Labour promises to keep single-sex exemptions

As has been said by the current Government under specific circumstance single sex (ie biological sex) services can be provided.

The issue seems to be more that some (not all) refuges and rape crisis support have decided not to exercise it!

Just out of interest for anyone who has read the manifesto do they give as many committments to women's rights as they do to LGBTQ+ rights as listed above?

(Just to note, which for some reason hasn't been widely publicised, is that just before the election was called the government, eg the Tories have committed to a big increase in funding to rape crisis centres. I wonder if a Labour Government came in they would implement this.)

I'm not LGBTQ and so making sure they are 'centred in everything we do' doesn't interest me.

I await clarification on the question, what is a woman? If Labour include men who feel like women, this is meaningless.

It's nothing to do with that question. The whole point of the single sex exemptions that Labour's manifesto says it is keeping and enforcing apply only to biological sex.

The only question feminists need to ask themselves here is: is a concession to retain these exemptions sufficient to earn my vote? I don't think it is for me but some may think otherwise.

(Stonewall et al have lobbied Labour to remove these exemptions. The inclusion of this is an explicit NO to Stonewall).

it shifts the overton window and leaves the lib dems and the greens looking fucking bonkers

but that's about the only good thing about it in my view

Much better than the genuinely batshit LibDem and Green positions, though. Another plus is that this move may push the SNP towards taking a more reasonable position too out of a desire to avoid losing votes to Labour in Scotland.

I await clarification on the question, what is a woman? If Labour include men who feel like women, this is meaningless.

I mean, this is better than the blatant fuck off that they were giving women before, but it still further embeds a legal fiction, forces women to justify applying the exemptions on a case by case basis (which leaves the possibility that they will be denied in a given case open), and leaves a whole range of situations which most women would probably like to be single sex and which probably won't clear the legal bar. And it does nothing at all to address the issues with teenaged females being transitioned in droves.

Plus something being in the manifesto doesn't guarantee that it will happen. Not keeping their promises is something politicians specialize in.

I don't trust them.

I don't trust that they've actually given too much thought to the single-sex spaces policy and how it sits with GRA reform.

I've been a Labour voter for 40 years and have posted here previously that I cannot vote for them this time. Sadly I still stand by that.

It means absolutely nothing if they refuse to recognise accurate definitions of WOMAN and FEMALE

I agree.

I don't trust it one bit.

The issues remain. That feminists might have a marginally better chance of having their voices heard in Labour than in the Greens or LibDems isn't saying much over the baying crowd booing the idea of women meeting unharrassed to protect their rights.

It's something. But fucking hell, what a disgrace that 100 years after getting the vote, and not even 30 years after rape in marriage was acknowledged in law, women in a western democracy are still having to fight desperately to retain basic freedoms and protections. Jesus, I need to go and walk in a wood and remind myself that life is generally a good thing, because I fucking despair right now.

Just on a point of detail, Prodigal, I don't think Karen W raped anyone inside prison - did sexually assault them though, and had raped before going to prison:
'despite dressing as a woman, the 52-year-old had not undergone any surgery and was still legally a male. [KW] was also a convicted paedophile and on remand for grievous bodily harm, burglary, multiple rapes and other sexual offences against women.

In September last year [KW] was transferred to New Hall prison in West Yorkshire. During a three-month period at the female prison [KW] sexually assaulted two other inmates.'

(Just reading back - bad and unintentional pun with neutered there. Sorry monitors! PMSL at self.)

A situation where women and girls have to justify and fight out every single case where we need a space or service to be female only isn't good enough. Not only in general and on principle, but in the sense that what happens in the meantime, while the exemption is being sought? What about all the women and girls who will have no protection at all during that time period?

Didn't take long for Karen White to rape fellow prisoners, or for Hambrook to do the same in a Canadian women's shelter. How many traumatized women and girls does Labour think is reasonable in the name of "inclusion"?

I think the Parliamentary Committee (the one with the twit searching sex toys on the train and Karen IS being super) is what's forced the inclusion of the single sex exemptions thing into the manifesto. Also, perhaps some success for internal party lobbying by WPUK.

Wouldn't transactivists just see that as a pointless sop then?

Yes.

Because nobody wants to face up to the fact it's a zero sum game.

No point in getting a GRC if it's been defenestrated.

*[post edited at poster's request]

When you look at Dawn Butler et al, I'd say it's far more likely this is an error in the manifesto that no-one's noticed rather than a trap

At the same time, they are promising to make it easier to get a GRC.

Wouldn't transactivists just see that as a pointless sop then?

Yes you can read it that way but only if you understand gender and sex to be different things. The question is whether the labour party consider gender and sex to be interchangeable linguistically....

No. The manifesto is clear. I understand your levels of distrust but don't let them blind you.

The single sex exemptions are limitations to the entitlements conferred by a GRC. Labour is promising to a) retain them and b) encourage use of them by services and organisations.

At the same time, they are promising to make it easier to get a GRC.

These two things are not incompatible at all.

It's not a fudge or a lie about language. It's a genuine concession to women. Does it go far enough to earn them a vote from me? No. But it may be for some.

As a feminist I find the idea of a gender recognition certificate pretty offensive anyway. I'm going to struggle to be Ok with anything that embeds it further.

so it's a no from me I think.

bum

I read it as 'You can identify as you like but sex based exemptions will remain and be enforced'

Yes you can read it that way but only if you understand gender and sex to be different things. The question is whether the labour party consider gender and sex to be interchangeable linguistically....

Otherwise youre both talking about different things

It's not enough for me.

Me neither Lang.

I read it as 'You can identify as you like but sex based exemptions will remain and be enforced'

Its definitely trying to please everyone but it's clear that they recognise this is an issue for women which is far better than the 'la la la' fingers-in-ears that the LibDems put out

But it also then says: "Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people". If they bring in self-ID and any bloke can legally become 'female' then the single-sex exemptions in the Eq Act are unenforceable.

Exactly! Not that I believe a word they say anyway.

they put self id agenda.
can't believe them.
may be it's a trap.

like 'respect yourself' didn't mean 'respect'.

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.