Sunak would amend the Equality Act

If the GRA is scrapped, then GR makes no sense and the EqA would need an overhaul.

While SSE aren't mandatory, and the PC of GR is linked to the GRA (where a man can become female), I can't see how any business in practice would enforce SSE.

Prisons and hospitals wards can't manage it, so why would a small poorly funded swimming pool enforce it in a changing room?

It should not be difficult, nor should it be controversial, to make single-sex exemptions mandatory, and clarify that it's biological (not 'legal') sex that applies here, so possession of GRC is irrelevant.

With consequences for those that won't/don't provide or uphold said mandatory exemptions.

Clarifying a mess of protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment', and its interplay with GRA is trickier, so 2 secondary instruments seem eminently sensible.

I think the whole of the GRA needs to be revisited or scrapped.

@thedancingbear You came here accusing large parts of population of racism in their voting intentions, seemingly based on your personal experience.

You were told that's kind of racist and got on your high horse about that, 'cos you're an immigrant.

Now you can't offer any stats or further argument.

Please feel free to stop derailing this, and hopefully other, threads with baseless accusations of racism towards people who are sick of 'woke nonsense'.

It's a massive reach, and is extremely unhelpful.

Indeed. That's why secondary legislation exists, to clarify the primary one, and negate unintended negative consequences.

It happens all the time, it's a much more used legislative instrument than primary legislation.

It should not be difficult, nor should it be controversial, to make single-sex exemptions mandatory, and clarify that it's biological (not 'legal') sex that applies here, so possession of GRC is irrelevant.

Clarifying a mess of protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment', and its interplay with GRA is trickier, so 2 secondary instruments seem eminently sensible.

The EA2010 is really not the problem here.

The problem is how it intersects with the GRA and the legal fiction of someone having changed sex, the fact that no-one can ask or know if someone has a GRC it causes issues with the protected category of sex hence the problems we now have.

Also pps have said that provision of single sex spaces needs to be mandatory, agree strongly with that. The EA guidance has examples of how businesses can comply if space is tight - there is no reason at all not to provide them except for ideology.

Definitely single sex spaces need to be mandatory, but as per my previous comment, the GRA/GRC undermines the concept of sex by claiming that some people have changed sex and have the altered Birth Certificate and GRC to 'prove' it albeit no-one can ask or see this magical document.

The EqA is a problem due to the woolly nature of the definitions and the Gender Reassignment clause. In order to protect female only single sex spaces, services, sports, refuges, hospital wards it needs to be explicit that these spaces are for biological females only, but this would be so much easier if we got rid of the fiction that someone has changed sex and been allowed to alter a Birth Certificate to that effect.

Given the initial MP voting, it's been quite a turnaround

I look forward to a time when we replace words like dogwhistle, woke, fascist and all the other slurs thrown around so casually and read, respond and discuss the issues. (just a vain hope I know).

I grew up and lived a majority of my life in a 'red wall' area, and following that, in a very different part of the UK. My lived experience is that, as a class, people are more racist in the first, which is of course not to say that everyone there is a racist. I'm not going to run off and perform a meta-analysis of voting intentions in these places, but it seems to follow from my lived experience that some people in these places would not vote for a BAME person on principle.

Others feel this discussion is derailing so I am happy to leave it if you are

All irrelevant. He ain't gonna be PM.

I would very much like to see Kemi get a big job within the next cabinet, ideally focusing on an area covering these issues - she knows her stuff!

It is, plus the gender recognition act complicates defining that.

Re Sunak (and other MPs) lack of knowledge about all this, It's evident that they're only just starting to get to grips with all the nuances. The press have started to move from the "anything the sacred caste says must never be challenged" to a far more critical and articulate position. Some of the current coverage in the Mail is as intelligent and informed as numerous posts on here.

Equally MPs also have a steep learning curve as they step away from the shackles of #nodebate and face the realisation of what's happened on their watch. Having heard Kemi Badenich talk about how civil servants work hand in glove to obstruct her from meeting with whistleblowers, detrasnitioners etc, they're evidently complicit in all this

But the EqA doesn't mandate single sex spaces, so it is the problem.

How else are we going to ensure SSE if not reviewing the EqA and how it works on practice?

Sorry, I'm not trying to derail. my point was that the 'woke nonsense' messaging was not, I felt, coming from a good place: it stinks of dog-whistle politics. The tories have a pretty non-existent track record of sticking up for disadvantaged groups and I don't think for a moment that the leopard has changed its spots.

Even if they do make some readjustments in the field of gender and sex (and those will be welcome), if that means, for example, binning the Equalities Act wholesale, then I have real concerns about the greater harms that will do.

I made a side point that I thought a BAME politician running on an 'anti-woke' agenda was potentially self-defeating, that on reflection didn't help the discussion. I'm happy to park the conversation about whether racism remains a (big) problem in the UK, if you are.

@littleburn Agree with that 100%, also with @PrinceYakimov
The EA2010 is really not the problem here.

Also pps have said that provision of single sex spaces needs to be mandatory, agree strongly with that. The EA guidance has examples of how businesses can comply if space is tight - there is no reason at all not to provide them except for ideology.

@thedancingbear 'the people in the seats the tories need to win an election don't mainly associate 'woke' with gender issues. It will be mainly issues around ethnicity and sexuality.'

Where is your evidence to this? Are 'people in the seats the tories need to win' extra racist in your opinion, or do you have any stats on voting intentions and outcomes showing racial bias in UK?

Are racial minorities underrepresented in UK public institutions and power structures?

Do you not think there are many people in the UK - mostly men - who would be less likely vote for a woman PM? Is that bigoted? Really?

A point I am honestly convinced had not occurred to you until this thread. Having had it spoonfed to you, you are now going to lecture feminists on the existence of misogyny.

What a thrilling Saturday.

I'm sorry, I disagree. I think there are still major problems with racist attitudes in large parts of the UK. Are you suggesting that this is not the case? That racism has been solved?

if not, then how on earth are we meant to discuss the subject?

Do you not think there are many people in the UK - mostly men - who would be less likely vote for a woman PM? Is that bigoted? Really?

@thedancingbear 'You honestly don't think Sunak knows what kind of vote he is trying to attract when he starts bemoaning 'woke nonsense'? Because I can tell you now, the people in the seats the tories need to win an election don't mainly associate 'woke' with gender issues. It will be mainly issues around ethnicity and sexuality.'

Well that's a lot of baseless assumptions all in one. Any proof?

@thedancingbear You suggest 'some voters in the former red wall seats' who rail against 'woke nonsense' are racists unlikely to ever vote for 'dark-skinned' man.

You may be right. But to suggest that most people who are sick of what has been allowed to take place are racist bigots is entirely unacceptable.

Describing what has happened as a 'woke nonsense' is unhelpful, but you're the one who brought race into this conversation.

Why would you do that? We're discussing women's rights on this thread, they apply to ALL women

It's shows a staggering lack of perspective to accuse people of bigotry and then claim that racism and sexism is so wide spread in a geographical area of the UK,that they would not vote for a woman or someone from an ethnic minority.

Why would I do that? She is neither, as far as I know?

You honestly don't think Sunak knows what kind of vote he is trying to attract when he starts bemoaning 'woke nonsense'? Because I can tell you now, the people in the seats the tories need to win an election don't mainly associate 'woke' with gender issues. It will be mainly issues around ethnicity and sexuality.

Yes, when they've been asked whether they'd rather vote for an asian man, or a woman, they've sided marginally with the asian man. Given misogyny is a huge problem, we can hardly draw the inference that they are not racist, can we?

I can assure you that I know these places all too well. There is still an awful lot of deep-seated racism.

@MrsOvertonsWindow and yes, complete silence from both Labour and the Lib Dems re GIDS. I would like to hope this might deter the gender self id act being debated in Scotland but Sturgeon seemed determined to see that one through, regardless of any opposition

Why don't you just call her, um what was that charming phrase you used at 11:08am?

Ah yes, "arseholes and racists".

I said then that if anyone responded in kind, you'd claim they were the ones in the wrong. I feel rather like Cassandra now.