Would you vote Tory if Kemi Badenoch was Tory the party leader and the election was tomorrow?

Right now the situation is crazy for women and it’s backed up by the legal framework

Each time we inch forward there’s court cases and legal challenge

I have been on a long thread on repealing the GRA, with some posters batting for the impossibility

A shame they’re absent as I’d be interested to see both sides on same thread

Privacy is not an absolute right, hence all the exceptions. Where sex is relevant eg sports, privacy doesn’t need to apply.

Or if you want to inherit a peerage.

Culture wars start with a valid debate in a limited setting, like universities etc.

Then political factions seize upon the debate and pile in to amplify both sides. It becomes inflamed and more people are drawn in and views become entrenched and it forms a new kind of political dividing line where people are prepared to vote based on their allegiance to one side or another.

The political factions gain political support and can also sometimes exploit the divide for their own purposes, eg getting people to call for human rights to be scrapped.

The same thing happened with abortion in the US. It was not always a political dividing line. Then it got blown up and made into this massive issue that got people really riled up and entrenched. Way beyond finding consensus and a sensible way forward.

So ‘you don’t need to pretend they have changed sex but no one must know they are not the sex they claim to be’?

So a replacement for the GRA would have to consider protection of the right to a private life, but the details (particularly about the HoL…) are for U.K. legislators.

You need to look at what the ECHR actually decided. They considered the right to a private life in the context of the case. There is no specific right to change sex or to have gender identity recognised. The GRA makes it more possible to hide sex, with obvious exceptions including joining the House of Lords, but ‘legal sex’ is a U.K. concept.

Are you sure about that? I’ve certainly seen the opposite argued with compelling claims

If we need the go ahead from the ECHR for a small change in the Eq A why not something as fundamental as allowing humans to determine their own legal sex?

The law states not allowed to discriminate in the basis of sex. Where no single sex spaces are provided this can often be discriminatory on the basis of sex.

Which is why a rights framework is necesssary. I believe that many Conservatives are fundamentally philosophically opposed to this.

Any Govt could repeal the GRA, what on earth has the ECHR got to do with it?

The ECHR turned down Goodwins request for redress.

The ECHR don't make national law, Govts do that.

The law allows single sex spaces but they are completely optional and nobody is required to provide them.

The law states not allowed to discriminate in the basis of sex. Where no single sex spaces are provided this can often be discriminatory on the basis of sex.

The law also requires single set toilets in schools and work places. These are not optional,

Ie we could do it but only if we withdraw

I think the most we can do is change to biological sex as Kemi is pursuing

Repealing the GRA is an issue for the ECHR

No one is proposing repealing the GRA/Equalities act though, the PM had a chance to do that today but didn't.
Though not because of the Tories, the Trans debate has become an issue over the last decade or so, they had 13 years to address concerns but haven't, tbf Labour aren't proposing anything either.

Banning meetings from public spaces would be against the law on the basis of discrimination against people with a protected belief.

I agree that there is no obligation to provide single sex spaces in most instances (eg there is no law that toilets or changing rooms must be single sex, although there is sex specific health and safety legislation about toilets in the work place).

It goes back to the GRA and the Eq A which is 2004 and Labour

Yes I’m happy to repeal whatever

But if you don’t think U.K. law is effective I think you have bigger problems than the ECHR, and I would be looking at the people who have been in government for the last 13 years.

For example

JK Rowling’s rape crisis centre Beira’s place is open.

England Rugby has sex specific rules.

If the GRA has led to that, then thats not the fault of the ECHR, but the fault of the GRA.
Goodwins case was about the right to privacy in regard to work and employers knowing "she" used to be a man.

The EHRC has issued guidance on this but fundamentally, if Govt does not fund e.g Hospitals to provide single sex wards, all the laws in the world will not help, mixed sex wards have been introduced to save money and help deal with staff shortages.
Money isn't provided for men/trans rape centres, so they get put in womens rape centres.

Ok this makes more sense given where we are

Thanks for clarifying

It isn't against the law. The law allows single sex spaces but they are completely optional and nobody is required to provide them.

The people behind the culture war are those who subscribe to, and are pushing, three U.S campus originated theories, namely 'Intersectionalism' and the politics of victimhood; Queer Theory and Critical Race theory.

If you push and try to impose something - you inevitably get push-back.

You’ll need to show that we do have single sex spaces currently

As we don’t then I think you’re wrong on this

The Goodwin case does not give men access to womens spaces

Surely can see the case leading to the GRA does precisely that by allowing legal female sex certificates for men.

Theirs is that they can challenge and get the results they want with the law as it currently stands

Except they haven’t.

Such and such considerations should outweigh the exaggerated, or less important, other side. Worries are based on bigotry. Women's unreasonable distress can't be given weight and would violate the trans person's rights if you don't allow access.

Argue something like that.

It's not "random" but they are free to sometimes come to completely opposite decisions. It is subjective to a significant degree. And if they have the desire to give a certain ruling, you can come up with some legal reasoning for it, even if it's not particularly strong.