Labour promises to keep single-sex exemptions

OK - that makes sense.

I thought there weren't any exemptions in the EA that relate to gender reassignment.

It's here: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3

SCHEDULE 3 Services and public functions: exceptions

Gender reassignment
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.

This is section 29 that is referred to (I won't copy it here as it is quite long, but is about providing services to people): www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/29

aren't you discriminating on the basis of sex in one of the situations where it's legal to 'lift the veil' and not treat somebody as their acquired sex?

If someone has changed their legal sex by obtaining a GRC, their sex is their acquired sex for all purposes under the law. The exemption means that if it is "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" a transwoman with a GRC can be treated differently from a woman. A transwoman with a GRC is legally a woman, so the discrimination is not on the basis of sex, because the transwoman is no longer of the male sex in the eyes of the law. It is treating a transwoman differently from a woman because the transwoman has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but the woman does not.

The effect is the same as not treating someone as their acquired sex.

Maybe lift the veil is an unfortunate expression here - I'm thinking of Company law and lifting the 'corporate veil' in certain circumstances.

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

I'd hesitate to disagree with Julian Norman, but in this situation, aren't you discriminating on the basis of sex in one of the situations where it's legal to 'lift the veil' and not treat somebody as their acquired sex?

I thought there weren't any exemptions in the EA that relate to gender reassignment.

In case anyone isn't sure what I mean about 'single sex exemptions' and 'gender reassignment exemptions', this transcript of a talk given by Julian Norman gives a good summary of the exemptions for sex and gender reassignment and how they interact in the EA.

womansplaceuk.org/julian-norman-in-house-of-lords/

The EqA introduced exemptions to protect single-sex services.
...
These exemptions can be used to exclude from female-only services male people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. However, it is very unclear that the exemptions could be applied to exclude those who have a GRC and have become legally female, because the GRC gives the person the protected characteristic of sex, as well as of gender reassignment.
...
So it is lawful to provide a service only to persons of one sex – but does that include or not those who have acquired their sex through a GRC? It is lawful to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, but does that mean discrimination against males who hold the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (trans women who do not have a GRC) or against females who do (trans men who do not have a GRC and / or trans women with one)? Or both?

The perplexed service provider might turn next to the EHRC for guidance. Their website stated categorically until last Friday that it was unlawful to exclude trans women with a GRC from single sex services. It now says that “A business may have a policy about providing its service to transsexual users, but this policy must still be applied on a case-by-case basis” and that a birth certificate proves legal sex. Again, this is ambiguous as it is now silent as to the effect of a GRC.

thank god for that oldcrone I read it and couldn't make sense of it. I thought it was the half bottle of white wine I had with my tea, but perhaps not.

That 'clarification' from Labour is as clear as mud. Are they going to enforce the gender reassignment exemptions or not? These are not the same as the single sex exemptions. And it is not at all clear whether it is even possible to enforce the gender reassignment exemptions when someone has a GRC.

Looks like WPUK wrote to Labour HQ for clarification. They've just posted the response they got:

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

When are the political parties going to wake up and realise that they are shitting all over women and transsexuals in an effort to give fetishistic cross dressing males everything they desire? While flinging the door open to rapists and other perverts who will grasp the opportunity to gain easier access to victims.

This. A thousand times.

You're right, OldCrone. There's a lot of damage being done to the interests of transsexuals by the aggressive TRA agenda. Just as with detransitioners and children with GD.

If the activists genuinely had the interests of the "community" to heart they'd be pushing for research and for employment protection. They'd care about the wellbeing of the two groups I mention.

But they don't. Because the "community" isn't cohesive. It's made up of very different groups with different objectives and priorities.

How could you claim that a trans person had suffered discrimination at a job interview if they have the same gender identity as the successful candidate?

That's a good point. Why is the trans lobby arguing for this?

I can only assume it's because the trans lobby are vocal TRAs led by men who identify as women and want access to women's spaces. This is their main aim, and 'gender identity' would achieve this. Meanwhile, the fully transitioned transsexual who could be discriminated against when applying for a job, because of their transgender status, will have no recourse to the law if that happens.

When are the political parties going to wake up and realise that they are shitting all over women and transsexuals in an effort to give fetishistic cross dressing males everything they desire? While flinging the door open to rapists and other perverts who will grasp the opportunity to gain easier access to victims.

Gender Identity would actually fail to protect trans people from discrimination as it doesn't distinguish them from non trans people.

Agree. How could you claim that a trans person had suffered discrimination at a job interview if they have the same gender identity as the successful candidate?

I do think there's a difference between 'gender identity' and 'gender reassignment', as 'gender reassignment' implies a change of some sort, something that is at least measurable in a 'before' and 'after' sort of way.

Yes, there is a difference, but the point I was trying to make is that there doesn't really have to be a process in place in order to be protected by 'gender reassignment'. You just have to 'propose to undergo' a process. And you could continue to 'propose to undergo' that process for decades if you were so inclined.

I agree that 'gender identity' doesn't specifically protect transgender people, but as I've said before, I think the intention is to remove both 'gender reassignment' and 'sex' (or 'assigned gender' in newspeak) from the EA and roll them both into one category of 'gender identity'. This gives more protection to transwomen than it does to women.

I do think there's a difference between 'gender identity' and 'gender reassignment', as 'gender reassignment' implies a change of some sort, something that is at least measurable in a 'before' and 'after' sort of way.

'Gender identity' first of all assumes that everyone has a 'gender identity' and that there is no process of 'transition' that is required. I am not an expert on this, though, and I am happy to be corrected.

There's a major category difference between Gender Reassignment and Gender Identity though. Gender Reassignment is a yes/no question. Trans people answer yes, everyone else answers no. Gender Identity is a freeform text box. A transwoman or a woman who identifies as cis might put "woman". A gender critical person leaves the box empty or writes N/A. Gender Identity would actually fail to protect trans people from discrimination as it doesn't distinguish them from non trans people. (Unless their gender identity is nonbinary or sthg.)

Gender reassignment refers to people who have bothered with the reassignment process, while ‘gender identity’ is just whatever feeling someone has at any given moment. It cannot be verified and does not come with any requirements to consistently identify that way.

Not exactly. In fact the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' is not that far removed from 'gender identity'.

This is from the EA2010.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7
A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

Note that phrase 'proposing to undergo'. So someone just has to decide that that is what they are going to do and they are covered. Also 'physiological or other attributes of sex'. What are 'other attributes of sex'? That is not defined. Does it mean a man who puts on a dress and lipstick?

As I said last night, the legislation is a mess.

He looked rather surprised and said he didn’t know about that, but (making things up on the spot) suggested “That sounds like the kind of thing that would happen much less in a society that has less poverty and more police on the streets to stop crime

That's it, though. Most members and activists have little awareness or knowledge about what is going on - and there is a culture of silence around talking about it. This thing is being pushed through top down - and until those at the top speak out honestly it will be pushed through.

Everyone says, at best " Oh, that is a sensitive issue", and I heard another say, " I'm not getting into that thicket"......

He looked rather surprised and said he didn’t know about that, but (making things up on the spot) suggested “That sounds like the kind of thing that would happen much less in a society that has less poverty and more police on the streets to stop crime”. ????

Bless him

Young Labour rep - maybe about 25?- came to the door last night asking if I knew who I was going to vote for and if I had any pressing issues I wanted to discuss.

Said that as a woman with two daughters I was concerned about the way there were two inconsistent sections in the manifesto - I was delighted that they were planning to maintain single sex spaces and protections as per the Equality act, but didn’t see how this would work when they were also saying that they would make it much easier for anyone to self-identify as female and thus gain admission to previously safe spaces (yes, I’d thought about this and had a little mental speech planned!).

He looked rather surprised and said he didn’t know about that, but (making things up on the spot) suggested “That sounds like the kind of thing that would happen much less in a society that has less poverty and more police on the streets to stop crime”. ???? I said perhaps he could go and read that part of the manifesto and see what he thought about the potential for any male bodied person to go into female-only spaces, and if he really thinks extra police would really make a difference.

He changed the subject to Brexit and then the girls needed me, so that was the end. I will be writing to our current Labour MP (majority of 600) to see what his opinion is on the question.

The Labour party manifesto, in its section on women and equalities ( the accompanying image shows no women, just a rainbow LGBTQ flag)

They wouldn't dare. How would they be able to depict a woman as an obviously female person?

And don't get me started on the effing Women's Equality Party.

All the parties are either using weasel words, or avoiding the issue.

Labour seem to be saying that they will safeguard women's single-sex spaces - but also supporting Gender Self-ID. Which means self-ID for men into women's spaces - which automatically obliterates women's rights. Women's spaces are all now men's spaces.

Slow hand-clap to you, Labour.

But they've made the wording sufficiently vague for people to think that they might be planning to keep TW out of women's spaces. I don't think they have any such plans.

I think it’s worse.

When they replace ‘gender reassignment’ with ‘gender identity’, no one will even need to get a GRC to legally become the sex they identify as.

Gender reassignment refers to people who have bothered with the reassignment process, while ‘gender identity’ is just whatever feeling someone has at any given moment. It cannot be verified and does not come with any requirements to consistently identify that way.

'Equality' is the main priority and policy pledge - which means that TWAW and should have full access to the services and facilities which match their gender identity.

I don't think equality is the priority of everyone in the Labour Party at the moment.

Protected Characteristics recognise that there are specific reasons why some groups are prevented from participating in society on equal terms, but many people in the Labour Party seem strangely reluctant to agree that they are necessary.

The toilets at the Old Vic are a really good example of how policies can reduce equality while claiming to support inclusivity. By pretending that a room full of urinals is a comfortable space for either women or people who suffer from gender dysphoria they have given themselves permission to create more facilities for men.

Dawn Butler can't even be bothered to check the correct terms when she talks about the EA, so 'gender reassignment' becomes meaningless 'gender assignment'.