Anti-women Response from Caroline Lucas re: equality act

"My view is that changing the law so that ‘sex’ is defined as 'biological sex' for the purposes of the Equality Act would gravely undermine trans-people's rights..."

So she agrees that there is a conflict of rights*

*well, women's rights vs "trans" privileges

I don't think a lot of intelligent people are caught up in it

I don't think Caroline lucas has actually sat down and thought about women's rights and how this would affect women for even a second. Her statement doesn't once even talk about women's rights let's be honest, actual born would haven't entered her head

She's listened to the man, and bowed her head. That's it. Not an ounce of critical thinking has gone into it. It's fear, because the TRAs voice is so loud, she can't consider questioning that voice.

Good response OP. I'll keep a copy of the text for future reference. Thanks for speaking up.

Don't know why anyone is shocked. Lucas has her snout in the trough and intends to keep it there.

I did note on the EA10 petition map that Brighton's neighbour, Lewes, came second only to Scotland in red feminist rage on this issue.

Also green party have been this way for a long time. I was hoping they would have adjusted their position but it's not a new opinion

Green party have been openly anti woman for a long time. This doesn't change anything

It's blatant misogyny, which is disappointing for a party that advertises themselves as socially aware, but not surprising

More concerning it shows a gross misunderstanding of the equality act
Firstly sex is sex. Whether you put the word biological or not in front doesn't change the fact that a transwomans sex is not female, it is male. It is not changing the equalities act to put that clarification in there

Secondly just because an individual trans person does not pose a threat to women does not mean that female is not a characteristic that needs protecting in the equalities act. An individual able bodied person does not pose a threat to a disabled person but that does not mean a disabled is not a protected catagory with its own individual rights.

If you cannot name woman, you cannot offer them any rights. She is not only ignoring but removing women's right in total, she is actively campaigning for the removal of women's rights. And its scary that she doesn't have the critical thinking capacity to see that

How can we expect the green party to respect any rights whether that be sex based, disability, race, sexuality if they are so keen to actively deny the equalities act, change the definition of terms based on men's feelings and completely disregard the need for woman, as a sex, to be a protected characteristic.

I'm going SDP.

Call me narrow minded but this is THE issue that will determine my vote.

So many would need to go

That reply she sent is so offensive. Lies, hyperbole all over it. She needs to go.

I hope I live long enough to find out the answer to this.

Its one of those wise sounding bits of bollocks regularly trotted out.

No one has ever explained why and how excluding some women from women's facilities to give men more choice and self expression is a good thing for women. But you're talking to people who have already told you they believe in alternative reality and selective facts, and that feelings (of important male people) create reality which those born biologically female must serve and obey as they are doing. They're unconscious male supremacists.

What a disgrace Lucas and the Green Party are. Like Oxfam they do not give a fuck about women.

this is detrimental to all women, both trans and cis

= this is detrimental to all women, both male women and female women.

Has anyone checked this with Ed Balls? He knows what everyone thinks, after all. (I think he was a bit hazy on where penises fit into all this, however).

The absolutely only saving grace of this shitshow is that I have another reason to post this.

This is so depressing.
I really feel there is no one I will be able to vote for. I was planning to vote Green whenever we have a general election because it is the only party that recognises that Brexit was a mistake, but I don't think I can vote for a party that doesn't care about women at all.

Trans people per se aren’t a risk to women. But men as a sex class are a significant risk to women. Transwomen being given carte blanche to women’s spaces gives dangerous biological men a perfectly legal loophole. Where do women go for safeguarding when that happens?

How, how HOW are so many intelligent people taken in by this? HOW?

Seriously does someone like stonewall give these people pre written paragraphs?

I too left the Green Party because of the Challenor idiocy and the TWAW mantras.

As Caroline is so concerned about trans people’s privacy and dignity, why has she not mentioned other options that preserve the privacy of both women and trans people, eg third spaces? She can’t, can she, because then she’d have to admit that she knows full well TWANW. Once you say that thought-terminating mantra, you can’t divert from the c**tish path even if it’s leading you to stupid and unforeseen results.

I’m heartily sick of all the fawning women pandering to this. Not that we shouldn’t support trans people - we absolutely should - but other people have rights too, and they need to be balanced.

This.
She doesn’t mention safeguarding women and girls at all, apart from the brief mention of female trans people. She clearly doesn’t care at all about safety.
Also the constant use of “cis” so offensive.

The Greens have only gone this way because they are kowtowing to the lobbying pressure from their biggest support base in Brighton. They are too weak to discuss the wider implications of this new gender ideology. They know that if they say just the slightest thing that questions all these brand new demands they'll lose their only foothold and disappear off the face of British politics. Weak, scared, therefore no ability to lead a country, let alone combat the environmental challenges we face. They've got themselves into quite a pickle.
Shame. My entire life and career is based on environmental action and the only party I would want to usually vote for has thrown me to the dogs for the sake of a bloke in a dress using the ladies loos.

Absolutely. When the legislation was passed no-one considered the possibility that sex would be interpreted as anything other than biological sex. All that is sought now is to ensure that the law is understood as originally intended.

Send *her the link.

Indeed and they are also protected under sex, both there actual sex and, if they are discriminated against because someone thinks they are the opposite sex.

You should ask her whether she has listened to Kathleen Stock's Oxford Union q&a (send when the link).

You've also got to wonder about basic capacity in someone who is an MP who apparently hasn't clocked or managed to care about inclusion or diversity and ensuring that women from vulnerable groups are not excluded, lose their equality of access, you know, basic basic stuff.