Sunak would amend the Equality Act

I think he or they should be abolishing the GRC and repealing the GRA. They have done untold harm and confusion, especially to women and girls. Why make a different category when you can call yourself what you like and dress the way you want.

I don't think he really gets it but it's likely someone on his team does and is trying to give him a crash course.

Some of this is great:

"Sunak plans to stop organisations such as Stonewall from delivering sex and relationship education, after concern that inappropriate topics have been taught to young children. Schools would be given guidance about what was acceptable, while parents would be able to request to see teaching materials, including from external groups, through an amendment to the Schools Bill. However, schools would have the final say on what to release."

But the last sentence is not, and shows he's got a way to go. Someone please tell me why I can't see those materials? What's the reason?

Overall though...it's sunlight. It's discussion. It's top politicians saying no Stonewall. These are good developments and we've come some distance in the last few years. Well done us

As far as I'm concerned it's all mostly soundbites until the cabinet's chosen and the manifestos come out. Nevertheless it's interesting to see Sunak choosing it as a soundbite.

Plus (because sorry but I still tend to view this through a Labour Party lens) the more it gets talked about, the greater the pressure on Labour to spell out what they mean to do. Of course Labour may decide to double down - they seem to be stupid enough these days - but at least then we'll know where we are,

Liz Truss knows. Hundreds of women wrote to her, to thank her for kicking the reform to the GRA into the long grass. I was one of them. Now I don’t believe that she personally read every message but her team would have summed it up for her.

I wrote about the dangers of allowing Mermaids and Stonewall to influence policies in schools and public life in my thank you note. I’m 100% positive that I was not the only one.

I’d love to see Kemi as the minister for women and for Caroline Noakes be pushed to the back benches and away from anything to do with women.

Completely agree with @Datun . Sunak is just not interested in this kind of thing - he's a finance/economy guy. I have no idea why he wants to be PM, as he has never shown any interest in social or foreign policy.

He won't understand the extent and strength of the capture because his wife and children are cushioned from it by their wealth. I think he's understood vaguely that this is an issue lots of people are exercised about, but doesn't get the detail.

I know Liz Truss won't be popular with a lot of people on here, but I think she at least understands the legislation, how the levers of govt have been captured, and has been taking political risks to try to unpick what she can of it (she has not had all of the relevant policy areas under her control).

The problem with the GRA is that it is designed to conflate gender and sex. If the process is to recognise a person's gender, why does it enable them to receive a new birth certificate with the opposite sex? Why does it allow those with a recognised gender be in the opposite sex facilities 'sometimes'?

As far as I can see, the PC of GR is, in large part, to help those who want a GRC go through the process while working and using services. But TRA have stated that they get all of the protection they need from GR and don't need the GRC, so it's a form of self id for those with no intention of going through the GRC process.

Organisations (including government) do interpret the PC of GR as 'almost having a GRC'.

Whoever gets to be the new PM I hope Kemi is the new Minister for Women. She gets it.

Yeah - you're right. I would amend what I said upthread to say that the one thing the EA framers didn't anticipate was that service providers would ever as a matter of political ideology not want to make single sex provision, particularly for women. They drafted it to accommodate normal practice at the time, which was that everyone understood people want separate facilities in situations where sex matters. So I agree it's worth looking at how you can strengthen the single sex provisions part of it so it's not optional, at least for public bodies.

I agree, the EA is a robust piece of legislation, in term of protections for free speech, through protected characteristic of faith or belief.

However, I imagine there may be a way of making single-sex exceptions obligatory, rather than optional, in service provision.

If that's possible, it could remove the major plank of TRAs platform.

GRA could be fixed with a 2 amendments - define 'gender' as clearly separate to 'sex' + 'replace sex with gender' throughout.

What do others think?

This is all a lot of sunshine - let's be positive. Like pp's have stated, the gender recognition act is flawed and the EA has been somewhat hampered by that.

Now the government has realised how insidious the gender ID/Stonewall propaganda has been within so many areas of government departments/civil service/local government etc, it will enable those who support free speech, women's rights etc to have a greater voice.

Stonewall's tweet about two year olds have a gender identity certainly helped highlight their idiocy and ideology

The EqA also makes single sex spaces an optional extra. The wording/interpretation around when a male with gender is included as a women is confusing to say the least.

And the PC of GR needs a clearer definition. There needs to be clarification about when men with the PC of GR clash with the rights of women with the PC of sex.

Reviewing the act doesn't mean women lose out. Just because some women have gained compensation because it exists doesn't mean it helps all women and girls all of the time.

Sunak plans to stop organisations such as Stonewall from delivering sex and relationship education, after concern that inappropriate topics have been taught to young children.

Blimey.

Reading between the lines, I don't think he. gets the extent of queer theory and how it's permeated every single organisation in the country. He says he doesn't really want to get involved in a whole culture wars thing, which makes me think he doesn't really grasp the magnitude of what's happened.

He knows enough to see that de sexing language is unpopular tho.

I never thought I'd see two politicians going head-to-head on the basis of who can support women's rights the most tho.

Cant wait to see Liz up the ante.

What PrinceYakimov said.

It's the GRA that needs to be repealed. Tighten up the Equality Act by all means, but repeal of the GRA would underpin that men can't turn into women.

This is a sign of how little he understands (or gives a shit about) this area.

In court, the Equality Act has been remarkably robust in protecting women's sex based rights (probably because it was brought in just before the trans policy capture of the GEO). We would not have Maya's judgement if it were not for the Equality Act. It consolidates decades worth of anti-discrimination legislation and in my view should not be messed around with lightly.

The problem is the poorly drafted Gender Recognition Act, and the widespread disinformation/confusion about the interaction of the EA/GRA spread by Stonewall and other orgs as part of a concerted cultural movement to erase legal recognition of sex.

The Times has an article on it. Sounds positive.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f2818710-0f7d-11ed-93cf-b011fa7fe86b?shareToken=e9d8de4e8e4b4fe9b4b7ff6668064e40

I thought the Equality Act was useful in bringing together all the anti discrimination that had been passed over the years. The problem is with organisations that have been providing training that is disingenuous at best and deceitful at worst. That's where Rishi Sunak should be giving his attention.

Same here. I'm sure it meant surgery of some description. Because the thinking was that the person was an old school 'transsexual'. That's what it meant and that's what they would do.

Not cross dressers, AGPs or indeed any man whatsoever who can hide behind 'proposing to undergo'.

It's not something you can easily amend either. You'd have difficulty making the definition of gender reassignment conditional on surgery.

They could be more explicit what it entitled a man to, though. Not being fired, or denied housing, etc. But women's spaces isn't included.

I wouldnt believe any of it. They will both say what they think will get them votes

I should have worded that better.

The numbers of transsexuals are so few that I did not really object strenuously to them using Female spaces in certain instances. (Not all).

Now however, when the loudest voices amongst them have so much hatred for woman too, I am more against them using Female spaces as I feel the danger is there whether they have a penis or not.

I do not believe that TWAW but I am happy to respect the decisions they make.

If I were to interview someone that would not be a factor in my decision regarding employment. I would treat them the same way I treat everyone else.