Labour promises to keep single-sex exemptions

I can imagine. If my Labour candidate sent me a thoughtful personal reply considering my concerns and perspective I'd be considering it too. But he believes TWAW #nodebate. So no.

Really impressed with the reply. I had resigned myself to not voting which I'm loathe to do. But I'm strongly considering voting labour although I'm still concerned that self id erodes sex based exemptions. This is such a tough call for me.

AssignedNorthern
That does look like a promising reply from someone who is willing to look at the issue in depth.

That's a refreshingly honest reply, ^Northern*. I do actually find that reassuring.

Do you have a suggestion for an alternative phrase?

Can't we just say "necessary"?

And in my world, anywhere it's necessary to separate men and women (boys and girls) for safety, privacy, dignity or fairness, it's also necessary to separate any other male-who-doesn't-identify-as-a-man from women.

Can anyone explain how Labour intend to prohibit GRC holders from entering spaces where women are undressed or otherwise vulnerable when every piece of their ID will say “female”? I just can’t understand how this is in any way workable.

I don't think it is workable, and I don't think it ever has been workable. The only reason it hasn't been an obvious problem up until now is because only about 5000 people have GRCs (about 2/3 of whom were born male), many of whom are decent people who would prefer to self exclude from single sex spaces where they might make women uncomfortable, so this sort of situation has been rare.

With self-ID opening up the route to a GRC for about 500,000 people under the trans umbrella, some of whom are driven by sexual fetishism part of which is validation in their female identity, not to mention the men who are not trans but will self identify as women to get a GRC in order to gain access to women and/or children, we will have a huge problem with this.

This link to a blog post by Julian Norman was posted earlier in the thread:

filia.org.uk/news/2018/8/23/has-everyone-really-got-it-wrong#

She says:
"It is legal for an organisation to exclude a trans person even with a GRC. Whether this is possible in practice is a moot point"

Claire McCann said her evidence to parliament regarding Transgender Equality:

"I would doubt that a service-provider of single-sex or separate services could turn away a trans service-user who holds a GRC because this is unlikely to be proportionate."

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/39007.htm

Self-ID for GRCs means that single sex spaces can no longer exist.

I was going to vote labour anyway I know don’t judge but they’re all shit so this has made me feel mildly better about it anyway.

I just received this reply from my Labour candidate after asking for clarification on the manifesto conflict between stating it will uphold sex exemptions but also stating it will introduce self ID.

"Thank you for getting in touch with me about what i know is a very important issue to many people. While i'm pleased the Labour party have begun talking about sex and gender based policy i can see the contradictions that you have described and i'm afraid honestly i don't know the answer to your question. I don't know whether any policy on wards will be sex or gender based, and i completely understand the importance of clarity on this."

"I personally am committed to upholding the sex based rights as outlined in the equality act. I understand the importance of, support and will strengthen if necessary the commitment to have exemptions that protect safe spaces for women - including refuges."

"I hope that goes some way to helping you understand my position and should i be re-elected as you MP if you would like to spend some time together discussing this is more detail i would welcome that conversation"

I also asked the same question of my conservative and LD candidates but have yet to receive a response.

Yes I’m sorry I used your language example out of context I realise that is what you were doing and the language thing is interesting.

But how? I’m with old crone on this. Can anyone explain how Labour intend to prohibit GRC holders from entering spaces where women are undressed or otherwise vulnerable when every piece of their ID will say “female”? I just can’t understand how this is in any way workable.

To be fair, I was having a tangential moan about how some of the language we use/refer to is inaccessible to the woman on the Clapham Omnibus, so people don't really get the point and the impact of it is lost. My pp was attempting to word one of the common phrases in a way that means understand it instantly, without having to re-read to unpack it.

The titular shitshow of what Labour are up to is separate to that (but yes of course if they mangle same sex into their defintion, this is all for nothing!). Maybe I'll start a new thread for my language gripes?

This means (for example) trans-identifying males could be prohibited from entering spaces where women are undressed or otherwise vulnerable

But how? I’m with old crone on this. Can anyone explain how Labour intend to prohibit GRC holders from entering spaces where women are undressed or otherwise vulnerable when every piece of their ID will say “female”? I just can’t understand how this is in any way workable.

OldCrone "Do you have a suggestion for an alternative phrase?"

I was fiddling round in Word as you typed
Here are some ideas for discussion/improvement.

Original text: "It is lawful to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"

--
Suggestions:

"If there is a genuine and justifiable reason to limit certain places to same-sex for reasons of safety, privacy or dignity (i.e exclude transgender people of the opposite sex), this is a legal right, as long as it is reasonable. The law was written specifically to ensure that was the case."

--

"It is 100% legally enforceable to have spaces which are restricted to females only, regardless of any transgender status. This means (for example) trans-identifying males could be prohibited from entering spaces where women are undressed or otherwise vulnerable."
--

"The Equality Act deliberately includes clear exemptions where people of one sex can be lawfully prohibited from going into spaces for the other sex. This is regardless of any self-identified transgender or gender reassignment status. Such spaces include changing rooms toilets or other spaces where the expectation is for a women-only space and women may be unclothed or otherwise vulnerable in them."

(MNHQ please note this is an exercise in how wording could be phrased to be clear and accessible. Its not a ploy to get round the use of any banned words or phrases)

Labour cannot be trusted to uphold genuine single sex exemptions - and until someone with even more 'authority' ( Dear God!) than Dawn Butler steps up, then you should take this as their intention.

Yes, they've said that they're going to uphold single-sex exemptions, whilst simultaneously allowing everyone to choose their own legal sex. How does that work then?

every time I see the phrase "It is lawful to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" I inwardly cringe

Shouldn't we "translate" this kind of clunky, stumbling sentence into something that normal people would say, and only refer to the precise wording when its really needed?

Do you have a suggestion for an alternative phrase? I've quoted it a number of times because it's not easy to put into normal language what is meant by this phrase, and I thought that by changing the language I might also change the meaning.

I think what it's saying is that if there is a good reason for excluding transwomen from a service for women, this is legitimate, as long as there is a good reason for the exclusion. That is, by including transwomen, there would be a significant negative impact on women. But I can't get that down to a phrase as short as 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'.

The example they give in the EA is of a transwoman being excluded from a group for female rape victims. The presence of a transwoman could have a negative effect on the women in the group, so it's reasonable to exclude them.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7/5/3

But the Labour Party needs to get back to being a party of real life experiences, rather than woke causes

This is Jeremy all over......He's always been about 'causes'....even to the detriment of his own marriages and children. As people have often said, 'Student Politics'.

I am not quite sure how to do it, given the dominance of Momentum. (The Corbynistas on my Fb feed now share Momentum stuff rather than Labour Party

It is a cult within a party. And of course, they run a totally separate conference alongside the main Labour conference each year; in totally different locations to the 'main' event.

I agree with Needmoresleep re Labour. What a rubbish situation.

I meant to add that the price would be a resounding victory by Boris and his section of the Tory party.

If searching for positives, I suspect that this will not be good for the Tories.

It is starting to look like the best thing that could happen to Labour is a complete annihilation at the polls, but someone sensible in Parliament who is able to encourage a regrowth of the party from grass roots up.

I am not quite sure how to do it, given the dominance of Momentum. (The Corbynistas on my Fb feed now share Momentum stuff rather than Labour Party, as if Momentum means Labour like gender means sex.) But the Labour Party needs to get back to being a party of real life experiences, rather than woke causes.

Labour cannot be trusted to uphold genuine single sex exemptions - and until someone with even more 'authority' ( Dear God!) than Dawn Butler steps up, then you should take this as their intention.

That LGBT Labour twitter thread seems to be some new twisted jackanory corner, making up complete fairy tales!

Well fairy tales are known to contain some disturbing truths. Not too hard to work out what they might be in this scenario.

That LGBT Labour twitter thread seems to be some new twisted jackanory corner, making up complete fairy tales!

mobile.twitter.com/LGBTLabour/status/1199059959943716864

Has anyone posted this yet?

By the by, but every time I see the phrase "It is lawful to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" I inwardly cringe (and others like it). It's necessarily official-sounding, but it also has the effect of alienating people because its not a sentence that trips lightly over the tongue or brain.

When it appears in the middle of an otherwise accessible and readable post, it stands out for all the wrong reasons, - in that I mean people don't read it and therefore the point loses its impact.

Shouldn't we "translate" this kind of clunky, stumbling sentence into something that normal people would say, and only refer to the precise wording when its really needed?

WPUK have sought positive clarification (as they interpret it) from the chair of Labour NEC Equalities Committee

womansplaceuk.org/2019/11/26/labour-clarifies-commitment-to-single-sex-exemptions/