Labour councillor quits in row over facilities for trans people - The Times

Sarah Briwn admitted that the word gender was used over sex 'quite deliberately'. Admitting it's not an accident, or prudishness about the word sex. Deliberate attempt to erase sex as a protected characteristic and replace with gender.

Cambridge city council seem to totally happy to ignore the law and even seem to take pride in quite how much they will screw over women - by excluding the option for case by case exemptions. I am concerned about who will replace her - undoubtedly Sarah Brown will want to stand again.

And hopefully in that case any egregious abuse of power or continued refusal to abide by the law will attract media attention and send a powerful message about the agenda and what it means for women and girls.

@Bowlofbabelfish if the council has broken any laws or parts of the EQ Act 2010 then why hasn’t there been a court case?

They don’t happen automatically- someone has to bring them.

They have removed sex as a protected characteristic. That is illegal.

Is sex the only one you’re ‘happy’ to see go? Why are you happy to see that? I would be very unhappy to see the council remove ANY protected characteristic.

But you’re happy to see they have removed sex as a protected characteristic.

I’d like to know why. Why does that make you happy?

We should bring it up in the Equality Act review, as Listen suggests. We should use it as an example where applying the law is failing and there is no redress.

A comment saying txxf was deleted.

@Bowlofbabelfish if the council has broken any laws or parts of the EQ Act 2010 then why hasn’t there been a court case?

I’m not a legal expert (and definitely don’t know legal terminology) so I can only speculate they haven’t.

If there’s a case they have then whatever mechanics that exist in a democracy need to be used to raise it to the appropriate courts so the law can be confirmed either way.

As a Cambridge resident I’m disappointed that Ann has resigned, because from a brief exchange on Twitter in June I thought she believed that she could make changes from within. I’m assuming that she now believes this isn’t possible and needed to take this stand to make the issue more public. Cambridge city council seem to totally happy to ignore the law and even seem to take pride in quite how much they will screw over women - by excluding the option for case by case exemptions. I am concerned about who will replace her - undoubtedly Sarah Brown will want to stand again.

Comments are good on the Times piece.

Someone copied a tweet from Sarah Brown saying that she intended to change sex to gender in Cambridge's policy when she was a councillor on a previous thread. I suppose Ann Sinnott has access to that tweet. Probably isn't even in dispute

how few people who depend on equality laws to protect them can see its a bad idea to undermine them
This. Also it's chilling how casually the law - the product of the legislature, subject to democratic checks and balances - is being supplanted by the will of a vocal minority with the acquiescence and even the support of the executive.

So, no comment on the fact that the council has broken the law from the delightful TRAs ont' thread.

Instructive about how seriously they take laws and their enforcement. And probably why people really shouldn't trust a word they say about anything, really.

The sad thing is, how few people who depend on equality laws to protect them can see its a bad idea to undermine them.

Why are you glad trying?

The equality act has nine protected characteristics. One has been illegally removed by the council.

Do you support that? If so, why?

Okay @LangCleg it’s a fair cop.
I used the wrong political terminology.

I’ll rephrase. I’m glad Ann Sinnott no longer represents my ward and in future council elections I can vote for the Labour representative with a clear conscience.

Sarah Brown? This Sarah Brown?

"Women, don't worry your pretty little heads about this stuff, there's no need to be concerned. Now run along and let the men get on with the important stuff"

happydappy2

The means to change the sex reference on legal documents, except the Birth Certificate, has long been available via a Statutory Declaration, which is a legal document that must be counter-signed by a Notary.

GRA 2004 is the law that permits the Birth Certificate to be changed.

See these web pages for detailed and thorough explanation:

fairplayforwomen.com/reform/

Sky news are running a report today on a woman who was punched by a man for telling him to stop sexually harrassing her, whilst this still happens we will fight to keep men out of women’s spaces.

Well done Ann Sinnott for standing up for women and girls.

Solidarity sister.

Agree, the law has created a legal fiction than a man can be classed as as female-Lilly Madigan was boasting on twitter recently that in their passport they are classed F.
This is why the law must distinguish between women and trans women.

Friend of yours?

Will there be a by election? Hopefully Lib Dem Sarah Brown will get in.

As we can see with the Croft v Royal Mail case which specifically refers to a male undergoing a physical transition of gender. It wasn't intended that all random men who wear a dress occasionally should necessarily be protected. It's either poorly drafted or that was added in as a Trojan horse.

The problem is with the Legal Fiction created by the GRA 2004, since no human can change sex. It created the category of "gender reassignment" as a protected characteristic, although section 7 of the EqA makes it very clear that this category applies to "transsexuals" only. Neither GRA 2004 or EqA 2010 includes the terms "transgender", "gender identity" or "gender expression". These terms have no meaning in law.

Yes I think it's the thorny issue of "pre operative transsexual" which causes all the confusion. This was never intended to apply to males who made no effort to transition but materially there is not going to be much or any difference between a "pre operative transsexual" and any other man. So the rights around discrimination by perception apply to them too. It should never have referred to anything other than "physiological aspects of sex".

Yes the problem mainly is with the EA. That sold women down the river. But changing the GRA in the way TRAs want will make it worse. Agree it is incompatible.

Exactly. If you make legal sex a matter of choice for everyone, it means the effective removal of the protected characteristic of sex from the EA.

If any man can declare himself a woman, there is no longer any protection for women and girls in the EA.

Ereshkigal

"Yes the problem mainly is with the EA"

The EqA 2010 took all the existing equality related acts and merged them into this one act.

The problem is with the Legal Fiction created by the GRA 2004, since no human can change sex. It created the category of "gender reassignment" as a protected characteristic, although section 7 of the EqA makes it very clear that this category applies to "transsexuals" only. Neither GRA 2004 or EqA 2010 includes the terms "transgender", "gender identity" or "gender expression". These terms have no meaning in law.

It is the Trans Lobby that is abusing both laws by associating "transsexual" [from GRA] with "transgender" [which does not exist in law] and claiming that the EqA gives them legal licence to enter any female space, which is most clearly does not because of the Exceptions specified in EqA.