Sunak would amend the Equality Act

Who thought a Billionaire would shout the line. " The Emperor's got no clothes on!" Out loud.

He can shred the EA and use the strips for kindling, I still won't support him.

Anagram for Rishi Sunak is 'Hi risk anus'. Found that quite amusing.

Changing the Equality Act worries me as it is the one bit of legislation that protects me at work as I have 2 disabling chronic illnesses that require reasonable adjustments and leeway with absences... a Tory like Sunak would think that's a bad thing!!

The problem is - if you start making changing you start 'removing rights'. Even if the act is no longer fit for purpose because it has been misused by people born male.

We shouldn't need to change the equality act or anything else.

People born male should respect that women have a right to safety and dignity and single sex spaces where someone who has a Penis does not there.

This is the doing of Stonewall and their cronies.

I have debated whether to include People who have had GRS above. I did not have a real issue with them previously, but I've got to admit the ones of Twitter who have such a real hatred for women whilst calling themselves suffragettes/ feminists is making my position harden.

I wonder if instead if reviewing guidenve that isn't being followed anyway, if it wouldn't just be easier to remove the reasons why its not being followed instead. Remove the ability for organisations not trained in law to be advising organisations/establishments on said law. Make it so that they do not have the power to go that far in their advice/training?

I have heard snippets about the hustings and what I find really encouraging is that lots of members are clearly very concerned about women's rights and we are hearing very, very positive statements from both candidates about women's right, single sex spaces, single sex sport, correcting gender neutral language.

This is really good news. Finally it's reaching the mainstream. Truss made a speech in Yorkshire the other night where she said something like "I'm in Yorkshire - full of plain-speaking people who know what a woman is."

The obvious thing wrong with the Equality Act in my view is the existence of "gender reassignment" as a protected characteristic. The definition is woolly and meaningless:

"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."

What on earth does "other attributes" mean? What even does "reassigning the person's sex" mean?

If you're going to have trans identity in there, you need a watertight definition.

I have heard snippets about the hustings and what I find really encouraging is that lots of members are clearly very concerned about women's rights and we are hearing very, very positive statements from both candidates about women's right, single sex spaces, single sex sport, correcting gender neutral language.

And their responses seem to be going down well with the grass roots conservatives

I appreciate that there is a big gap between words and actions, but this is the clearest signal yet that the Conservatives has grasped that this actually is a concern for voters. During the initial MPs voting rounds, there were attempts to downgrade it as "voters aren't concerned about trans issues when there is a cost of living crisis".

I'm not quite sure about what is meant about reform of the EA but if it leads to much greater clarity over eg the provision of single sex spaces (for both men and women), that would be a good thing.

The fact that the hustings are happening at the same time as the Tavistock GIDS being closed, Allison Bailey's court success and denouncement of the actions of Stonewall as well as English Rugby's decisions on women's rugby is adding to the momentum.

Liz Trust has also flagged the groupthink within Whitehall that has contributed to the erosion of women's rights in particular - aimed, I imagine, at groups like Stonewall.

I'm just starting to bristle when politicians use the term "woke nonsense". In the 90s, people used "political correctness" as a catch-all term for all socially progressive views, bundling the more reasonable views in with the extreme views, and using that as a way of dismissing them all. I think "woke nonsense" is in danger of being used in the same way. If he's talking about reinforcing sex as a protected characteristic, and clarifying issues around gender identity, I wish he'd just say that. Does anyone have any sense he's gunning for any other protected characteristics?

Review could mean issuing guidance I guess? Saying how the Government expect it to be applied. This would presumably reflect court cases and precedence.

Hmm, I wonder exactly what he's got in mind. It's a bit of an odd thing to say. I think the EA is not perfect, but ok and the problem is that organisations aren't actually following it, and acting on bad advice from groups like Stonewall e.g. implying that "gender" is a protected characteristic when it isn't. Is this a bit of playing to the crowd?

They never say what they plan to do though do they.
Review means nothing. You can change nothing and still say you reviewed it.

Ultimately its the gra that needs revoking. We have same sex marriage we dont need it.