Tories plan to amend Equality Act to protect single-sex spaces

Completely fed up with the lot of them. I'm down to a choice between total batshit, yayyyy sterilising children many of whom are Autistic and gay, and wrecking healthy child bodies and making life long patients with no ethics of any kind, and sod multi culturalism, religious tolerance, capacity to cope with reality and facts, equality of access and women's rights cos yay happy penises and arrest anyone who resists..... which comes in red, green and yellow,

or all that in blue, with less totalitarianism (so long as someone sits on Gove) and a few sane people dragging their feet and muttering a bit.

Any of them wanting to lecture about 'respect' after the spectacle of them wittering about ferrets to avoid talking about the medical disaster they've enabled on their watch - all of them - are going to get short shrift.

This will never happen. Its just another false promise to win votes

I understand this point of view too

My preference is for it to be secured as I don’t trust Labour at all. But that is merely my preference and others may want a vote.

I do think the more this is discussed the better. It’s such a weak lie foundation that sunlight works well. This is why TRAs and invested people put SO much effort into reducing conversation

My main thing is it comes up, the alternative this gaslighting nonsense of avoidance is the worst

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow
'It's naive to think that Labour will put their cards on the table, if this is in the Tory manifesto. Starmer will just say something vague, that allows everyone to believe he is on their side.

I would much rather have the statutory protection of an amended EA than a bit of media chat for a few weeks before the election - especially as the broadcast media will continue to trivialise and overlook women's concerns, so the coverage will probably be less than you expect.'

I too would love to have the statutory protection of an amended EA. But I also think that TWAW and need protection is so embedded in the civil service, politicians (all sides), academic, media, etc. and Stonewall is advising and influencing many of these. I do not expect the Tories to win but if they can get things like the WPATH files and the CASS report and all the stuff coming in just now into the public view then I do think that it will peak not only the public but also at least some of the media. Enough that there will be no (or at least less) rolling over and giving Stonewall what it demands with the next government.

I know that once I woke up to what is going on I became vigilant (and I usually have next to no interest in politics). So I am hopeful (perhaps naively) that others will also become more interested. Let's not at a nation sleepwalk into self-ID, easier GRCs and even more captured education and public services. Sunlight is the remedy.

If - as I am told - there is little difference between the main parties on economics and other major issues coming into this GE, then this is the issue where the fight may take place (there is more wriggle room to choose sides on this because it does not cost anything in terms of £££s).

This is a total non story. Badenoch has been "mulling" on this for a year already. I'm surprised that they think saying they are considering putting it in the manifesto will attract votes. Surely most people will just wonder why they haven't done it already?

And the last thing women need is a Conservative "overhaul" of the EA. The EA gives women a lot of protection from discrimination (as well as other groups) and the Conservatives MO is to prioritise big business over human suffering. The Tories are cynically using GC womens concerns as a trojan horse to get rid of legislation that stops companies exploiting people.

I hope voters don't fall for it. 🦃🌲🎅🌽

PPs stressing the value of open debate in a GE campaign are so right but this is an emergency. The kids can't wait, the vulnerable women can't wait. I would like to see the substance of Truss's Bill passed in this Parliament.

I don't know how feasible that is - I know next to nothing about parliamentary procedure and Westminster politics generally.

The Tories could also put in a manifesto commitment to reform the EA2010 as they want to do. And the GRA2004 and "conversion therapy" should be part of th General Election debate. The GRA is at the root of this mess, and Labour's proposals for modernisation of it and for a trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban exemplify the problems of language mangling, forced teaming and creation of thought crime. Not to mention that the real aim of the trans conversion therapy ban (IMO) would be to put "gender identity" in the statute book and turn it into a legal concept. Which would be a huge win for the gender zealots.

I have said to Labour supporters many times on this board that, if Starmer doesn't like the 'What is a woman' questions, he could make them go away any time he chose. And equally, I see no reason to doubt that if Sunak really wanted to amend the Equality Act, he would have backed up KB and set in motion by now.

They're all playing us.

Well yes, of course. Their entire reason for being a political party is to be in power. They will say whatever they think will get them votes. That's exactly how it works.

See the same with all the parties. Starmer (and others in his party) has said many many things that he hopes will make people vote for labour. Greens have also said things that they hope will make people vote for them.
This is not some new technique.

I am not someone who entirely understands politics, but what I see putting it into Manifesto means that the Tories will have forced Labour (and all other parties) into addressing GC arguments in the debates leading up to the election and the BBC, Guardian and most other outlets will have to cover this too

The problem is that Labour are overwhelmingly likely to win the next GE, so the EA will not then be amended to protect single-sex spaces.

It's naive to think that Labour will put their cards on the table, if this is in the Tory manifesto. Starmer will just say something vague, that allows everyone to believe he is on their side.

I would much rather have the statutory protection of an amended EA than a bit of media chat for a few weeks before the election - especially as the broadcast media will continue to trivialise and overlook women's concerns, so the coverage will probably be less than you expect.

I wanted the PBM debated but I’d also welcome bigger than that

Either proper parliamentary debate or GE issue

But KB's been saying that for at least a year - there's a Guardian article here about it from April 2023. I remember discussions about it on this board too. And yet she seems no nearer to getting it presented.

I'm not suggesting KB's responsible for that delay - I get the sense she's immensely frustrated - but I don't think I need a tin foil hat to conclude that neither the government nor the opposition are in a hurry to see this debated. And if I was in any doubt about that before, well the response from both parties on Friday to Liz Truss's bill on Friday confirmed it for me.

I am not someone who entirely understands politics, but what I see putting it into Manifesto means that the Tories will have forced Labour (and all other parties) into addressing GC arguments in the debates leading up to the election and the BBC, Guardian and most other outlets will have to cover this too.

Not simply as a fringe LGBTQ+ issue but as a mainsteam political issue. It feels almost better than having the current government make a change in process/wording without engaging with the public or asking people to vote on this. That sort of back-door stuff is how we got here? If its so simple how can we be sure it won't change back?

This whole first para is very good

I am not someone who entirely understands politics, but what I see putting it into Manifesto means that the Tories will have forced Labour (and all other parties) into addressing GC arguments in the debates leading up to the election and the BBC, Guardian and most other outlets will have to cover this too. Not simply as a fringe LGBTQ+ issue but as a mainsteam political issue. It feels almost better than having the current government make a change in process/wording without engaging with the public or asking people to vote on this. That sort of back-door stuff is how we got here? If its so simple how can we be sure it won't change back?

Let the Tories explain how they let this all slide on their watch. Let Starmer answer pointed questions on this. And the Greens and LibDems. As part of this thread (Thank you @MrsOvertonsWindow) I picked up the Stonewall statement following the review of Iain Anderson. He trying to be so reasonable on air in that Sky interview last year. The statement that followed to correct that view gives away nothing. Stonewall love the equality act as it stands. They could not be clearer that they would fight against change, so trying to change at the end of this parliament sounds unlikely to happen. It would be rushed, chaotic and engender bad feeling for anyone trying to change this law. Hopefully any new government will make clear whether they agree with Stonewall's views or not. If not we at least know better where we stand.

'The world-leading Equality Act protects many communities – including LGBTQ+ people – it took years to draft and is a finely-honed, balanced, and complex piece of legislation that Stonewall believes works effectively.'

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-affirms-trans-equality-policy-positions

It would be good to get this debated and voted on in this parliament. We could then see which of our constituency MPs are talking out both sides of their mouths and go into the GE better informed about our local representation and choices. (Edit) Which is probably why it won’t happen in this parliament.

In the public interest, yes, but not necessarily in the Tories' interest!

At the moment, the Tories are benefitting from appearing to be more pro-woman than Labour. It's not at all in their interests to remove that impression by losing a vote for the amendment.

I'm not defending them at all, btw - it's infuriating that they have done so little to protect women, despite talking a (relatively) good game recently. I'm just speculating as to their tactics.

Exactly. It’s been an absolute avoidance so far

All I ask is that we see views on record.

We didn’t ask for the outcomes of the GRA and now we can see what they are let’s decide what to do about it

This government have been ignoring women for years, listening only to the powerful trans lobby. But, if they're finally listening to those seeing trans ideology as the danger it is to women and children, then that's good.

Yes. And tactically, it has to be a case of do it now. Force Labour to state on the actual record - in Hansard - what they think about this and force them to show how they vote.

I see no advantage to the Tories in delaying it. They do have some TRAs but Labour have women who would help get this through.

And then what is the worst case scenario? That both major parties are shown on the record not to give a shit about women and children? If so that is very clearly in the public interest for us all to know before any of them is voted back in.

There is no requirement to announce proposed new legislation in the King's Speech or a manifesto. It's conventional to do it for a big policy change, but this would just be an amendment to an existing statute. They could easily do it, if they wanted to, from a legislative point of view.

Three reasons why they may not:

1. They are not sure they have a Parliamentary majority for it. There are some pro-TRA Tory MPs and even whipped votes often have rebels these days.
2. They think it will cause Labour more discomfort by leaving it as a manifesto pledge - I'm not sure about that as a tactic - forcing Labour to vote against it now would probably be more powerful.
3. They don't think it's important enough to expend the political capital.

I think the reasons are more likely (3) with a bit of (1), than (2).

The TRA lobby is still very powerful in the tories. The chair of Stonewall was a tory for 30 years until he realised that supporting labour instead might continue to enable his career better. He displayed considerable levels of incoherence in this interview with Beth Rigby, only to reverse all his attempts to offer constructive debate when he got back to the Stonewall office:
Lots of extracts in this Sex Matters piece:

https://sex-matters.org/posts/single-sex-services/stonewall-chair-speaks-and-then-recants/

I have no objection to it earlier, that would be great. It would still force Labour to respond via MP votes

I also will take a GE debate and people can decide

My bigger fear is Labour continue to push this to the background no one is talking about it nonsense and we don’t have any debate

The King's Speech had a (deliberately?) opaque line at the end about bringing in other legislation. So they could do it. There seems to be one place in that article where it can be read as though they're doing it now. Then another - possibility two - where they say it's for the manifesto.

IIRC a conversion therapy ban was never in the Tory manifesto and yet that's been forced by the loud shouty TRA lobby so I doubt the technical point of a manifesto even matters.

They need to do it now. It's gone on long enough. They can legislate on XL bully dogs and put us all in an extended lockdown can't they? Then they can do this. It's another public safety issue, if that's how they need to frame it.

I will also say that I agree with Eastern in that a manifesto commitment will force Labour to stop fart arsing about too. And like Floisme, by this point I just feel jaded.

KB does say they want to try to get it through this Parliament, it's some way so the article.

Yes I really want to see them out themselves as the MRAs that they seem to be - it would be an eye opener for some people no doubt.

Sunlight!

Again that debate could have happened on Friday. I agree it would have been very instructive to see Labour's response.