Keir Starmer Government urged to clarify definition of sex by the Tories

That’s a fairer take than usual suspects which I respect.

What are you referring to here? The usual suspects for Labour?

That’s a fairer take than usual suspects which I respect. I didn’t believe Badenoch actually because as a person she just wasn’t clubbable enough to persuade all her colleagues. They didn’t think it important enough. Let’s say Johnson had backed this. It would have happened.

Starmer isn’t motivated. I dare say his bill, if it emerges, will be some way of the change that is wanted here. I would guess it will set out a series of statutory exceptions where a single sex service is justified and thus that is much more easily defended in law than the broader change above.

I am always a bit suspicious about politicians who claim to be able to deliver big ticket changes. They must be extremely powerful to do so or very clever. And I don’t think Badenoch is either of those. She’s a headliner who talks big.

People did try to influence Labour before the last election. They sought to meet with their own MPs ( mine refused to meet on the issue), they wrote letters, they campaigned, and some Labour party members grouped together under the 'Labour Women's Declaration'........ to no avail.

I spoiled my ballot because I'm not voting for a candidate who has made it plain and clear that she believes TWAW and who is a supporter of Mermaids. And I had no faith in starmer......with his continual evasions, or his lack of vocal support for Rosie Duffield. Labour has treated women disgracefully.

That is not what has been said, but yes, I do think, given more time ( laws can't be changed over-night).....Badenoch would have moved to a clarification of sex. It is far easier to not put something into law in the first instance, than it is to undo it once done.

Starmer is a gutless trans supporter - or that is certainly his record so far. Weasel words whilst still meeting with Stonewall and making promises.

It seems to me that many seem to be caught up in a reflexive rear guard defence of Labour ( after all of the championing of them at the last election) rather than a honest appraisal. So far, he, like most others in the Labour Party, have refused to give clear and unequivocal support to women's sex based rights across the board.

Next year we'll see....as this is when Starmer will introduce his " modernisation" of the GRA.

You mentioned Cass but you also failed to mention that we would definitely have Self Id by now if the Tories had not blocked it; and that they blocked the same in Scotland. Scottish Labour supported what the SNP were doing.

You can usual suspects me as much as you like. My point has always been gender criticality is little but a political football. Badenoch failed to get the support she needed, governments make difficult change all the time. She wasn’t backed by her own party. Why? Because she couldn’t influence her colleagues.

Starmer doesn’t see an issue, so no, he won’t do a thing.

Does anyone think that the Tory Party putting the change forward in the way they have done means that they will actually achieve the outcome they want? Really?

My take has always been that people have to influence Labour, they should have held their nose before the election and got on with it if it mattered. Starmer has zero incentive to play with what is seen as Badenoch’s idea. He’s a politician and he won’t give it a hearing. Regrettably for some, the hard work of cultivating lefties must be done. I appreciate that is not as nice as having a high horse to ride on, but politics is about acting and making change.

Or perhaps it suits some to fulminate.

Yes well done for countering the dishonesty

I guess it’ll be a next GE issue

@Hoardasurass @JanesLittleGirl , true. Very true. I hadn't thought of that. Thank you.

No worries Retire, I understood what you were saying 👍

I agree certain derails can be extremely frustrating when a poster is in broadcast but not receive mode - there's no real discussion possible - but I've found that other types are eventually enlightening because it allows me to encounter differing POVs from my own and/or the derails allow established posters here (who are often very eloquent) to refute claims that are lacking in accuracy.

And to agree with other posters above, Starmer & Co are irritatingly sticking to their election strategy of "Us Labours are very proud of our equality legislation, thank you very much", which I hope they will eventually be made to realise does not address in any substantive way any of the issues created by said legislation they created.

Clubs and associations are covered by a different part of the EA. Single sex services are only lawful if they are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim but there is no such requirement for associations. Hence there are women only and men only clubs (as well as all sorts of clubs based around other protected characteristics) for no better reason than because the members want them. E.g. the WI or the Freemasons.

The snag is that unlike service provision, there is no clear additional exception to exclude tw with a GRC from a female only club.

I don't think it hurts to reaffirm the facts in response to inaccuracies; it's useful for people who are reading the thread but are perhaps new to the area under discussion.

It's an ill-informed myth that won't die off - I've heard Badenoch explain in detail on more than one occasion the complexity of trying to get agreement across govt departments, the EHRC, and with Cabinet colleagues for her suggested legislation AND I've heard her explain how it was ready to be go ahead for implementation in the late summer of 2024 but the snap election killed off all progress.

Badenoch put her money where her mouth was and her solution was detail-orientated.

I don't think Starmer sees the problem.

He has stated that he is proud that labour introduced the GRA and the EqA. So he is proud that adult men have female birth certificates and there is confusion about when and where these men have legal rights to use womans services.

I think its going to take the courts to highlight to him where the problems are, he isnt going to listen to women, or safeguarding experts.

Really? Isn’t the consensus on this board that 1) Badenoch would definitely do this sex clarification 2) Starmer was a gutless trans supporter and would make it worse.

i think nothing will happen at all. Starmer is probably more honest that Badenoch in the sense that he never intended to do anything whereas Badenoch claimed she would. What people actually do matters. Not what they claim they will.

No disrespect to Cass, it was an epic and vital report.

Even as an obvious Tory hater, you have to hope, though, that Labour will act positively on the matter, surely? And also, you have to admit that we would already have Gender Self Id if it wasn't for the Tory party party blocking it, and there would have been no Cass Review.

I doubt Labour will do anything.

Maybe the next GE will see some progress for women

Yes, Starmer has showed he intends to stick with his script - come hell or high water.

And 'services' doesn't necessarily include toilets and changing rooms.

@JanesLittleGirl I am aware of that but the appeal crt in Edinburgh has ruled that men with a grc are women under the equal act and women with a grc are men, what this means is that a pregnant woman with a grc has no pregnancy or maternity protection, no lesbian groups can refuse to admit a man with a grc (groups aren't exempt), when a man with a grc claims sex discrimination the comparator is a woman instead of a man without a grc and that's not even an exhaustive list of the issues.
As I said in my last post the government need to start a massive campaign to inform all service providers and employers what the law actually says and that stonewall law is illegal. It would be really helpful if they could also point out that it's not illegal to ask for proof of a grc

Well if you were really stupid, you choose something to campaign on that your own leader failed to do when she was Minister with the power to do so. If they are that stupid, to imagine this is some kind of “gotcha” then I reckon they will be out of power for a very long time.

I don't imagine the Tories think Labour will act on this. Why would they?