Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
Grammarnut · 19/08/2026 22:15

Most members of Unison are women and I bet the majority are not trans. It needs a writing campaign from thousands of female Unison members pointing out that trans people have as many rights as anyone else and that it is not just or equitable to grant them extra rights such as access to female only spaces - which is what this is all about.

NotNowFGS · 20/08/2026 05:17

Andrea Egan needs to define her terms, pronto.
Then let's see how many of her female members support her once they understand that it's women's rights that she's proposing are smashed to smithereens.

I'd also like to know how many members have written to her to complain about Unison's position. I'd guarantee it's a few more than 600.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 20/08/2026 06:14

I was thinking the same about the 'so many of our members' line, show us the proof handmaiden, I suspect the number is as paltry as the mere 7% she was voted in with.

Does this response have anything to do with the recent judgement that said putting a man in a position that was supposed to be for a woman was illegal.

Instead of complying with the law she wants to change the law so she can do things her way, power trip or what!

Shedmistress · 20/08/2026 08:15

Helping everyone APART from your main membership?

What's the deal with the picture in the background?

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 20/08/2026 08:36

Bright orange hair and dopey smile. Do I need to listen to know what she's going to say?

I did listen, and no I didn't really need to, except for the bit where she said that anyone who withdrew their current (presumably illegal) trans policies without her say-so would be in deep shit.

Well, as we (nearly) used to say: "To trans, their rights, and nothing more. To women, our rights, and nothing less."

DialSquare · 20/08/2026 08:37

She so convinced she’s right that she’s turned the comments off. Disgusting traitor to her own sex.

singthing · 20/08/2026 08:43

So if 601 women write to her opposing her stance and explaining how doing so will affect negatively them, she'll bend the other way?

Thought not.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 20/08/2026 20:01

"Unison, which has 1.3 million members, has vowed to “fight” every employer to make them “trans inclusive”, despite guidance saying access to single-sex spaces is dependent on biological sex, not gender identity."

Good, if by fight they mean take them to court because that's the best and quickest way to bankrupt the Unions. Because they'll lose, no one's above the law, not even the god almighty unions.

Made some of these 1.3 million members could kindly take notice of what they're helping to pay for, the damage that's being done because of them, and stop paying those subs pronto.

ThisIsMyGCname · 24/09/2026 20:46

From 21 September: for info…

I am writing to update you on the process we will follow in relation to eligibility for seats reserved for women under the Equality Act 2010.

I recognise that this is a sensitive issue and that the clarification below will be difficult and upsetting for many colleagues and members. I want to set out clearly both what is changing and, importantly, what is not changing.

UNISON’s policy, agreed and reaffirmed through our democratic structures, is clear:
• trans rights are human rights;
• trans women are women;
• trans men are men; and
• non-binary identities are valid and should be recognised in law.
UNISON remains committed to these principles and will continue to campaign in support of them, alongside our wider policies and objectives.

At the same time, as a democratic trade union, we have a responsibility to comply with the law as it currently stands. The law, government policy and workplace practices will not always reflect UNISON’s policies. There have been many legal and political decisions over the years with which we have disagreed, but where the law applies to our activities, we must comply with it while continuing to campaign for change.

The Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, followed by the Certification Officer’s decision in Flaherty v UNISON, has clarified how the law applies when UNISON relies on the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010, including in relation to reserved seats for women and women-only events. In these circumstances, references to sex must be understood and applied in accordance with the legal meaning set out by the Supreme Court.

As a result, UNISON has made changes to the relevant eligibility criteria, policies, procedures and guidance where these rely on the positive action provisions of the Equality Act 2010. These changes are necessary to ensure that our processes comply with our current legal obligations.

For the purposes of seats reserved for women under the Equality Act 2010, eligibility is determined by “biological sex”. In this context, biological sex means the sex that was assigned at birth, and a reserved women’s seat is therefore open only to members who were assigned female at birth.

This is a clarification of the eligibility requirements for these particular seats. It does not represent a change to UNISON’s democratically agreed policies on trans rights or the rights and recognition of trans, non-binary and gender diverse people.

For nominations, UNISON will provide a clear definition of eligibility. Individuals putting themselves forward will then be asked to self-certify that they meet the eligibility requirements. We will provide further information and guidance on this as part of the nomination process.

These changes are intended to ensure that our election processes are conducted in accordance with current legal requirements and applicable UNISON rules. We will continue to keep legal and regulatory developments under review and make any further changes necessary to meet our obligations.

I know that for some people this distinction between our policy position and our legal obligations will not make this update any less difficult. I want to be clear that UNISON remains committed to supporting and representing all our members and to campaigning for the policies agreed through our democratic structures, including changing the law for legal gender recognition in the UK. We will continue to engage with other trade unions to find a way to keep our structures as inclusive as possible within the context of the law.

Our commitment to those principles has not changed.

Best wishes,

Andrea Egan
General secretary
UNISON

borntobequiet · 24/09/2026 21:10

Still twatting around as much as they can then, despite being obliged to follow the law.

DisappearingGirl · 24/09/2026 21:14

Gosh that was a long way of saying

Women's seats and events are for women because it's the law but we don't like it

BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp · 24/09/2026 21:28

Dear men who hate women,

Blah blah blah blah we don't want to get sued Blah blah blah blah but you're still the best thing ever since sliced bread and we also hate actual women but we don't want to get sued Blah blah blah Blah blah blah but if we figure out a way to get around the law without being sued we'll definitely do that but we're worried about getting sued Blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah. Sorry.

Love and kisses,

Andrea Egan
General secretary
UNISON

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 24/09/2026 21:29

"...we have a responsibility to comply with the law as it currently stands."

"...including changing the law for legal gender recognition in the UK"

So now we know which way unison is headed, and all those women who are members are giving them the power to do it. 😡

FateAmenableToChange · 24/09/2026 21:31

Why do they always looks like clowns?

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 24/09/2026 21:33

From the UNISON statement pasted in at 20:46

For the purposes of seats reserved for women under the Equality Act 2010, eligibility is determined by “biological sex”. In this context, biological sex means the sex that was assigned at birth, and a reserved women’s seat is therefore open only to members who were assigned female at birth.

Nope, sex is observed at birth not assigned.

For nominations, UNISON will provide a clear definition of eligibility. Individuals putting themselves forward will then be asked to self-certify that they meet the eligibility requirements. We will provide further information and guidance on this as part of the nomination process.

Ah, so UNISON will rely on self-certification by candidates - that's not open to abuse at all.

I know that for some people this distinction between our policy position and our legal obligations will not make this update any less difficult.

Combative compliance

I want to be clear that UNISON remains committed to supporting and representing all our members and to campaigning for the policies agreed through our democratic structures, including changing the law for legal gender recognition in the UK.

Are these the same democratic processes that turn off the comments in union statements on this issue?

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 24/09/2026 21:40

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 20/08/2026 06:14

I was thinking the same about the 'so many of our members' line, show us the proof handmaiden, I suspect the number is as paltry as the mere 7% she was voted in with.

Does this response have anything to do with the recent judgement that said putting a man in a position that was supposed to be for a woman was illegal.

Instead of complying with the law she wants to change the law so she can do things her way, power trip or what!

I was thinking the same about the 'so many of our members' line, show us the proof handmaiden, I suspect the number is as paltry as the mere 7% she was voted in with.

This statistic is incorrect - Andrea Egan won with 59.82% of the vote - a landslide! Unfortunately only 7% of eligible members voted so only 4% of the electorate voted for her - hurrah!

BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp · 24/09/2026 21:48

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 24/09/2026 21:40

I was thinking the same about the 'so many of our members' line, show us the proof handmaiden, I suspect the number is as paltry as the mere 7% she was voted in with.

This statistic is incorrect - Andrea Egan won with 59.82% of the vote - a landslide! Unfortunately only 7% of eligible members voted so only 4% of the electorate voted for her - hurrah!

Edited

Isn't this also the way we normally get our PMs now? This, I gather, is what passes for democracy nowadays...

ThisIsMyGCname · 24/09/2026 21:54

Thank you. Sorry to dump it and run. It’s been brewing in my inbox and in my head for days now.

WHY around I give up on many many decades of union work because some twits decide that the new form of misogyny is THE way.

I have given countless hours, and grey hairs over the years to the UNION that is a group for collective good. And I did it for free. Well, actually, I PAY , to work for free.

But I feel complicit in this fuckeittery.

I never realised how much I was being taken the piss out of because I’m a woman.

sorry, I’m ranting now.

Justme56 · 24/09/2026 21:55

She will be out shouting at the women next week in the ‘secure zone’.

Unison Battling for Trans Rights
TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 25/09/2026 06:33

ThisIsMyGCname · 24/09/2026 21:54

Thank you. Sorry to dump it and run. It’s been brewing in my inbox and in my head for days now.

WHY around I give up on many many decades of union work because some twits decide that the new form of misogyny is THE way.

I have given countless hours, and grey hairs over the years to the UNION that is a group for collective good. And I did it for free. Well, actually, I PAY , to work for free.

But I feel complicit in this fuckeittery.

I never realised how much I was being taken the piss out of because I’m a woman.

sorry, I’m ranting now.

I think quite a few of us are in the same place, I regret every penny I paid in subs to the unions, I regret becoming a Rep, I regret being put off by them because of their antics back at the beginning of the century but not joining the dots together. Which is why when I finally came to understand how rotten they were I was surprised, disappointed and eventually settled on anger.

They've betrayed us all, they've failed us all, they need to be assigned to the dustbin of history for the good of us all.

RareGoalsVerge · 25/09/2026 06:48

I hope that the unions' pro-men, anti-women stance will trigger the founding of new unions which uphold women's rights. Unions are important but there is no obligation to use a union that treats your rights as disposable of a man wants to impose his will on you.

ThisIsMyGCname · 25/09/2026 08:57

Gosh, I’m glad that brain dump made sense. I was (and am) so upset.

I don’t regret paying my subs. We’ve done a lot of good over the years, collectively and for the individual both as a union and as a branch. I still am. I’m still inside the Union, holding on by the skin of my teeth as I’m not about to let all those years and that good work go. I still believe in the principle of a union. But I do now understand a lot more about how as a woman I’m basically scum. It’s good to keep me busy helping other people so I don’t have the time to look at the big picture. I’ve thought about leaving, and still do. I left the Labour Party and felt good about myself, but look what happened there. I am in the mind to cling on in unison making noise until I’m pushed.

And I’m part of the problem, I didn’t vote at all for the General Secretary as I didn’t know which were GC and didn’t want to make a mistake.

What I don’t understand is how branch meetings have to be quorate before we can make any decisions, but ther is no such rule for voting. I might actually suggest that as a rule for our branch to take up at the next conference.

Shortshriftandlethal · 25/09/2026 09:36

FateAmenableToChange · 24/09/2026 21:31

Why do they always looks like clowns?

It always happens when dogma and ideology meet reality.

Shortshriftandlethal · 25/09/2026 09:39

RareGoalsVerge · 25/09/2026 06:48

I hope that the unions' pro-men, anti-women stance will trigger the founding of new unions which uphold women's rights. Unions are important but there is no obligation to use a union that treats your rights as disposable of a man wants to impose his will on you.

Women are as susceptible to the uncritical adoption of a dogmatic ideology as men as and can be every bit as zealous ( even against their own inetrests), clearly.