Did Keir Starmer just say

Um - or indeed in our hospitals - it's actually NHS policy for wards to be single sex and er the only reason that isn't routinely the case now is because the government's lost control of our hospitals but that is the policy and we want to reinforce and protect that"

Does this mean he is committed to getting rid of Annex B I wonder?

Sorry dont have time to read whole thread just now but not sure why anyone is surprised by what KS said.

He has been working in the legal services for years.

Under the EA SSE a man with a GRC saying they are a woman can be excluded.

Everybody know that. But we also know that Stonewall etc., have tried to say the opposite.

Also that not as many organisations as could, have bothered to implement the SSE.

How many times does this have to be said??!!

I think more troubling is the comment about hopsital wards.

Irrespective of intention, everyone knows that hospitals do no have the capacity to implement single sex services, let alone side rooms.

What a load of political bullshit.

Hmmm the only issue is ...

...what is gender?

Define gender without using a bunch of sexist tropes.

And this is where anyone who talks about this really needs to have a hard think.

It would be simplier if the GRA process just recognises gender and doesn't alter sex.

If both conservatives and labour agree that gender and sex are different, surely its time to change the gra and not issue a new birth certificate.

I think there is no law to say single sex spaces mustbe single sex. An individual space could decide to allow other sexes.

Is it it more that they can be difficult to enforce? It wouldnt be reasonable to expect a cafe owner to stop all men entering the womans toilet, but it is reasonable to expect them to make signs clear, remove them if someone complains.

Businesses and service providers dont have to offer single sex services. So if they didnt want to provide them, why advertise as such, but redefine sex as something most people wouldnt expect? The business owner isnt allowed to redefine the meaning of anything else they sell.

As mentioned already, the NHS have made it hard for themselves unnecessarily because they have allowed patients to overwrite sex as desired sex on hospital records. Obviously, in the majority of cases, they would know the true sex. But it may be difficult to manage wards if they dont know until they see the patient.

This is a good explanation of what 'all purposes' means:

https://sex-matters.org/posts/single-sex-services/what-does-a-grc-do/

What this really is is a rule about rules: it tells us that in those (rare) situations in which the law attaches consequences to whether you are male or female, a GRC requires you to be deemed to have changed sex unless the contrary is stated. In other words, it governs how other laws are to be understood.

That seems like a good answer. A small number of people would give anomalous results, but are likely to have a specific diagnosis which they could prove.

This issue has rumbled on and on for Labour. Could they not have sorted themselves out during the time they were waiting for an election to be called, and state whatever clearly in their manifesto. They KNEW the question would come up and should have had something ready. It’s infuriating.

It should be spelled out in the GRC process. If people declare they will ilive n their acquired gender they should also sign a declaration declaring that they recognise their sex has not changed and that they cannot access single sex spaces on the basis of having a GRC.

Yes. Or simply an offence to conceal your sex.

On Women's Hour this morning, Labour Party Chair and Shadow Secretary for Women and Equalities Anneliese Dodds said: Sex and gender are different, sex is protected under the EA, and exceptions can be made, but this probably could be made clearer/more well known/enforced. There should be appropriate single-sex spaces.

So it sounds to me like they've decided on their position and are following it.

I got that impression from my labour candidate. Not got an understanding of what is happening on the ground in reality.

Thinks a bit of guidance will sort out the problem. Thinks its misunderstanding of the law that his the problem, rather than capture of institutions and services by gender ideology.

Used to be done for sports.

Perhaps make it an offence to knowingly lie to an authorised person if asked what your biological sex is.

I thought people's sex could be determined by some kind of swab, similar to a DNA test, with 'examinations' not being necessary??

Many thanks for answering @theilltemperedclavecinist I appreciate that you bothered. I feel muddled about this law.

Some points to add in light of what you said -

Only relevant for applying law that is affected by sex, like discrimination law. Doesn't actually change the person's sex for other purposes, such as whether their presence disadvantages a woman or member of a religious minority.

Given
Section 9 of the 2004 Act provides that unless exceptions apply, the effect of a full GRC is that “for all purposes” the person’s sex becomes as certified. As a matter of general principle, a full GRC has the effect of changing the sex that a person has as a protected characteristic for the purposes of the 2010 Act
(GOV.UK)

It is very poor English/law writing in my opinion to be saying “sex for all purposes……. but not for all purposes” ( effectively).

You are allowed but they don't have to answer. I expect the NHS to be able to work out people's sex though (transsexuals have been using it for years).

I would agree, though a doctor was on these threads once saying it can be surprising difficult to make assumptions about people’s sex during the general Pell Mel.

Maybe the NHS would not have a problem, but there can be odd thinking about this, that you would not think possible, as in the response to 2021 petition against the police recording of male crimes as being women’s.

I kid you not:
Officials have noted that ‘biological sex’ has not been defined in the petition. If ‘biological sex’ is defined in terms of anatomy, or chromosomes, then there would be both ethical and logistical challenges for the police or the HMPPS in determining this for every arrested suspect or prisoner. For instance, it would not be appropriate for the police or HMPPS to physically examine every suspect/prisoner in order to determine ‘biological sex’ if it had one of these meanings. Accordingly, there are no plans for the police or HMPPS to record the biological sex of prisoners.*
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/590123

My Mum has been in hospital for months. She was in a female bay on a mixed sex ward. I had to escort a confused male patient back to his own bay when he wandered into the female bay.

She is now in a side room on 'end of life care'. There are only a couple of side rooms on the ward. Mr Starmer, would she get turfed out of this room if a trans patient was admitted?

@ScrollingLeaves

Even if KS says a GRC transwoman would not be allowed on a ward, would that stand up to law in practice?

Yes. Excluding a GRC holder is already legal, but not mandatory. KS is saying they will make it NHS practice. Trans can sue, but respondent only needs to show they were treated well enough not that they were given everything they demanded

What about Haldane’s decision that sex has been changed with the acquisition of a GRC?

Only relevant for applying law that is affected by sex, like discrimination law. Doesn't actually change the person's sex for other purposes, such as whether their presence disadvantages a woman or member of a religious minority.

What about not being allowed to ask if someone has one?

You are allowed but they don't have to answer. I expect the NHS to be able to work out people's sex though (transsexuals have been using it for years).

For everything that Starmer says there is only one question:

'But how?'

This has been the unanswered question in politics since the invasion of Iraq.

What do we do then? How do we actually achieve what we say we want in practical terms?

It all very well saying 'oh we are going to Brexit' without defining what Brexit actually means and what is realistically achievable given other international concerns and geography.

It's all very well saying we are going to attack Iraq and end terrorism, without thinking about how you are going to fill the political vacuum that you create.

It's all very well saying we are going to make sure there's single sex provision everywhere without thought to available facilities and staffing levels. And without properly addressing the very definition of sex which has been made out as contentious.

The magical thinking that is never questioned has to start being pointed out.

We have questioned the magical thinking of Reform's manifesto financials (as should be the case), but we don't do it everywhere.

Why?

The use of side rooms on female single-sex wards is very much contingent on trans-identified males staying in the side rooms and not wandering out to the main female wards or using the same showers/toilets/day room as the women on the main female wards.

Would it not make more sense to accommodate trans-identified males in side rooms on wards for males? Or is this the policy being suggested and I’ve got the wrong end of the stick?

I think an important point being missed is that his answer was 'what [he thinks] happens now' not 'what is proposed under a Laboiur government '.

He may have tried to imply they wouldn't change the (imagined) status quo, but he didn't actually say it.

I think there is no law to say single sex spaces must be single sex. An individual space could decide to allow other sexes. So Edinburgh RCC could just allow it. With all the transactivism and Equality and diversity around single sex spaces are fewer.

Even if KS says a GRC transwoman would not be allowed on a ward, would that stand up to law in practice?
What about Haldane’s decision that sex has been changed with the acquisition of a GRC?
What about not being allowed to ask if someone has one?
(I am not being rhetorical, but asking.)

A parallel conversation going on, on another thread is highlighting one of the problems here.

In an age of image and appearances, the most important thing on social media is virtue signalling your beliefs and this concept of showing how nice you are.

But good governance shouldn't be doing this. It should be looking at policy and problems not public performance. It should be indifferent to whether it makes you look good. It should be about what's right for society in a way that does the least harm and recognise issues even ones that happen to be inconvenient.

That means taking this whole emotional stuff out of the equation.

That means killing dead the idea that if you aren't virtue signalling your acceptance, you are somehow a bad person and a bigot. Cos it's just not true.

It's possible to see acceptance as a reasonable thing but also understand there are limitations because otherwise you create harms to other vulnerable groups in certain situations.

If you continue with the whole performance stuff you just perpetuate these myths and make it harder for those with completely legitimate issues to come forward. And you just end up with festering issues which have no place in our society in 2024.

We have got this strange mentality that the only people who can be racist are white or if you are trans you must be liberal and accepting of homosexuals and totally feminist. It puts tackling injustices in these areas into a box marked 'do not touch'. How is that ok?

Minorities are capable of behaviour and attitudes that aren't ok. We need to stop ignoring this and truly treat people equally in even these difficult areas.

We need to stop social media glossing over the cracks - it's similar to green washing.

Stop focusing on identities and look at the whole picture and acknowledge actual problems regardless of who is saying it and whether they are a 'worthy' person or not.

This whole Good V Evil thing that's engulfed politics is pathetic. We don't live in a world with Marvel Superheroes. It's unfortunately closer to Amazon's The Boys.

(Sidenote: The Boys is reflective the time and of this unspoken concern about Black and White ideas of the world which is why it's so offensive, grim and makes the supposed Goodie actually the Baddie. TV is always reflective of the political issues of the time - often including ones we don't speak about so openly. I am fascinated about the ITV drama next week about Cancel Culture and whether Steven Moffat 'gets it' in terms of it's problematic nature too. It's interesting to see a few programmes are appearing to reflect a problem of our age... They have an audience in mind)

Starmer is very cleverly (he thinks) trying to fudge this. As usual.

Safe spaces is a meaningless phrase he’s deliberately adopted to seem reasonable. But single sex spaces is a clear and widely understood concept and should be unequivocal.

If my brother entered a women’s only space I can guarantee those women would be completely safe. Thats completely irrelevant to the women who don’t know him and require privacy, dignity and, in the case of sport, fairness.

Good question.