas of life too.

OP posts:
Damnthatonestakentryanother2 · 26/06/2018 12:26

More dishonesty from WPUK! No surprises there!
Because it doesn't actually prove that the government ever proposed changing the Equality Act, though, does it? All it shows is that some organisations suggested possible changes, which were rejected.
It's a bit like me posting extracts from MN threads as "evidence" that the government is planning to remove all legal protections from trans people. It wouldn't be true, but it would be a good excuse to set up lucrative protest meetings and get myself lots of column inches and air time.

Wanderabout · 26/06/2018 11:44

1) Government policy has not changed.
2) Women's Place have achieved nothing but stirring up transphobia.
3) The horrific transphobic in the far right wing press (Daily Mail, Times) has been completely unnecessary.

Translation:

  1. women's campaigning warded off the threat of government policy being changed
  2. Women's Place have achieved nothing but stirring up the recognition that women's rights are under threat and matter
  3. The horrific support for and recognition of the impact on women's rights in the press across the political spectrum is not appreciated.
PeakPants · 26/06/2018 11:35

SarahAr two questions:

  1. Did you not read the government's response to the select committee report? They did not immediately condemn the proposed removal of the exemptions and merely said they needed to consider the matter. How can you take from that there was never any intention to remove them.

  2. Could you explain what is transphobic about insisting on sex segregation in some instances? No really, I am interested. If you say that trans people should be afforded dignity and privacy by not having to use the facilities corresponding with their birth-sex, then why should women not be afforded the same dignity and privacy? How do you defend your position which seems to only give rights to one group and not another? That's what I don't get.

OP posts:
R0wantrees · 26/06/2018 11:34

SarahAr

There was increasing awareness.

There was a petition:
"Consult with women on proposals to enshrine 'gender identity' in law
The government proposes to amend the law to allow people to self-identify as men or women, and to stop allowing organisations in sensitive situations to exclude people of the opposite birth sex. We call for women to be consulted on how to protect women and girls' rights, safety, privacy and dignity."
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214118

The petition reached 10 000 so the Government responded:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3269463-Government-response-to-the-petition

At 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament

R0wantrees · 26/06/2018 11:29

Relevent thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3242812--Amnesty-International-Mermaids-and-Stonewall-have-signed-an-open-letter-to-Penny-Mordaunt-stating-the-importance-of-reforming-the-Gender-Recognition-Act
[OP]
'May 2018 Pink News exclusive:
"In 2017, the former Equalities Minister, Justine Greening, announced plans to review the 2004 law, which allows transgender people to gain recognition by changing their legal documents – but the process has since been delayed multiple times.

This has been partly due to pressure from the right-wing press.

Multiple departures from the ministerial position have also contributed to the confusion.

Mordaunt is now the third Equalities Minister since the announcement of this review — following the departure in April of Amber Rudd — it is currently unclear when the review will begin and how much of a priority it will be.

Reports last year stated that the review would begin in spring 2018, but there has been no further information about the review’s time frame.

In the open letter, the groups have highlighted the “humiliating” process the current law requires to change the gender on legal documents, as well as pointing out that transgender people face discrimination and abuse that remains unchallenged while the government delays the review.

“The longer this delay goes on, the longer abusive invective is allowed to continue unchallenged by a government who rightly pride themselves on robustly speaking up for its minority citizens,” the letter states....." continues

Picassospaintbrush · 26/06/2018 11:28

Your hyperbole is showing SarahAr

SarahAr · 26/06/2018 11:23

Yes, Stonewall called for a change to the exceptions. And yes Maria Miller's committee called for a change to the exceptions.

But Stonewall and Maria Miller's committee are not the government. Select committees are cross party committees.

The government responded to the Miller report and rejected the proposal to change the exceptions. The government then announced a proposal to reform the GRA - www.gov.uk/government/news/new-action-to-promote-lgbt-equality
There was nothing in this proposal to change the Equality Act exceptions.

So

  1. Government policy has not changed.
  2. Women's Place have achieved nothing but stirring up transphobia.
  3. The horrific transphobic in the far right wing press (Daily Mail, Times) has been completely unnecessary.
PeakPants · 26/06/2018 11:10

Thanks, Pratchet Smile

OP posts:
Pratchet · 26/06/2018 11:09

I absolutely support this Peak. You are spot on. I have not previously agreed with you about the Equality Act but I think you have highlighted something very important here.

PeakPants · 26/06/2018 11:09

Shocking. The DV sector is already hugely underfunded. This is why this should not be something service providers can choose because then they will be subject to pressure and bullying. The government should also owe a duty to trans people to provide services to them, but separately from women and it should be for the state to fund and establish these.

Oh and I am very sorry but there is no way on earth I can ever buy that trans women are of greater risk of DV in intimate relationships than natal women. No matter what 'studies' are waved in my face to prove otherwise. The men who beat and abuse women simply do not have relationships with trans women, end of. I believe trans women face prejudice but on the issue of DV, I am unwilling to budge. The priority must be to natal women who are DV victims and 98% of the time this will be in the context of a heterosexual relationship.

OP posts:
R0wantrees · 26/06/2018 11:00

The pressures on Women's Aid and similar services should not be underestimated.

They have had a sustained slashing of financial support.

(Statement on WPUK)
"I’m writing as a feminist who has devoted over two decades of my life to ending violence against women (VAW). I’ve worked in frontline services in both domestic abuse and sexual violence services across the country and now I head up a VAW sector charity.

I love my job, I am so lucky. It often surprises people when I say this, as they expect this type of work to be depressing, but that’s not how I look at services like ours at all.

The VAW sector supports women as they try to move away from abusive and violent perpetrators, working with survivors to break the silence that abusive perpetrators impose on them. There is nothing to compare to the moments when these women get their voices back and break free – and that’s why I love my job.

Unfortunately, in recent months the changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the incredibly toxic debate around the issue of ‘gender self ID’ has left many more women under a heavy veil of silence, particularly for those of us who work in the VAW sector. The dark, uncomfortable irony of this silence is not lost on me, nor is it lost on the many women in the sector I have recently spoken to about this issue.

As someone who has worked with many survivors of violence over the last two decades, I am terrified – both professionally and personally – about the impact of self ID on ensuring safe spaces are available to women who have experienced and are escaping male violence. Even without the legal changes to the GRA, gender inclusive policies are already happening in many areas, these changes are ahead of the law and already upon us. Moreover they do not appear to be slowing down.

Organisations in the VAW sector can use the Equality Act 2010 for the protection of female-only spaces and I absolutely think we should. I’ve worked with so many female survivors of violence who have been left terrified of men, and who relied on female-only support to heal from the trauma they experienced. The sex-based nature of the crimes they’ve experienced necessitates this being women who share their histories, experiences, vulnerabilities and, yes, biologies. So it is right that VAW-service providers have a strong case to make for protections that enable them to employ and provide access to women on the basis of their sex.

However, to say this right now and to explain why self-ID is feared to be problematic for VAW services opens us up to attack and our ability to continue delivering services that we know change – and even save – female lives.

Over the course of many years, I’ve watched the public realm become increasingly toxic with accusations of transphobia, ‘literal violence’ and ‘questioning the right of trans people to exist’ as females – some, but not all of them feminists – asked questions about the potential impact of self-ID on VAW services and, more broadly, on female-only spaces. I’ve watched as trans activists and their supporters target funders, employers, meeting venues, and political parties in response to people asking for a broader public dialogue on the issue.

It’s been heart wrenching to watch feminist activists who have spent their professional careers fighting male violence being silenced by a rhetoric that insists we are the abusive ones, labelling us as TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists).

Canada, where self-ID is already law, provides some interesting examples of this ‘debate’ (or lack of it), and shows that in some cases, trans activists and their supporters will stop at nothing to try to shut down female voices. The case of Nixon v Vancouver Rape Relief (VRR) was a legal action case involving a trans woman whose application to volunteer to work with rape victims was refused by a rape crisis service. The case was settled in favour of VRR’s legal right to use sex-based exemptions to exclude transwomen from working with their female clients in 2007.

However, VRR have been relentlessly targeted as transphobic for exercising both their legal right and professional judgement that female victims of sexual violence have the right to access female-only services. In 2013, a day of remembrance for the 14 women murdered in the 1989 L’Ecole Polytechnique Massacre was targeted by a trans activists protest. In 2018 and the trolling continues, a local sweet shop and its female owner were targeted and the owner doxed by trans activists after putting up a poster supporting a VRR fundraiser.

The threat to organisations who take on a stand on protecting female-only service provision is very real. Securing year on year funding for VAW services in the current climate is hard enough and I don’t want to risk our services. However, to say nothing is to be complicit in the silencing of debate and discussion on the implications of self-ID for VAW services.

This is why I recently attended a Woman’s Place UK meeting, where I made a plea to the women and men there to understand the growing fear in the VAW sector of speaking up on this issue. Even in a room sympathetic to my concerns, I felt a deep sense of fear as I shared my concerns, which I feel is a strong testament to the threatening environment facing women who dare to even ask questions about self-ID. I am delighted to say there was strong support in the room and a pledge that those who can do so without fear of consequence will speak up on the behalf of VAW services .... continues

womansplaceuk.org/the-silencing-of-feminists-silences-survivors/

stillathing · 26/06/2018 10:51

so what to do about women's aid and other similar charities which are already operating on a single gender basis when they should be operating on a single sex basis?

PeakPants · 26/06/2018 10:39

Yes that section is particularly poignant.

OP posts:
PeakPants · 26/06/2018 10:38

Yes I saw that article R0wantrees. Makes the point very well that the balance has really not been considered at all. Women have a right not to share certain spaces with male bodies and this right has nothing to do with prejudice.

OP posts:
R0wantrees · 26/06/2018 10:37

From the article above:

"In the rush to be trans inclusive, has every single adult who approved this guidance booklet completely forgotten about the needs of girls? Do our girls mean so little nowadays to not even deserve the right of privacy?

"On one hand the media is reporting about the sharp increase of sexual harassment and assaults of girls within schools and on the other we are telling our girls they no longer have the right to set their own boundaries of who can be within their private spaces when vulnerable."

PeakPants · 26/06/2018 10:36

Thanks picasso. Just shows that there is no interest in balance and compromise from the other side. They believe they can only have true equality if they completely remove any right whatsoever to female sex segregation. It needs to be hammered home that this is not us saying that trans people will attack us but more about our right to privacy and dignity. If trans people have a right to privacy and dignity in not wanting to get changed with members of their birth sex (because let’s face it, at school it’s not about risk of attack, is it) then they cannot at the same time deny that women also have a right to privacy and dignity.

OP posts:
R0wantrees · 26/06/2018 10:36

Relevant article (publ. yesterday):

'Schools 'forget' girls in rush to adopt pro-trans guidance campaigners claim as Christian group threatens legal action'

THE rights of Scottish schoolgirls are being undermined by rules allowing pupils to adopt a different gender and share changing rooms, it has been claimed, as it emerged schools are unprepared for the controversial overhaul.

A series of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests have revealed that councils have widely backed guidelines produced by organisations campaigning for the rights of transgender people but have not considered how the new approach will affect children – particularly girls.

The new guidelines tell teachers that if a transgender pupil wishes to share a changing room with "other young people who share their gender identity," they should be allowed to do so.

"There is no reason for parents or carers of the other pupils to be informed," it adds.

The guidelines say young people should be able to compete in the sports events for the gender they identify with, and says if other pupils are uncomfortable using changing rooms or toilets with transgender pupils, they should use other facilities or wait until the transgender pupil is done.

However none of the councils involved, nor the children’s commissioner, nor Education Scotland have carried out an equality impact assessment to ensure the rights and wellbeing of other pupils are unaffected. This means the impact on other students has not been taken into account.

The data comes as a Christian charity is due to launch a legal challenge over the new guidelines.

Lodged by feminist campaigner and mother of two Jess Stewart, the FoI results suggest councils are failing to consider the ramifications of the move.

Ms Stewart said she recognises the need to support transgender children.

“They are obviously wanting to do the right thing which is great. But they’ve done it without considering girls,” she said.

“Girls are absolutely negatively affected by this. It is important to raise awareness of transgender children but putting a transgender girl in a changing room with 30 other girls isn’t proportionate.

“They should at least have looked at the possible fall out from putting a male-bodied person in changing rooms which are being used by 14, 15 and 16 year old girls.”

Among the councils which have endorsed the guidance produced by LGBT Youth and the Scottish Trans Alliance, Glasgow, West Lothian, Clackmannanshire and South Lanarkshire said they were unable to publish an assessment of the likely impact on other pupils as they had not carried one out. Edinburgh City Council failed to respond. The office of the Scottish Children's Commissioner, Education Scotland and the Scottish Government have all also backed the LGBT Youth guide.

Scotland's Children's commissioner said: "We did not undertake and therefore do not hold" any research looking at how other pupils might be affected by the guidance. " (continues)

www.heraldscotland.com/news/16311379.schools-forget-girls-in-rush-to-adopt-pro-trans-guidance-campaigners-claim-as-christian-group-threatens-legal-action/

Wanderabout · 26/06/2018 10:34

What worries me is what else are lobby groups trying to slip through without scrutiny that will negatively impact women's rights?

Agree with all Elle 's points

Also any new suggestions that may impact women's rights need proper scrutiny. If the government is paying lobby groups and special interest groups to work against women's rights, it needs to give the same resources and access to women's groups.

The position of Minister for Women cannot simultaneously represent women's interests and TRA interests. They are directly opposed, it is a clear conflict of interests.

Similarly proper scrutiny is needed for policy impacting medical issues particularly around children. And related to this any educational materials, guidance or policy in schools.

beenandgoneandbackagain · 26/06/2018 10:31

I give it 10 minutes before someone pitches up here and insists that the passages quoted are fake.

The TRAs will claim it was actually started by a right wing extremist on 4Chan. *

*see also "drop the B" and "cotton ceiling" also both very real but claimed by some to have been started on 4chan to discredit transpeople.

Swipe left for the next trending thread