Ruth Serwotka on R4 now

Article in the Sunday Times quoting Ruth. (Ive put the link on the labour manifesto thread too):

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/general-election-labour-putting-women-at-risk-with-manifesto-trans-pledge-k62klvldd?shareToken=1aae014e0dbe161a3b374c2974de14ee

Laura Pidcock is receiving a lot of abuse from 'her supporters' - transphobic dogwhistle and white feminism are some.of the terms I have seen used about her. They are also stating that she is a swerf and against porn.
I think she has put her foot in the water, possibly not on purpose, but am wondering if we should show her some support.

Sex is sex. It is what it is. I can dye my hair any colour but I’m still a redhead. It may look blonde or blue but it’s not really. If I stopped dying it nature would do its thing and the red could grow back. It can’t be changed (unless I go grey). Still a redhead though.

I have long said that we should allow trans people (of any 'type', TM, TW, non-binary, gender fluid, genderfree, whatever) to self-ID into the 'Gender Reassignment' Protected Characteristic under the EA, and to get a GRC on this basis. This way, gender non-conforming people would be protected from any discrimination on this basis.

What needs to immediately stop is to then allow that GRC to enable a person to change their SEX on any document. Sex is a different characteristic, and we should never have allowed the two to be conflated.

I think actually an amended GRA could be great if the distinction between gender reassignment and sex were made crystal clear.

I agree. It would be very worth while for us to start campaigning for this.

The problem with the EA as it stands is the "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" clause, which means that everything like this has to be tested in court if its challenged.

Indeed. I think actually an amended GRA could be great if the distinction between gender reassignment and sex were made crystal clear. It would pull the rug from under the stonewall/mermaids approach of mis-selling the law to capture institutions.

I don't think Labour will write one which explicitly makes self ID a legal sex change (once they would have), but an ambiguous self ID law would effectively kill sex based rights by default, for the reasons you describe.

Such as girl guides using the gender reassignment protection to claim they can't be a women only organisation when the EA allows them to do just that.

Yes, the single-sex exemption allows them to be female-only, and the gender reassignment exemption allows them to exclude transgender people if it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". Of course, this would have opened them up to a possible challenge from the trans lobby.

The problem with the EA as it stands is the "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" clause, which means that everything like this has to be tested in court if its challenged.

Single-sex exemptions are about different or separate services for men and women. They are nothing to do with transgender people. Those come under the exemptions for gender reassignment discrimination.

Sure, but the two are often conflated. Such as girl guides using the gender reassignment protection to claim they can't be a women only organisation when the EA allows them to do just that.

Yes, they might keep the single-sex exemptions as they are, but they want to redefine sex by opening the GRA to self-ID. So there will be single sex spaces, but they will be for people who share a legal sex, who might in fact be either male or female. If this is not what Labour intends to do, they need to be clearer about their intentions.

I agree completely. I think what they want to do is face both ways.

I still think that is a big improvement on their previous position and gives room to really start pushing for greater clarity on the EA single sex exemptions and a GRA which properly delineates sex and gender identity.

I think, given the wording in the manifesto and what Pidcock just said, I think they will have to (at least) keep the EA exemptions as they are.

This has been discussed a bit on the "Labour promises to keep single-sex exemptions" thread.

This is what the manifesto says.

Ensure that the single-sex-based exemptions contained in the Equality Act 2010 are understood and fully enforced in service provision.

Single-sex exemptions are about different or separate services for men and women. They are nothing to do with transgender people. Those come under the exemptions for gender reassignment discrimination. Labour haven't mentioned those.

See Sections 26-28 of this part of the EA2010.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3

Yes, they might keep the single-sex exemptions as they are, but they want to redefine sex by opening the GRA to self-ID. So there will be single sex spaces, but they will be for people who share a legal sex, who might in fact be either male or female.

If this is not what Labour intends to do, they need to be clearer about their intentions.

I might start believing they are going to protect single sex spaces

I didn't say I believed they'd do it :-)

I think, given the wording in the manifesto and what Pidcock just said, I think they will have to (at least) keep the EA exemptions as they are. The problem is that isn't enough, organisations are flouting the EA protections already.

it seems a pretty clear commitment that Labour will protect single sex spaces in law.

It didn't sound like that to me. They might be protecting single sex spaces, but people can legally change sex, and Labour think TWAW. I might start believing they are going to protect single sex spaces when they say that all women shortlists are only open to people who were born female.

Just listened. www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000bm72

Ruth starts at 1:21

I agree that she was a little vague and very nuanced. I also agree that she was trying to keep the emphasis on women's rights and not get drawn into discussing trans rights. Given the nature of the Today audience I think that nuance was OK.

Laura Pidcock's questions were at 1:42

What is annoying is her inability to pronounce the letter tee when it occurs in the middle of a word.

I thought it was great to hear a northern accent for a change. I was amused by her huge intake of break as Justin asked and by her evasiveness but ultimately it seems a pretty clear commitment that Labour will protect single sex spaces in law. That is huge (if only a start). Congrats to the women who have pushed this through.

Justin's questions were great. Having listened to him speak about America in other contexts, I think nauticant's theory is pretty astute.

Maybe I should ID as a politician and get her job then.

So Dawn has no issue with Rachel Dolezal then? She wouldn’t have any problem at all with her blagging space on a BAME only shortlist for a job or grant?

She would see no problems with that, or feel even slightly pissed off with her crying racism and having a harder time than a white person growing up, in education, in work etc?

I've been thinking about that tweet of Dawn Butler.

It's no surprise that Labour would try hard to introduce self-ID. (That alone is enough for me not to vote for them.)

The language change most likely would be to replace "gender reassignment" with "gender identity". This would be done without thinking through the consequences and they would be many and potentially highly adverse.

The last point could mean anything. It could mean the exceptions are removed. It could mean maintaining the status quo.

The one thing I'm confident about is that given the chance Dawn Butler would hand over a free-for-all for men.

Here's my theory about Webb.

Interesting theory nauticant. Certainly makes sense. I think identity politics are really damaging and have contributed to the ‘You can’t say anything I disagree with’ atmosphere.

You know... someone really ought to pick up a biology book or at the very least engage brain...

I get that Labour aren't on board. I'm still trying to assess whether to take a chance on women like WPUK at least having their ear, or whether to spoil my vote, and risk helping let in a party (Lib Dems) that has no intention of even listening.

Spot on LangCleg.

Sometimes I think we're so scared and pissed off by a lack of light being shone on these issues that when someone does seem to speaking out rationally we get overly grateful and don't apply sufficient critical thinking. I include myself in this at times so not having a dig at anyone. We're so used to being ignored, dismissed and threatened that we quickly become over optimistic.

Ruth's first priority is always going to be the Labour Party - which is entirely fair enough, but women should be aware that's the case.

Laura pidcock is my MP . I have voted Labour all my life, I wont be voting for them this time.I didn't hear the interview but I would be astounded if LP understood the complexities of the issue.

I saw Ruth Serwotka speak at the WPUK meeting in Leeds last night. She was praising the LP manifesto and it's apparent commitment to sex as a protected characteristic. However when asked by an audience member how we could feel reassured that by 'women' the LP meant biological women only she couldn't give a concise answer. She said something along the lines of 'if the LP win the election we have their words in the manifesto to remind them of their stated commitment'. She implied that the LP need to be voted into power then women can work from inside the LP on GC issues. This isn't enough for me personally to be convinced that the LP are definitely on board with women's concerns.

in the middle of crossroads,

i have basic question...
why self id has to be made in law first place?

it's just the opening of endless id politics.

just listening to Pidcock gives me the rage. As water1oo said above, why can't she say the middle of ANY word.
'Ma er' for Matter.
Doesn't help that she just spouts waffle. Why are Labour MP's so dim? (Not that I'm holding a torch for ANY MP). Is it bacause JC keeps the ones with any brain cells on the back bench?

Just listened and thought it was v good.
Not Posie that’s for sure!