Law changes to strengthen women's rights by rewriting the Equality Act on the basis of biological sex instead of gender identity might not take place until next summer

I think it’s wrong to assume that all civil servants are “stonewalled”

I cannot disagree with you. However, as Labour systematically removes every difference between themselves and the Tories on the issues that influence voters, this may climb up the list. Something to consider?

Having completed our inclusion policy training today, I’m reminded of the following quote because apparently it’s gender affirmation that’s one of the 9 protected characteristics under the EA2010. Moreover, reassignment actually means anyone who feels they have a different gender, or thinks about having a different gender or don’t think they have any gender or…

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

It does have the ability to hurt politician’s careers though

Even very successful ones who probably polled well

As Sturgeon found out

What we have in common is treating the transgender minority as a big important political issue, from opposite perspectives.

For most people it's way, way down the list. In 2022, it was 16th on the list of issues which people think are important. Most people won't vote on these issues.

Providing an irrefutable argument for ensuring the return of a Tory government in two simple sentences.

TRAs must be happy about Labour

I hope female Labour voters think it’s worth it for it to be killed dead

Listening to Rayner this morning they won’t be getting much more to make up for it

There is no provision in the EA2010 for it to be amended by statutory instrument. This legislation will not happen by the end of this parliament, and will not be introduced by Labour.

Of course she was allowed her opinion. And I am allowed the opinion that hers shows a warped set of values that damage the rights of minority groups.

And of course she didn’t just have an opinion. She used her (unelected) power to deny people like you (and me) the right to apply to adopt and to have any legal recognition of our relationships.

Those sorts of views render someone’s judgement massively undermined.

Ffs, what do you want to do? Go through the world with a rubber stamp, check everyone and stamp 'impure, dehumaned' on the foreheads of every one that ever said anything that you personally don't agree with?!

You disagree with her on that. Fine. That does not mean you have to split her into the Evil camp in black and white world and dismiss anything she ever again says.

I'm bloody homosexual and I've got more tolerance than this, people are actually allowed opinions. They do not have to conform to someone's RightThink.

It may be depressing but hardly unusual in an intelligent person being astute in one area and completely misguided/wrong in others.

We have many of examples of those eg highly intelligent men who are uniformed, uncaring and/or obtuse about the impact of self ID on women including our political leaders.

The same Baroness O'Cathain who campaigned against gay couples being allowed to have civil partnerships or to adopt children.

Seems Baroness O’Caithain was an intelligent woman quite depressingly prescient about the state of the UK 20 years later.

I’m feeling that despite the best of efforts otherwise and even despite that the majority of the population are against this, that ultimately there will be the removal of the exceptions in the Equality Act 2010 and employers and service providers will not legally be able to reserve some spaces, services and occupations for members of one sex only.

Too many misogynistic men in powerful positions aided and abetted by women wanting to be kind and progressive.

I agree.

Ok this is clear thanks. You may be right, or other people with legal knowledge might say otherwise but I can’t say

I don’t think understanding the process is a bad thing though

I see a lot of posts saying they could do it now but don’t want to, or if they don’t sort this before the GE I won’t vote for that primary legislation change you mention

This stuff takes ages, there are huge invested interests and changing this is not easy

Like @JanesLittleGirl I’ll wait, and keep pushing, and vote for that primary legislation change if it is there to vote on

Labour will kill this path dead and that’ll be it

For a while anyway. This won’t go away. Women do not consent to males in their single sex spaces and events that show the problems with the whole ideology will keep happening

Don't worry @PlanetJanette

It took 56 years from the foundation of the National Society for Women's Suffrage for all women to get the vote. We have a history of patience but we will get back our single sex spaces and services.

The reference to S23 GRA came from Sex Matters who claim, incorrectly in my view, that it provides a basis for the Equality Act to be amended to define protected characteristic through a statutory instrument rather than primary legislation.

My view is that any change to define sex as pertaining only to biological sex in the Equality Act would have to be done by primary legislation. And that if the consultation phase only completes next summer, there is no chance of that legislation being introduced, much less passed, before the next election.

I haven’t seen much mention of the GRA act in the WM debate or letter to ECHR

Is there a link to anywhere explaining the process you mention @PlanetJanette ?

I did look to to the ECHR response

“A change to the Equality Act 2010, so that the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ means biological sex, could bring clarity in a number of areas, but potential ambiguity in others.
“Our response to the Minister’s request for advice suggests that the UK Government carefully identify and consider the potential implications of this change.

“Should they wish to pursue work in this area, we recommend detailed policy and legal analysis be undertaken, in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty and with due regard to any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.

“There is a clear need to move the public debate on issues of sex and gender to a more informed and constructive basis. This would be welcomed by the many who do not take the polarised positions currently driving public debate.
“We look forward to working with the government and others to find a way forward on these important issues, but recognise that these decisions sit with the UK Government and UK Parliament.”

Reading that it will take time. This stuff won’t be fast.

Thanks - so the actual operable powers there is in Schedule 7. That is where the specific purpose of that power is to be found.

Additionally, the SI you posted doesn’t actually amend the Equality Act. Which is helpful because when you said that the Equality Act had been amended by SI twenty times, it is helpful to know that you don’t understand what amending legislation actually is. That explains why you made that (incorrect) claim.

But you still haven’t actually explained what section of the Equality Act sets out a power to amend the definition of a protected characteristic. If there was even the slightest argument that such a power existed I am 100% sure that Sex Matters would be advocating for its use. Instead they are left with the rather ropey s23 GRA power - because no such power exists for these purposes within the Equality Act.

Statutory Instruments

2010 No. 2132

Equality

Pensions
The Equality Act 2010 (Sex Equality Rule) (Exceptions) Regulations 2010

Made

25th August 2010

Laid before Parliament

31st August 2010

Coming into force

1st October 2010

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 207(1) and 212(1) and paragraphs 4 and 5 of Part 2 of Schedule 7 to the Equality Act 2010(1).

Only section 207(1) confers any powers.

Not that it makes any difference. As I have said up-thread, it doesn't matter whether the change is by Statutory Instrument, Act of Parliament or Act of God because I don't see any workable definition of biological sex that would be passed in the HoC and, even if it was, it wouldn't make a happorth of difference as the single sex exemptions would still be voluntary.

Sure.

But you’ve still not explained what specific power under the Equality Act itself allows the act to be amended to define the protected characteristic of sex.

Is that possibly because you can’t? Because even SexMatters don’t claim that there is an Equality Act power to amend the Act.

Like how to interpret the meaning of the Irish Constitution?

The timing of saying it will not be completed until next July is extremely cynical. That would mean that no legislation is introduced potentially until next September. That is apparently the month of the next election so this is unbelievable either on the part of the Civil Service or the Minister who is making her leadership bid and manifesto writing shortly after.

@Froodwithatowel yes it can be done and needs to be

It would take the same kind of 'education' campaign that has got men into women's spaces in the first place, it's quite doable.

First you make it very clear in the press and all over the place that female only spaces are there for female only people, and it is expected that natal males will use the mixed sex spaces provided for their inclusion, accessibility and respect for their identity as an alternative to the men's provision.

Then there will need to be an education campaign, stickers, leaflets, work in schools, on the need to respect women's inclusion needs, awareness of what those needs are, that these needs are as important as TQ+ male people's needs, the balance of emotive anecdotes and personalisation that was effective in making people sympathetic to and understanding of TQ+ male people's challenges, and building values of respecting women in the same way as respecting TQ+ people.

Women would be empowered once more to challenge TQ+ male people in their spaces, and to speak with staff on site about redirecting them to the mixed sex facilities or asking them to leave if behaving inappropriately/in an intimidating way regarding invading the female only space with the intention of deceiving or forcing the submission of women to meet their own needs. And yes, it may involve the police if those male people are causing distress, exclusion and are intentionally invading and causing disturbance and harm to women in that facility because they wish to.

Yes, there will be a few people who will wish to try and harm and remove this resource for female people on principle, who do not feel women should have this equality or access, who do not want women included or permitted to escape male control and coercion/being used by male people, and just like intimidating women and smashing boundaries. Some, I could name a well known name or two, may genuinely have a belief beyond all reasoning that they are female. However if this was consistently and firmly challenged with this space being for women female at birth, no messing around, no legal sex involved, because there is accessible provision there and women need inclusion and access too? More importantly if the social attitude once more shifted to a general belief that a good person does not exclude and harm women for their own ends and those that do are not nice or good people?

It will shift.

There will be the usual witters about 'but you can't tell' (you're saying male people will inevitably try to deceive their way in) and 'but beyond a certain point of transition they've become female' and 'you'll get bearded transmen in there and then you'll be sorry', but it's all bullshit.

The issue is regarding women as scum and women with access and inclusion needs as a target to take down. That's the part that has to be addressed.