Labour promises to keep single-sex exemptions

EqA exemptions, if invoked, exclude all XYs regardless of GRC.

They don't. The single sex exemptions are based on legal sex, so whether someone has a GRC or not is important.

In exceptional circumstances when a 'proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim' applies, men with a GRC which makes them legally women can be excluded. But in most circumstances a GRC makes them legally indistinguishable from women.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. There's no way Labour can win the election so once it's over in three weeks the manifesto will be meaningless. It does indicate they have listened and it is encouraging they do actually call women women and refer to single-sex spaces.

The most encouraging thing is that the Tories, who were in power when the election was called and are highly likely to remain in power, have rowed back on gender self ID.

However I'm pleased there is a differentiation between Labour and the Lib Dems and Greens. It does demonstrate they've listened even if they have fudged it a bit.

I would very much like to vote Labour but I can't due to the antisemitism it has allowed to flourish. I'm not keen on voting Lib Dem due to their stupid policies on gender and refusal to recognise women's sex-based rights. I'm still in a quandary as to who to vote for.
I am basically having to decide which matters most to me - my feminism or being Jewish!

It sounds much the same as before. Progress of the progressive agenda by stealth. Educate the dissenters.

I think another poster commented on this upthread, but
but we are not complacent about the culture shift required to make LGBT+ inclusivity a reality
sounds pretty Orwellian to me. I wonder who's going to be expected to shift

Without a full and unqualified condemnation of the harassment of the WPUK meeting in Brighton, it is very difficult for me to accept that this is a sincere and determined attempt to address our concerns.
If they meant it, there would be recognition of the obstacles placed in the way of women trying to discuss this issue and a pledge from the Labour party to facilitate our future meetings.

Or is there? I am very open to the possibilty that I'm missing something.

You'd need a method to confirm applicants meet the requirements but privacy means you can't have one.

Doctor's letter to confirm biological sex? Birth certificate won't show the relevant information but there's nothing to say you can't ask for other forms of documentation in cases where the single-sex exemptions apply.

Don't see how this is good news

Wasn't Labour already saying they weren't going to change the Equality Act, and that self-ID doesn't change that?

Have they said anything different in their manifesto?

All they've said is that they'd make the guide on exemptions clearer

But what if that means they're going to turn around and say, "exemptions only apply to rape services, nothing else." That's clearer. Still screwing over women and girls though

I agree with this even if they are lying through their teeth. They've realised they can't just ignore us all if they want to win the election.

I'm aware I'm sounding like a cheerleader for all of this but I'm not, honestly!

The political temperature is always worth taking though and I do think it highly significant that the Stonewall policy agenda has been given a big fat no in the Labour manifesto.

This, however genuinely helpful for women (not very), is a genuine rowing back from the extremist Woke agenda. Labour appears to be attempting to back away slowly from its new activist base and certain Woke lobby groups.

I agree with this even if they are lying through their teeth. They've realised they can't just ignore us all if they want to win the election.

Anyway. This is how I see it. The Labour manifesto does not provide a clear timetable for GRA reform to self-ID: even though it's stated as an aim, that aim is qualified with the proviso that change must be slow if it's to be accepted. No capitulation to Stonewall at all - with regard to single sex exemptions, spousal veto, and replacing of "gender reassignment" with "gender identity" in EqA.

This, however genuinely helpful for women (not very), is a genuine rowing back from the extremist Woke agenda. Labour appears to be attempting to back away slowly from its new activist base and certain Woke lobby groups.

This is a good thing.

Still not enough for me to vote Labour but the wind direction has changed.

I'm not convinced they mean biological females only

Neither am I.

The exemptions are real though.

It is clear that the law allows for males with GRC to be excluded if it meets the "proportionate, legitimate" test.

But what's not so clear is Labour's interpretation of EA exemptions, such as with AWS. They believe males can self ID into these positions.

I agree it's a concession. But I'd like to see stronger wording spelling out that it refers to biological sex before I change my mind about not voting for them.

So if they bring in self iD and hand out GRCs like candy then the end result is the same. Loss of single sex spaces regardless of exemptions because there will be zero rigour to the process of becoming 'female'.

Yes and no.

Like I say - privacy granted to GRC holders is the actual issue.

EqA exemptions, if invoked, exclude all XYs regardless of GRC. But how one enforces them except by some ridiculous honour code when privacy is granted to GRC holders is unclear.

The single sex exemptions are for the provision of single sex services, they are nothing to do with gender reassignment.

Yes and so are all women shortlists, but Labour still take the possibly illegal view that males can self ID onto them.

I'm not convinced they mean biological females only, we all know that they think they are getting "ahead of the law" by including MTFs as women's officer, on shortlists etc.

If a male person transitions but has no GRC she will be treated legally as male. If she has a GRC she will be treated legally as a female.

So if they bring in self iD and hand out GRCs like candy then the end result is the same. Loss of single sex spaces regardless of exemptions because there will be zero rigour to the process of becoming 'female'.

I can’t see how single sex exemptions can ever be workable when all official documentation is in denial of actual sex. The original GRA May have been theoretically workable as only 5000 certificates were envisaged. However if you remove what gatekeeping there is an move to self identification then the official I D is meaningless so there is no practical way for those operating the single sex services to enforce them without resorting to mass Olympic style sex tests and we all know how well that works.

We are in real danger of sex being seen as a fringe issue. Single sex spaces are valuable in ALL situations where women are vulnerable, this includes prison and refuges, but also toilets and changing rooms. If we manage to safe guard single sex spaces at all, I think it will only be for the rarer situations (prisons and refuges) not for the common everyday situations of toilets and changing rooms. It is as if you are allowed to be vulnerable or require dignity, but not every woman and not every day, that would be too “in your face”. The requirements of being a woman have to be as invisible as possible and not cause too much of a scene.

"are understood and fully enforced in service provision."

I hate to say it, but could this be interpreted that GC woman will be made to understand that transwomen are women and therefore covered by the equality act. Iyswim. I might be wrong but this interpretation would square better with the rest.

Yes I had the same thought.

Well if JC wishes to publicly state that TWANW then this would clear things up substantially.

Seems to be a bit of confusion on EqA exemptions.

Hopefully RadFemLawyer's tweet should clarify. EqA exemptions apply to actual women (or actual men, in the case of services for men only):

🔸 If a male person transitions but has no GRC she will be treated legally as male. If she has a GRC she will be treated legally as a female.
🔸 The protections in relation to gender reassignment (EA) and the exemptions in rel to gender reassignment apply with or without a GRC.

twitter.com/RadFemLawyer/status/1197548429532127233

Similarly "Ensure that the single-sex-based exemptions contained in the Equality Act 2010 are understood and fully enforced in service provision" is a manifesto commitment.

I don't think I'm reading too much into the positioning of the two things?

It's surely significant that the stuff about potential GRA reform comes before the "We will:" list of manifesto commitments in that section?

Surely it can only mean that they are not committing to GRA reform in their first term. (Doesn't mean they definitely won't do it of course - but they have certainly made it clear they may not).