Labour promises to keep single-sex exemptions

It's changing the marker on the birth certificate that is the problem.

That should never have happened. And it should never happen.

I see what you mean now Crone. Wasn't this discussed as part of the Enforcing the Equality Act inquiry? IIRC the report stated that GRC holders can be excluded under the SSEs.

The fact that this example exists shows that two TRA myths are wrong. This is a clearly not a "case by case for individual people" situation as it refers to specifying a female only role. And it means that an MTF person with a GRC does not completely have all the legal rights of a woman.

Thanks Ereshkigal, I knew I'd seen that somewhere.

OldCrone

Birdsfoottrefoil do you have a link for that? I'm sure I've seen something like that somewhere in the legislation or guidance, but when I was looking for it yesterday I couldn't find it.

It's given as an example of proportionate means to a legitimate aim in the case of rape counsellor being a role which could be limited to females only, so as not to further traumatise female rape victims.

"A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/26/1/1

Having just written that explanation, I can see now why the TRAs are saying that sex-based exemptions exclude transgender people, because that is certainly one possible interpretation.

A woman who has the PC of gender reassignment could be either a transwoman with with a GRC or a transman without a GRC. Both could be excluded from women's services. Similarly, a transman with a GRC and a transwoman without a GRC could be excluded from men's services. Where do the transgender people go?

But a man who gets a GRC becomes legally female, while a man who identifies as a woman but does not have a GRC is legally male.

To put this a bit more clearly:

But a man who gets a GRC becomes legally female, so is a woman with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, while a man who identifies as a woman but does not have a GRC is legally male, so is a man with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

The exceptions under the Equality Act relate to the protected characteristic, which is gender reassignment. It includes both GRC holders and non GRC holders.

But a man who gets a GRC becomes legally female, while a man who identifies as a woman but does not have a GRC is legally male.

The exceptions under the Equality Act relate to the protected characteristic, which is gender reassignment. It includes both GRC holders and non GRC holders.

omeone who is of the sex that the service provides for and someone who has a GRC for that sex

I agree that I could not find anything in the EA that states someone with a GRC can be excluded via the exemptions.

However, I do remember reading in the guidelines that it was so and there was a specific example.

Mostly, it read that it was not discrimination to exclude the trans person from the single sex service, which I take to mean that it would not be discrimination if that person was to take it to court.

However, on a practical level, I cannot see how the person operating that service can clearly distinguish between someone who is of the sex that the service provides for and who has a GRC for that sex, if they are challenged, as all the paperwork disguises the fact that that person is not of that sex. There is nothing to support the service provider to make that decision.

Jane Clare Jones says:

the facts of the matter are that the Equality Act gives services for female people the right to lawfully restrict the provision of those services on the basis of sex. The relevant section of the Act reads as follows:

28(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)The matters are—
(a)the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;
(b)the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;
(c)the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.

But what does 'sex' mean here?

The GRA says:
Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

As I've said before on this thread (and I know others have disagreed with me), since people can 'change sex' in legal terms, the law does not allow for single sex provision on the basis of biological sex.

I can find nothing in the legislation or guidance which states that someone with a GRC can be excluded from single-sex spaces or services which are designed for people of their acquired legal sex. If anyone knows of such a clause, please will you link to it. I really want to be wrong about this.

janeclarejones.com/2019/11/22/whos-removing-whose-rights-anyway/

And, as ever, Jane Clare Jones clearly articulated what I've been - much less eloquently - trying to say throughout this thread.

I agree this is how it's all gone down, most likely.

It means to go against policy @Inebriati

Well the New Statesman journalist seems lovely. 🙄

she's off the reservation"

Anyone else think this is an odd turn of phrase for a UK politician? Apart from the fact it's racist.

From a New Statesmen journo:

mobile.twitter.com/languesbians/status/1197858340799500288

"Update on Labour's GRA/Equality Act policy: I'm hearing from sources within the party that MPs and candidates are being strongly discouraged from expressing public support for trans rights in their speeches and on social media."

Julie writes

A third Labour party insider told me:

“If the Labour party end up backtracking on the current manifesto, things can only get worse for them. They can’t rewrite it, but certain individuals are desperately trying to re-spin it. They could shelve and therefore drop the single sex exemption if elected, which would be a disgrace. There is a war going on in the Labour party on Self-ID and women’ rights, and we won the battle on the wording of this manifesto, but we could still lose the war on democracy.”

Julie Bindel's take on it in The Spectator

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/11/women-are-the-losers-in-labours-trans-equality-fight/

Suffice to say, she's not impressed by today's shenanigans.

Dawn doesn’t appear to be very bright.

Dear goddess, what an absolute shitshow. Democratic party my arse.

how on earth are labour electable to be in power?

They aren't. I'm bemused that some sort of possible change of mind on this issue somehow makes them acceptable.

I can't argue with that. It's just my sunny optimistic nature
Plus I would really prefer not to spoil my vote.

But if Butler and supporters have gone rogue then the leadership need to show some ... um leadership, and they need to do it quickly

What about the leadership of the Labour party over the last few years would suggest they have the ability to act with any ability or decisiveness? I mean, I don't disagree with your assessment, but the lack of leadership is one of the things which has led the party into the abject swamp of crap it finds itself in currently.

When I was on Twatter I followed Rob the policy guy and he was always accurate in what he said. I think Labour needs to clarify but it does look like Delta Dawn has gone rogue.