WPUK and the attack on the Equality Act exemptions

I posted this on another thread yesterday as background.

There has been a neutralising of intentions somewhat, from what was gathered in this initial inquiry.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf
House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee
Transgender Equality
First Report of Session 2015–16

This has probably been posted before but there were lots of recommendations to remove EA2010 exemptions, all documented here and all recommended by trans people, and in parallel with the GRA update.

The report also recommended changing the EA2010 to say Gender Identity thereby including cross dressing and gender fluid people

Mermaids was the source of this section:
106. Another issue raised with us was the current inability of the EHRC to pursue a complaint by a person aged under 18 without their parents’ consent (see Chapter Six).112
107. The inclusion of “gender reassignment” as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010 was a huge step forward and has clearly improved the position of trans people. However, it is clear to us that the use of the terms “gender reassignment” and “transsexual” in the Act is outdated and misleading; and may not cover wider members of the trans community.
108. The protected characteristic in respect of trans people under the Equality Act should be amended to that of “gender identity”. This would improve the law by bringing the
language in the Act up to date, making it compliant with Council of Europe Resolution 2048; and make it significantly clearer that protection is afforded to anyone who might experience discrimination because of their gender identity.
109. The protections afforded by the Equality Act 2010 are intended to be available to all, including children and adolescents. The Equality and Human Rights Commission must be able to investigate complaints of discrimination raised by children and adolescents
without the requirement to have their parents’ consent

In response to this 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 all this BS about there being nothing to see is BS. They seem to be pretending none of this was captured by the inquiry and changes to the EA2010 were not the sole purpose of Maria Millers Private Member's Bill.

It seems from the meeting last week in Portcullis House a few of us attended on the EA, that changes are not going to happen quickly now.

Seeing it all laid out in R0wan's post like that, it's so clear how transgender rights means the removal of women's rights, and that's exactly what they're aiming for.

Ha.

Quoting both the government and Stonewall's own words. They'll both insist that it is oldspeak and it never happened.

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

What?
That was meant to read

*people need to be aware that the exemptions (in the equality act) are under attack

See also James Kirkup's commentary (link includes evidence):

Some facts about the events that preceded the Government statement here that the coming consultation on the Gender Recognition Act will be narrowly drawn and not affect the Equality Act’s single sex exemptions.

I offer these facts because some are claiming “there was never any question of removing/amending EA exceptions.” Those claims are either mistaken or dishonest.
August 2015
Stonewall submission to the Women & Equalities Select Committee says MPs should amend the EA to
“remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces”

Jan 2016
Women & Equalities Committee says EA should be amended so that

“occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply”.

July 2016
Govt response to W&E Committee says: “we agree with the principle of this recommendation” on EA exemptions and seeks evidence for “future policy discussions”

July 2017
Govt promises GRA reform “ as part of a broad consultation of the legal system that underpins gender transition.”

July 2017
Stonewall commits to “advocate for the removal” of EA provisions allowing sex-based discrimination.

June 2018
Govt says:

“We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single sex spaces.”

In sum: MPs and others told govt to amend/remove Equality Act single-sex exemptions. Govt considered doing so. Then govt ruled it out. / ends

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html

People need to be aware that the data empties aerial under attack because there's a LOT of denial about this.

I think they are/were hoping to erode the exemptions without anyone noticing.

This is a good post.

Probably How! But if we ignore the tantrums and gaslighting and just keep on telling everyone real facts we'll continue making progress.

A clear, consistent, well considered approach will win the day.
The ‘gaming’, avoiding, deflecting, projecting and u-turning ways will create drama and, on occasion, derail. But, if we keep on with our straight forward, no nonsense approach we will get there eventually!

I’d add:

1. Fine for failure to undertake equality impact assessment and extend duty to businesses of over 200 employees.

1. Tribunal system to challenge exemptions if not applied/ unfairly applied

1. Amendment to GRA: where individual changes legal sex explicit statement that natal sex is the relevant characteristic (over-riding preferred gender)in relation to the sex exemptions in the Equality Act.

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

Will this thread also get derailed with comments about females biology from TRA, to distract from the evidence in the link?

Excellent bit of research! Needs posting every time a gaslighter tells us that there were no such proposals!