Labour have reneged on promise about single sex spaces - again!

I dont care there's another thread, but just pointed out there was one.

But am concerned there's a thread based on a totally back to front misrepresentation.

To summarise, the interaction of the GRA with the EA means there is the concept of legal women.

This means that unless those providing services invoke the right to the Single Sex Exemptions, the word "woman" includes "legal women". (which just indicates the disrespect of the writers of the law - Labour - have towards woman that as a majority they should kowtow to TW.)

The recent report showed that of those who replied to a survey most understood what the SSE meant. Some didn't. Some thought it meant TW were allowed in SSE services (ie like ERCC).

But that many were confused and the suggestion that an effort should be made to clarify it doesn't seem very high on the Government to do list.

But nothing has changed.

Unless and until either the GRA is abolished or the EA has the wording changed to clarify that sex means biology, we are still in the position that women have to get permission to do what has always presiously been the accepted norm that women are biologically female.

Now we have to get permission or prove that it is proportional to ask to be "allowed" to do this.

I presume Labour just not being bothered people are confused is because they are so supremely smug about having created the concept of the SSE and we as women should just STFU and be grateful.

None of this changes the fact that the biggest problem isn't the law (on one level) but the fact that TRAs have been so sucessful they have persuaged nearly every section of society that the obvious norm of single sex (biological) is no longer important, and that gender identity should take precedent.

So all those gender neutral facilites aren't because of the law, but because providers have chosen or been bullied into thinking this is the "right" thing to do.

The original thread fell down the page before many people had commented. I'm pleased the op raised it again.

There is an existing thread, and this stupid comment by Foran the Moran was also discussed.

ie all the Government is saying is what the law currenlty is.

If a service or space has not sought the catergory of single sex under the SSE, then of course men, in whatever identity, can legally access it. But the organiser can not and should not (eg ERCC) claim it is a "women's" service, space.

The problem is that although many more groups, employers etc., could apply the single sex exemptions they cant be bothered or dont care enough to do it.

That is totally different from organisations that have been captured and deliberately lie to users (eg ERCC)

And the Government has told them to stop doing it.

But what they aren't doing even though the research instigated by the Tories shows this is an issue, is to do anything proactive to clarify to the general public what the law is, and how it can be used.

And giving really clear guidance as to how to establish SSE for a service.

As a rule of thumb just ignore Foran.

I cant be bothered to find the link to the original thread, but it is only a couple of days ago but has the link to the Government report that MF as usual got back to front.

I voted Labour because there were no better options in my constituency - the Greens and Lib Dems are batshit crazy - and I believe in voting. However, I don't trust them. I do like Wes Streeting but then I have a sneaking liking for Kemi Badenoch. I know half the things she says are bonkers but compared to most of the dismal, weasel words, focus group-led politicians around she's refreshingly direct. She reminds me of why I liked John Prescott bizarrely.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14207341/Labour-accused-betraying-women-insisting-no-need-change-law-protect-single-sex-spaces.html

Last night senior Tory MP Claire Coutinho said: ‘This work was started by Kemi Badenoch when she was Minister for Equalities.

It will be a kick in the teeth for all the women who thought Labour would protect single-sex spaces. Another broken promise.’
Maya Forstater from campaign group Sex Matters said that Labour’s equalities ministers Anneliese Dodds and Bridget Phillipson had delivered a ‘lazy kick in the teeth to women’.‘This is an utter betrayal of women. How can you stand against male violence against women while giving away female-only spaces to any man who wants to walk in?’ Ms Forstater asked.Her colleague Helen Joyce added: ‘I’m so angry about this. Sometimes, governments break manifesto promises because they decide they’re too expensive. Sometimes because they realise they can’t be kept. But this time, it’s just outright betrayal.’

Okay, me edging my bets and fence sitting has resulted in repeat proof labour has lied, and lied repeatedly about this.

I still have the email from my Labour candidate which states they will continue to support the single sex exemption and 'women only spaces'. It very nearly swayed me to vote for them.

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/24054287.oxford-mp-anneliese-dodds-jlm-conference-remark-slammed/
Anneliese Dodds previously stated in an article for the Guardian: "We need to recognise that sex and gender are different – as the Equality Act does."We will make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act."Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access."Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services."

Well i think we all need to write to our MPs, particularly if they are new Labour MPs.

I'm finding few reasons to regret not voting Labour. Didn't trust them, still don't.

Why would any firm not use single sex changing rooms? Any firm that presumably requires you as part of your contract to change your clothing in the workplace needs to assure privacy.
I wouldn't even mind a simple divider, like they have in hospitals, if there's both sexes changing just put that in the middle of the room?
How difficult can it be? Those things cost what, a couple hundred quid? If they're struggling for enough space.
Otherwise it should be individual cubicles fully enclosed big enough to change and maybe a toilet etc as well.

Just because it's not a surprise doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out over it.

I didn't vote for them but I was lucky and had an independent candidate I was happy to endorse, otherwise I don't know what I'd have done.

I think it's disappointment rather than surprise. I think they're hoping they've done enough to appease LGBT Labour while leaving it up to individuals to sue the arse off companies for allowing harassment, providing an unsafe working environment, etc. It's annoying because it means more crowdfunding and individuals or groups having to take their employers to court like the Darlington nurses.

On page 91 of their 2024 manifesto they say about the Equality Act.
'We will continue to support the implementation of its single-sex exceptions'
Italics are mine.

Of course they can still argue they're not reneging on that statement if they so wish, and I've no doubt they will try. But they use the words 'single sex'

labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Change-Labour-Party-Manifesto-2024-large-print.pdf

See also Peter Daly’s comment.

They may have, I can't remember it but it's possible.

They've basically done exactly what they said they would, I can't work out the suprise to be honest.

They said 'safe spaces' at first but I'm pretty sure they later switched to 'single sex' - but didn't make it clear whether single sex women's spaces included transwomen.

I'd like to point out they never made promises in single sex spaces. The words thrown around was "safe spaces", and it was pointed out here at the time meaningless.

It's worrying that she hasn't waited for the Supreme Court judgement.
FWS sought a further JR of the statutory guidance to the amended GRPBA. The first instance court ruled that the revised definition of “woman” – to include males who hold a female Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) – was lawful and consistent with the Equality Act. This was upheld at appeal in November 2023 and it is this decision which is now under appeal to the UK Supreme Court.

Are they just going to waive it aside if they dont like it as they have with the ombudsman on WASPI women?

Another big fat lie by Labour.
And we were all desperate to get rid of the Tory's.
Are there any decent politicians.

"Dr Michael Foran, a leading expert on equality law, thinks it may not even be legal. “Important development on the govs [sic] position on single-sex services, suggesting it is lawful to operate a single-sex service on a mixed-sex basis determined by Self-ID,” he wrote online. “I don’t think this is correct,” he added with admirable restraint, pointing out that it might amount to indirect discrimination or harassment."

Perhaps action can be taken against this development, but ever since they named Dodds as the Minister for (Wo)Men, it was only a matter of time before she and her top notch team of TRA's betrayed women. 🤬

I hope Reem Alslam sends her a blistering letter about this.

Sorry op I was repeating your thread title in that post but that, to me, is the crucial point. I remember wrestling with myself as to whether to vote for them on the basis of that assurance.

I wonder where that leaves their assurance that they would protect single sex spaces, which was in their manifesto if I remember correctly?
(And yes I also remember that they ducked and dived whenever they were asked if women's single sex spaces should include transwomen.)

If anything I'd say it's a step in the right direction as it's stopping companies saying we have to do this - something I've heard too many times. Now does anyone fancy pointing this out to the guides association who stated they legally had no choice but accept trans girls.