Daughters excluded from peerage due to gender outraged by trans woman standing for Lords seat

It's notable that the supposedly-regressive Tories did the right thing that supposedly-progressive Labour failed to do.

I was around and supportive of the Labour campaign on civil partnerships - there is no way on earth they could have introduced gay marriage at the time.

Civil partnerships were an incremental change, yes, but they were the first actual protections gay couples had. Most Labour MPs voted for it, but with a significant back-bench rebellion. The Tories were dead-against, but again with a small minority of their MPs supportive.

At the time, the right-wing press were running front-page stories about Labour being run by a gay-cabal! There was significant public hostility to gay marriage - or even gay rights in general.

Cameron did the right thing, but he was only able to do so because he was building on the changes that Labour started.

We should bear in mind that Stonewall was the go-to organisation for advice on all things LGB and did not support the campaign for "equal marriage". All part of the "Smash heteronormativity!" elite LGB political agenda.

That would be the influence of queer theory. Marriage is what "the straights" do, therefore it's automatically bad.

I am cynical about Summerskill's sincerity in using the second-wave feminist argument against marriage to prop up his stance. I don't think he's a feminist and I don't think that he understands the legal and social context of that argument. Two lesbians marrying isn't the same as a woman being railroaded into settling for an unsuitable man to avoid being left on the shelf. Arguments about how the woman becomes the default bangmaid homemaker in a straight pairing don't apply to same-sex couples. For women who stop work to raise children, marriage is the only way that they can safeguard their pensions and share of the family home. The second-wavers were theorising at a time when divorce courts didn't necessarily given women their dues and when not marrying was much more stigmatised than it is now. It was disingenuous to pretend that a social and political theory about 1970's straight women can be applied to same-sex couples.

It's notable that the supposedly-regressive Tories did the right thing that supposedly-progressive Labour failed to do.

I recall Cameron saying back then that he supports same-sex marriage because he is a Conservative, which makes sense because marriage is a institution perceived by small-C conservatives as the foundation of the family and building block of society and all the rest of that stuff, and big-C Conservatives tend to like small-C conservative things.

We should bear in mind that Stonewall was the go-to organisation for advice on all things LGB and did not support the campaign for "equal marriage". All part of the "Smash heteronormativity!" elite LGB political agenda.

Many MPs and Peers listened to Stonewall rather than the "assimilationists". Eventually, Stonewall was forced to change tack as it became clear that most LGB people felt differently to the politically-motivated elite who were running Stonewall and were seemingly just as worried about the possible financial implications and tax burden.

Stonewall undermines campaign for gay marriage
Peter Tatchell - 21 September 2010

“Every other comparable LGBT organisation in the world is campaigning to end the ban on same-sex marriage, but not Stonewall. It is out of step with the British and global trend towards equal marriage rights,”

The chief executive of LGB lobby group Stonewall, Ben Summerskill, this evening told a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrats party conference that the group is not actively campaigning for marriage equality because it would cost a staggering £5 billion to implement. The charity have been stonewalling questions on its exact position on marriage equality for some time.

Last year, Mr Summerskill told PinkNews.co.uk “There are lots of lesbians who actually don’t want marriage”.

After the debate, Mr Summerskill told a PinkNews.co.uk contributor who did not want to be named that there was also the risk that straight, same sex, platonic friends might seek to have civil partnerships in order to make tax savings.

Mr Summerskill reportedly also offered the argument that there is a feminist view that the institute of marriage is fundamentally wrong. He also argued that for as long as people are being murdered in homophobic attacks, it is not the right time to campaign for marriage equality.

Last Friday, Stonewall received an open letter signed by hundreds of people including two MEPs, two MPs and a number of human rights academics calling on them to clarify their position on marriage equality.

Full story:
https://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/partnerships/stonewall-undermines-campaign-for-gay-marriage/

Opinion: What does Stonewall want if it isn’t gay marriage?
Andrew Reeves - 28 Sept 2010

For those that don’t know, Ben Summerskill the Chief Executive of Stonewall have said that they won’t be “jumped into” making a decision and are consulting widely on the issue – who with remains to be seen as Ben Summerskill told Pink News only on Monday, “Stonewall has never pretended to be a democratic member organisation. We have never said we speak for all lesbian, gay and bisexual people.”

Full story:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/stonewall-gay-marriage-21378.htmlwww.libdemvoice.org/stonewall-gay-marriage-21378.html

Stonewall is split by row about same-sex marriages
Independent - 2 Oct 2010

Stonewall, which has 20,000 supporters and has been at the forefront of Britain's gay-rights movement for more than 20 years, has publicly stated it has no formal position on gay-marriage equality because it is consulting lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people on how to approach the issue.

Mr Summerskill – who led Stonewall's successful campaigns for the repeal of the Section 28 law banning "promoting homosexuality" and the establishment of civil partnerships – told The Independent it was wrong to say that the charity was against gay-marriage equality, and that Stonewall was obliged to take into account a diversity of views among its supporters.

The charity will finish its consultation exercise later this month. He said: "There is a range of views on this subject, from those who very much want gay marriages and for them to be mandatory in churches, to those who reject civil partnerships as 'hetero-normative'. We are determined to achieve as broad a consensus on this as possible and to that end we are consulting our supporters on what issues they want us to prioritise.

Full Story:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/stonewall-is-split-by-row-about-samesex-marriages-2095468.html

Up Against the Stonewall on Equal Marriage
Peter Tatchell - 17 March 2014

Former Stonewall chief Ben Summerskill has made astonishing allegations against the Liberal Democrats, claiming they never sincerely supported same-sex marriage. He suggested they acted with "cynical and opportunistic" motives. This is outrageous. I don't support the Lib Dems, but they backed equal marriage at a time when Summerskill and the gay lobby group, Stonewall, refused to do so.

Full story:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/peter-g-tatchell/stonewall-equal-marriage_b_4979549.html

I’m going to guess cowardly, homophobic and with a side order of misogynistic.

Cowardly or homophobic. I think we can now see how the GRA has paved the way for rank homophobia (and misogyny).

The labour government at the time was simply too cowardly to have the conversation that needed to be had. Civil partnerships were, like the GRA, a means of properly addressing equal rights for gay and lesbian people.

Terrible legislation is written in these situations. And the effects of that ripple out in all sorts of ways. As we are all seeing now.

I guess it’s another way that Tony Blair let us down in the early 21st century.

Yep.

The EHRC Guidance "Separate and single-sex service providers: a guide on the Equality Act sex and gender reassignment exceptions April 2022" is a lot better than the 2010 EHRC Statutory Code of Practice though. That was blatantly misogynistic, disgustingly so given that EHRC Commissioners are appointed by the Minister for Women and Equalities.

Separate and single-sex service providers: a guide on the Equality Act sex and gender reassignment provisions - EHRC 2022
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and-gender

Sex Matters Statement on the EHRC 2022 Guidance
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/statement-on-ehrc-guidance/

Well, well, well. Almost like having your cake and eating it, too.

I understand the point, Rayon and funny enough, I'm able to grasp what happens in a registry office but having different lanes because you're homosexual isn't equality! If Labour had brought in same-sex marriage then that would have been equality. Not "ooh sorry, you'll need THIS" instead. Which was only made equal in the Cameron era.

Thanks. It's not my invention though, it's in wide use in my field.

Lady Simon does not have a GRC so in this case it is not just the GRA at fault.

The lunacy exposed here is also with the Equality Act 2010, which relies on the definition of "gender reassignment" in the GRA2004 (which pre-GRC is basically Self-ID) and then presumes in favour of "self-identified women" being included in single-sex provision for women unless an organisation chooses to exclude them as "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" - and feels it could justify that in a court of law if a discrimination claim were made.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination#lawful

So Lady Simon (legally male because no GRC) can still expect to treated like a Lady in most circumstances (EA2010) but chooses to be treated like a Lord when it comes to the peerage - because legally male.

The only difference if Lady Simon had a GRC, in terms of the peerage, is that Lady Simon would automatically be given a "male ticket" (meal ticket?) to entry despite being "legally female" - because GRA 2004 actual male privilege in law.

Lady Simon could also choose to relinquish the right to the peerage and let big sister put her name forward for the ballot, whether or not Lady Simon had a GRC.

This.

It was a ridiculous law in the first place, badly made and for the wrong reasons. No one should be able to be legally recognised as something they in fact are not, and the unintended negative consequences of experimenting with it have proved that.

Not to mention the baked in misogyny of a male dominated government voting in something that saves them problems and serenely ignores all the impact on women as unimportant, while adding exemptions to make sure that men are not inconvenienced.

It’s ridiculous situations like this that make the only answer repealing the GRA. Males simply cannot have legal status as women. (Especially when in some instances they retain a privilege only men have access to!)

Yes, doesn't this law mean that trans women are 'banned' from standing? Just like all those poor trans women 'banned' from taking part in the sports they love.

Interesting. I wonder what happened with this case? Obviously failed but why?

"In 2018, five daughters of hereditary peers took the Government to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing they were being discriminated against by being blocked from the Lords."

Then there is this, also failed:

Let daughters inherit peerages, says MP vowing to end sexism in the Lords
Harriett Baldwin will present her proposals to MPs this week as she calls for abolition of the ‘last bastion of constitutional sexism’
16 January 2023
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/01/16/let-daughters-inherit-peerages-says-mp-vowing-end-sexism-lords/

Looking on the bright side, maybe Lady Simon's bare-faced cheek will help expose the sham of "gender identity"?

It looks from the Telegraph article as if Lady Simon does not have a GRC so remains legally male and the GRA is not relevant anyway in this case.

"Matilda Simon, the 3rd Baron of Wythenshawe, is tipped to stand in a by-election to replace the Liberal Democrat Viscount Falkland, voted on by all sitting peers, with entries closing on May 15.

If successful, they would become the only woman, self-identified, among the chamber’s 92 hereditary peers, despite holding a title because they were born a man."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/13/daughters-shunned-from-peerage-angry-as-trans-tory-allowed/

Civil partnerships and marriages both happened in registry offices. (I attended civil partnerships in registry offices!) If you look at a side-by-side explanation of what they actually meant in law, it was the same thing. The whole point was to keep traditionalists quiet because it "wasn't really marriage," except it was. This seems to have been lost on a lot of people, including the straight couple who made out that being civil partners somehow made their union different from a marriage in something other than name.

I don't think it is overstating it. Marriages can take place in a registry office and that was denied to same-sex couples. Equal marriage didn't happen until the Cameron era.

"Apartheid for homosexuals" is overstating the difference between a civil partnership and marriage by some margin. In practice they are exactly the same thing, only marriages could happen in churches but civil partnerships couldn't. A bit tough if you were gay and deeply religious, but in terms of legal rights and protections there was barely a sliver of light between civil partnership and marriage. (Which was why I regarded the heterosexual couple fighting for their right to a civil partnership as a couple of numpties - they could get married in a registrar's office anyway, so they were taking up all that court time over a tiny semantic difference.)

Both the civil partnership/GRA stuff was a fudge to support gay rights without risking up the traditionalists. We have been dealing with the fallout of the latter ever since.

Such changes are unlikely to be retrospective.

This man has an elder sister. If they changed the law he should, quite rightly, lose his peerage to her.

David Lammy?? I didn’t think he could go any further down in my estimation but he just has. Was he identifying as Jacob Rees Mogg that day?

Nicola Sturgeon said she believes trans women are women ("except... er... in the... er... prison context")

AKA trans women are women except in cases where violent crimes against female employees were facilitated by trans women prisoners being placed in female prisons.

That places responsibility on Scot Gov due to inadequate failure to prevent harm. Which also puts employees and members of the prison boards in the frame for prosecution.

Private companies however - well it’s their risk innit. ScotGov publicly affirm “trans women are women”, achieving trans support and good press while ensuring their own services are becoming um, more risk averse. The hypocrisy is quite something.

From the HSE

“Legal liability of individual board members for health and safety failures If a health and safety offence is committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the organisation, then that person (as well as the organisation) can be prosecuted under section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Recent case law has confirmed that directors cannot avoid a charge of neglect under section 37 by arranging their organisation's business so as to leave them ignorant of circumstances which would trigger their obligation to address health and safety breaches.
Those found guilty are liable for fines and imprisonment. In addition, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, section 2(1), empowers the court to disqualify an individual convicted of an offence in connection with the management of a company. This includes health and safety offences. This power is exercised at the discretion of the court; it requires no additional investigation or evidence.”

https://www.hse.gov.uk/leadership/legislation.htm

I was early 20s when Labour introduced the GRA, and like most people had no idea. I found out about it in about 2018 and just about fell off my chair. It's absurd and it has lead to obscene situations like men in women's prisons and sports and women being gaslight by the NHS to believe that man in their ward/performing their intimate procedure is female. It needs repealling, urgently.

Here's an eye-popping thread on how the debates went at the time

https://twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1177699186361458688?cxt=HHwWgIC79fLKg9ggAAAA