To think this is a vote winner (though not election clincher) from Sunak?

[Lion400]

Thought this was an impressive and clear response to the question, from Rishi. I suppose Labour will likely win by a landslide, because many people don’t care enough about women’s rights. Because I do care very much about women’s rights, I may vote Conservative for the first time ever (cue outrage for Lion). Will I regret it? Possibly. But I’d regret voting for Labour (aka women’s rights removers), even more.

https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1757143443111841900

This is where, respectfully, we will have to agree to differ.

Women have been treated terribly by the Labour Party for raising concerns about this, afaik, there has been no apology for any of the appalling treatment.

Dodds has stated that she believes that the current Equality Act protects single sex spaces, patently it doesn't when the current situation is that women are having to bring legal claims because they can't get single sex rape crisis care. Add to that the Haldane judgement which casts serious doubt on the future ability of providers to say no to males with a grc which makes them 'legal women'.

So Labour could do more to address these legitimate concerns. Instead they insist that 'no one is talking about it' and try to shut down conversation.

Rishi’s comments are common sense and I think it’s awful that this issue could potentially be what swings the vote one way of the other, probably in Rishi’s favour

Given that Sunak's comments will still be fresh in the minds of the electorate, it will be interesting to see if they swing the vote in his favour tomorrow. Particularly in Wellingborough, ex-seat of a sex pest Tory MP whose partner is now standing for the Tories.

And it's patent nonsense to say that Labour can't address the problem because they are not in power.

That's like saying you don't expect the Opposition to Oppose government policy.

Would you say that about any other issue?

We’re coming up to a GE where parties get mandate via manifestos

Anyone thinking that a party will care more on an issue you oppose after they have mandate is on a hiding to nowhere

Pp can try but they’ll find it hard

Labour have clearly not done all they can. They've not come out with an unequivocal statement saying biological women does not include TW. They've not apologised to Rosie. They've not supported changes to the equality act or clearly laid out how they will address the current atrocities happening despite it. You can support Labour and still be at least a little reflective.

the fact that Labour is not addressing the potential problem

You continuing to peddle this (and other) misinformation is really disingenous, lifeturnsonadime.

Are you saying that the Barristers Chambers, legal note on 'Transgender issues and the law 2023' is peddling misinformation @hotinhereandthere because those are the concerns I share.

Labour have not addressed the issue over TW with the 'legal sex of women' having both the pc of sex and gender reassignment and the impact of that on the single sex exemptions in the Equality Act.

I take REAL exception to the fact that you are saying that me pointing this inconsistency out amounts to 'misinformation'.

Your allegation about me over this has no basis in fact.

https://www.blackstonechambers.com/

Here, again, is the (mis)information I am apparently peddling.

Perhaps @hotinhereandthere could let the barristers chambers know directly that she believes they are misrepresenting the current legal position.

Paragraph 15 is the relevant part.

https://www.blackstonechambers.com/documents/Transgender_Issues_in_the_Law_-_2023_in_Review.pdf

‘there are a lot of one-issue feminists on Mumsnet who turn a blindeye to all the other outrageous things women are subjected to.’

I think it is safe to say that we all want is what is best for women. Living in a patriarchal misogynistic society and taking all the sht we do on a daily basis. Affecting every area of our lives. So no we are not turning a blind eye to ‘all the other outrageous things’.

I can’t speak for others, however for me women’s rights are the basis, the foundation, the cornerstone of everything else. If we start (or continue) to strip those away, the future is not that bright at all.

Dodds has stated that she believes that the current Equality Act protects single sex spaces
Where? And I think the extent to which the EA protects single sex spaces is a point of debate. You can post threads saying it doesn't, I posted a government statement saying it does.
Personally I think legal challenges will be needed to provide the case law to know if more needs to be done.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/19/a-politically-toxic-issue-the-legal-battles-over-gender-critical-beliefs

Knee jerk legislation to try to cover every possible scenario will be divisive, expensive, time consuming and probably won't help.

You presented these pieces of misinformation as facts until I pointed out that they are not true:

Single sex exemptions under the Equality Act use the Equality Act definition of SEX which includes both people of the sex (biological) PLUS people with a GRC the legal SEX.

So the CURRENT legal position which the Labour Party does not intend to change states that single sex provisions for women are for WOMEN and MEN WITH A GRC THAT STATE THAT THEY ARE LEGAL WOMEN.

Yes I agree, that's what needs to change. Men are not women, even the ones with a falsified birth certificate.

They are not single sex spaces for women if:

Some males are allowed in, and,

Service providers are not (in the most part) allowed to ask for proof.

That's effectively self ID, (in everything but name).

So what have I misrepresented again, when it is clear that amendments are required to amend the single sex exemptions so that they exclude these legal women with both the pc's of Sex and Gender reassignment?

Show me where in the Equality Act it says what you claim it does. And don't quote from dubious sources please, from actual legislation.

Thanks.

I don't think legislation to prevent women continuing being harmed is 'knee jerk' at all. It's safeguarding.

Labour should amend the legislation to prevent women from being harmed. So should the Tories.

It really shouldn't take the same sex service provider making a test case to make this law.

And think about what you are asking. You are asking a service provider to 'stick it's head above the parapet' and risk a claim here. Which service provider will do that when they know that the current law doesn't assist them?

Way better there is clarity in law. Service providers will continue to let males in until this is cleared up.

I will amend what I have said about Anneleise Dodd's position she has not specifically said they will not amend the Equality Act but she has said And we will modernise the gender recognition law to a new process, while continuing to support the implementation of the Equality Act that protects everyone.

The words 'continuing to support the implementation of the Equality Act' in the absence of words that state that amendments are required does strongly point to the fact that the Labour Party position is that the existing Act does not need amending at all.

It is REALLY easy for the Labour Party to clear their position up on this if they want to.

Blackstone's chambers is not a dubious source. I'd be careful @hotinhereandthere you're bordering on being libelous here.

Adam without core terms being defined, everything you're posting is meaningless. Single sex means nothing if a woman can have a penis. Show me where Labour define sex in a way which excludes gender ideological belief that someone can change sex. Explain why they treated Rosie so badly if they believe exactly the same as her.

Again, please share the actual piece of legislation corroborating your claims. Or can't you?

And @hotinhereandthere you appear to not be aware of the fact that Acts of parliament are subject to interpretation in case law which can change legal meaning.

It's known as 'common law'.

more

common law
/ˌkɒmən ˈlɔː/
noun

1. 1.
2. the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes.

1. 2.
2. denoting a partner in a marriage recognized in some jurisdictions (excluding the UK) as valid by common law, though not brought about by a civil or ecclesiastical ceremony.
3. "a common-law husband"

The Conservatives don't have any policy for labour to oppose though

lifeturnsonadime You can't. Thought so.

Yes they do. As so many posters have pointed out the Tories have allowed males in to single sex spaces, this has harmed women.

This is what the Labour Party should be opposing by setting out how they will make single sex spaces free of all males, including ones with a GRC.

They have not, in spite of your assertions to the contrary, done so.

didn't you say to me that wasn't good enough for single sex spaces?

Because laws do not just consist of statue law they consist of case law interpretations.

I can't help you if you don't understand how the law of the land works.

It isn't.

But that's a different point to the one @hotinhereandthere is making. They are saying that if the statute doesn't specifically state that legal women are allowed in women's spaces I am 'misrepresenting the law'.

I am simply saying that that is not how the law works.

It is better for everyone, especially women, that the statute is redrafted to give clarity.

I don't think I've posted anything recently relevant to sex definitions are you trying to get back on to ground that feels more comfortable for you here?