Sunak intends to review the EA

Does it matter if it’s desperation, they are still getting on with it.

I wonder if this and other things will get pushed as this is an easy vote winner at a time when it looks highly likely Labour will get in at the next election.

Slightly out of desperation?

Same.

A number was done on those MPs in parliament. Emotional blackmail, linking it to gay rights, etc.

And, it has to be said, sometimes men in particular, don't like to think too deeply about all the details of a transsexual. Being told that their life can only be managed if they have their penis cut off would've been enough to end many a conversation.

These males are never going to respect us.

They claim that we are in no more danger because they are 'women'.

They seem to get offended when we say they are a risk- surely not them personally?

What they fail to comprehend, is a middle aged male all of a sudden deciding he is a woman and starting to use female only spaces is a massive red flag.

Decent people do not do this.

They know it will not be policed so they will carry on as is.

It needs the current TRAs and supporters of TWAW ideology to turn again them using Female spaces.

There will be more and more incidents and the public will become more aware. But lots of female victims 1st sadly. In the meantime, as a mother, I will try and protect my girl as much as possible and hopefully she will be wise to the risks.

IANAL, but I often hear it said that the GRA can't be repealed because of the European Convention on Human Rights, and I don't think that's true.
We now have gay marriage and equal pension ages, for a start.
And as regards the 'privacy' aspects, ie the right for transsexuals to live 'stealth', they were clearly considering very small numbers who had had extensive treatment to look like the opposite sex. And the impact on wider society, especially on women, was not considered as the numbers involved were believed to be too small to have a significant impact.

I think it should be repealed, and if TRA's are not happy, they should go back to Strasbourg and argue that it's a human right for any man to be legally recognised as a woman if he fancies, regardless of the effect on women.

A major publicity campaign will also be needed to make sure schools, children, general public are all well aware that inclusion means everyone, including the female ones, and that spaces provided for females are needed and must be respected. Equality law protecting them. And that male people don't get to take fair and equal access away from females because they wanna. And will kick off if not permitted to.

It will take time to turn around, yes. But a clear government message that women's spaces are single SEX only and that does not include any male regardless of how they identify would empower females to challenge males in their spaces and to expect organisations and buildings to support with removing invaders. Who if they kick off about it can be arrested. This necessitates de politicising the police and making them do their actual jobs instead of work for Stonewall, but also very easy.

Then encourage the provision of third spaces. Everyone has an accessible space, needs are met, males determinedly invading female only spaces after that to meet their own needs? Are being fairly clear about their objective.

Even if the EA is tightened up, these males are not going to respect that.

Middle aged straight white men. They have had a life full of entitlement. We do not matter. We are simply there for their validation.

All of that ^^

And by 'inclusive' they mean many female people can be excluded from any space so that male people can have their preferred personal choice of all the spaces.

People pushing this need to own it: that this is male supremacism in law. Female type women, you are voting to be a subordinate, second class human in the UK with penalties for failing to serve male interests above your own.

Such as speaking the truth or failing to lie on command. Or failing to applaud and celebrate males making fun of you and your sex. Or failing to support other women being placed in harm's way and raped in prisons, denied health care and excluded from needed service for the better happiness of males. You get to pay equal taxes though for these services you have limited access to.

Exactly.

If we have to accept Transwoman in our spaces, then we need a publicity campaign to explain who can use female spaces, including the fact that they can be an intact male who has not done anything to become a 'woman'.

We need to be clear how many women/ girls will be raped / murdered each year to enable us to be 'inclusive'.

We need to know how the risks to female inmates.

We need to know how many domestic abuse / sexual abuse victims are self excluding from shelters / groups set up to help them.

We need to understand how many women are self excluding from sport centres/ swimming pools because they no longer have access to female only sessions (for some this was their only chance to escape male domination).

We need to know what chance there will be of being on a hospital ward with a male.

It might be that it is decided that these are all risks we need to take for the sake of inclusion.

But females need to know that they do not have the same rights as males.

Because what we have now is not equality. Not for females anyway. And for any organisation/ government to claim women are equal are lying plain and simple.

Have just seen this article in UnHerd by Mary Harrington about the implications of the Scottish government's actions for the UK.

'Holyrood's vote puts Scotland on a collision course with Westminster'

unherd.com/thepost/scotlands-new-gender-bill-imperils-the-union/?mc_cid=f1e000a812&mc_eid=31e133b3a4

[In part]
"Away from the corridors of power, the policy has prompted fierce opposition by campaign groups. But still more than the SNP’s apparent disregard for the voices of ordinary women, what should concern us is Westminster’s myopia in allowing this legislation to proceed.

The history of ‘gender identity’ legislation is one of political short-sightedness about its far-reaching implications. When the Gender Recognition Act was debated in 2004, many at the time viewed it as a trivial and politically cost-free step on the golden path of social progress. Little regard was given to (for example) the ways in which it would interact with the Equality Act, or with safeguarding measures across bodies such as schools, hospitals and prisons. As a result, feminists have spent the best part of two decades in an uphill battle over the legal fiction that someone can change sex."

The rest of the article spells out what could be the implications, and her gloomy conclusion:

"This is a far-reaching and fundamental legal and political question. Our Conservative and Unionist Party leaders have abdicated leadership duty to hand-wave it as a devolved matter. This is beyond foolish: an ominous sign for their conservatism, and also for the Union."

It is the GRA which is the problem. For example the part about not disclosing information and being subject to an unlimited fine if you do. Surely that would weigh on the mind of a probation officer.

Then there's the part about "gender-specific" offences, by which they mean sex-specific and the sexual offences act.

And the peerages exemption. And rewriting a public record (birth certificate).

It's mad. We have same-sex marriage so the need it was sold on has fallen away. It should go.

I would suggest repealing the GRA and getting rid of the GRC. There will be no pint in having them if lines are drawn so that sneaking around, with or without surgery is forbidden. By all means a certificate like children get re any of the 1000 genders , but the law would not need to accommodate any of it. Third spaces could be provided by businesses etc but single sex facilities compulsory.

The civil service is captured by Stonewall and their ilk. It's the undermining of government aims from within that Sunak et al need to be on high alert for.

Yes very badly considered and written. I remember reading a bit in Hansard in which Lord Tebbit and Baroness O'Cathain clearly foresaw and articulated with reasoned argument some of the problems with it. But the most shocking thing was the poor quality of the argument the government lawyer - I forget the name - was coming out with. It just seemed like a determination to push it through regardless.

I certainly think the hyperactive legislating and 'gesture' legislating and 'send a message' legislating that is the legacy of the Blair government have all demonstrated what an utter mess of unintended exploitation they lead to. Hate crime and the GRA among them.

Yes, exactly. We need slow, very carefully researched, planned law thought out and nothing should go into law unless it's beyond doubt that it is needed, and that leaving things as they are is no longer possible.

The government and the EHRC are probably thinking of ways to go about this by coming up with options and proposals for action, rather than merely explaining to the public what happened under a Labour government all those years ago.

Maybe it could be repealed but in a particular context. Supposing it were to be replaced by a more up-to-date (substitute for GRA) Act? Or instead it were to be incorporated in the Equality Act as a result of this review? The EA might be a different beast and the GRA-replacement provisions very different also. Or we were doing something to alter our relationship with the Convention rights, which Liz Truss was said to be doing rather than repealing the Human Rights Act or leaving the Convention which had previously been proposed?

The government - and EHRC - must be working on ideas now that the PM is keen to do something.

The GRA was badly made law. And it has been proven that law reliant on people not abusing and exploiting every loophole to the nth degree does not work: people are not going to be nice, well behaved good chaps about it and respect others unless they have to. Everything Hansard shows was anticipated has come to pass and a whole lot more they couldn't even imagine.

Hence why any pressure towards law that includes the whole 'quick quick hurry hurry, emergency going on, don't read it, don't look at it, just do it, millions dropping dead as we speak' hyperbole should make everyone look at it with great caution.

I would like to see the GRA to be amended so it becomes exactly what it says it is.
No more legal fictions - no change to legal sex or birth certificates.
But anyone, any age, who wants should be able to go online, fill in a form, select their preferred gender from a drop down box of hundreds. Then for a small fee (£10?) get a certificate, decorated with trans flags and unicorns, saying ‘HM Government recognises Name Name as Demi-neutrois Gender’.
They could stick it on their bedroom wall.

If the GRA cant be repealed, and women cannot benefit from SSE, doesnt that need to be explained clearly to the public?

If nothing can be done about it, shouldn't Parliament be able to explain and justify why they wrote such a series of Acts?

The PM seems to be generally more ready to declare his views and positions and take on opposition than the last two, at least. Liz Truss held the line against the pressure for self declaration of gender identity but only just and under a barrage. Boris Johnson mostly didn't seem to care or changed his stance with the weather or his wife's and her friends' opinions and only began to make any clear statement (about importance of biology) when he saw a political opportunity opening to oppose Labour.

I am hoping that with this steer from the PM that the EHRC might be working on proposals to address the effect of the GRA on the Equality Act and women's and girls' rights. Remember how tricky it was for the EHRC to steer a line between interpreting and applying the existing two Acts and Convention rights in producing some sort of guidance as to women's rights and single-sex spaces? The actions of the SNP also lend urgency for the UK government and the EHRC to act on what is going on.