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

been made around locking up women with their abusers, shutting schools etc etc.

Well as someone who spoke up at the time and got loads of backlash I did what I could. Not many wanted to hear about the harms though

I

Im a member of the womens equality party, but seeing how they're unlikely to field a candidate in my area, i'll be voting labour.

I wouldn't touch our tory person with a barge pole, they've got one of the worst anti-women voting histories i've seen.

It doesn't matter if it is one commentator or a hundred commentators.

The facts as they stand -

Men can obtain a GRC which states that they are legally female and allows them to have an amended documentation including their birth certificate with falsifies that they are female. They are not. Human's can't change sex.

The Equality Act allows for providers of single sex spaces to use single sex exemptions where it is proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

These providers are, with the exception of very few specified circumstances are not allowed to ask if a male has a GRC.

These providers have been lobbied by Stonewall to replace the word sex with gender so the status quo is mostly that providers have been making space single gender rather than single sex, the impact being that these spaces are mixed sex.

There is nothing in law which compels the existence of single sex spaces, it is up to individual providers to determine what to provide.

As a result of all of the above factors women most provisions which could be sujbect to the single sex exemptions are now, in fact , mixed sex. This includes rape crisis and the Sarah Surviving issue where she was unable to get mixed sex support and branded bigoted for asking. This is subject to a current legal action.

Recently, in Scotland as Adam correctly pointed out, Lady Haldane stated that Sex in the Equality Act should be interpreted as biological sex AND legal sex (males with a GRC). Decisions in the Scottish court, whilst not binding on other British courts should be followed unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.

So there is the problem. Set out above.

I don't care which party amends the Equality Act 2010 to protect women from all males in single sex spaces I just want one of them to do it.

I think Labour is wrong when it claims that the existing act does so when it does not because ;

1. Providers are not compelled in law to make them in the first place.
2. Sex and gender have been used interchangeably as encouraged by Stonewall interpretations of the laws.
3. Courts in this country should follow the Haldane judgement unless there is compelling reason not to do so, as far as I can tell there is no compelling reason not to as, on the basis of the legislation Haldane seems to be right in her assessment of the interpretation of both the GRA and EquA.

Adam has made a suggestion that this needs to be litigated. In order for that to happen a service provider will have to go against the status quo and refuse a trans woman who may or may not have a GRC (they can't normally ask). This will result in a risk of unsuccessful litigation based on the current legal position as set out by the EquA and the current case law. They will also risk castigation by powerful pro trans lobby groups. I'm not sure any organisation will want to take that on.

This is why it is imperative that Statute Laws are amended to protect women.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65181018

So over 10 months on from the report given to the Government and exactly 12 months after Badenoch had a response back from the ECHR, what exactly has Sunak done on this issue?

SFA.

Hothead are you sure you are OK?

Stating genuine and thought out concerns about the safety of women is not paranoia or right wing propaganda.

You don't agree with me and that's OK but don't accuse me of things like that. I'm coming from a position of wanting laws that are adequate to protect vulnerable women and minority women. I'm not the monster you are making me out to be.

Of course they didn't do anything. The Tories who don't hate women don't give a shit about women.

Thanks for the summary

Well good. I'm glad it's clarified this for you.

That's not how safeguarding normally works but if you're fine with it then you're not going to want laws to be changed and that's OK.

Other women feel differently and women and children have been harmed even though it's a theoretically small risk. Just out of interest how many women and children have to be harmed for this to matter to you?

Not to mention the fact that lots of women just don't want to have spaces being mixed sex because as has been pointed out throughout this thread, single sex space providers can't ask for a GRC so all spaces become mixed sex.

So I'll carry on asking for the laws to be changed to protect women Adam. Because to me the safeguarding of women is more important than the gender identity of males.

Did you miss the bit where I said I don't care which party is responsible for the change in the law.

I have lobbied my Tory MP on the need to get this through.

At least the Tories are talking about it though. Labour are claiming it's a non issue.

No problem.

Yes, what exactly is the problem with protecting people who are trans from hate speech?
Do they not deserve the same protections as someone who is say gay or lesbian?
"Protect the lesbians as I agree with you there but not trans people as then I can't say or do what I like and it might affect ME?!"
Is it something like that?

Adam has made a suggestion that this needs to be litigated. In order for that to happen a service provider will have to go against the status quo and refuse a trans woman who may or may not have a GRC (they can't normally ask)

Or the service provider is challenged by a woman who thinks she was in a single sex space and felt she was made unsafe by a man being there. Exactly what iamsarah is doing i think.

Regarding the commentator, you were presenting an opinion as fact. That is misleading.

It depends what hate speech includes

Is misgendering included?

Of course that's how safeguarding normally works. There is a risk assessment. Do you seriously think DBS checks are preventing all paedophiles coaching at sports clubs for example? Just read the news.

However we know with certainty that Labour will make it worse for women. Biological men will be allowed in to domestic violence shelters, rape crises centres, women’s prisons, women’s and girls changing rooms, girls toilets, women’s sport.

Do you really believe this shite? Because all of that has already been allowed by the tories.

Labour have said "hate crime". Hate crime isn't a specific type of crime. It's any crime that's been aggravated by hatred of specific groups.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/hate-crime

Misgendering is not a crime, therefore it can't be "made hate speech".

Harassment is a crime and has been used by some transgender people to get police to investigate GC women. That's a standard tactic of abusive men, but harassment law protects women from stalking and abuse so I don't know what we could do to stop abusive men misusing that law without harming women.

I used the legal note to back up the logical interpretation of the law that people were claiming I was making up. The Haldane case was last year. Even the EHRC thinks clarfication would now be useful, as was linked in the BBC article. From that article -

In February, the Women and Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch wrote to the EHRC asking for advice about amending the Equality Act's definition of sex.
In her response, Baroness Falkner said redefining sex as "biological sex" merited further consideration in an area that she described as "polarised and contentious".
She said it would make it simpler for some settings, such as a women-only hospital ward, to be a space for biological women and exclude trans women, whether or not they had a GRC changing their legal sex.
Other examples she gave included sports groups and lesbian and gay associations. She specified how a lesbian support group currently may have to admit a trans woman with a GRC, but if the Equality Act was amended, the group could restrict membership to biological women only.

Prey tell how you believe my interpretation could be wrong? How under existing laws can a single sex provider exclude legal women?

Can you find any authority at all for your belief that it can?

I agree that the Sarah Surviving case will be interesting. I don't see how under the existing law they can argue that there can be a single sex provision which excludes legal males.

I think it is a shame that a rape survivor has found herself in this position because the statue law has allowed this interpretation to occur. I'm amazed you don't see that it rather proves the point that the statute law on this is not clear enough. Women should just have single sex spaces and the law should be clear enough to allow them.

Have you noticed how this has picked up in many western democracies?

And not many are even debating it properly

We could be a country that pushes against it for women

And this GE seems a good place to start as once we go further down the path it will likely not be reversed

Look at the GRA and the issues that’s causing for women and children

I'm not a lawyer.
I object to you acting as if your opinion is fact and using a commentators opinion as evidence of said fact. Oh, and implying people are libellous for calling you on it.

The legal position isn't straightforward hence why there is so much debate. So stop making out it is.

Getting rid of the GRA is not going to stop males accessing female spaces. So you are over simplifying something complex when you pretend it will.

Not all single sex provisions are DBS checked but you know that.

But interesting you should raise the DBS, this is also impacted by falsified documents allowed by the GRA.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4641046-new-report-from-kpss-on-dbs-checks-where-name-gender-are-changed-the-safeguarding-loopholes-that-creates

They do believe it. Of course its an irrational belief that requires substantial mental gymnastics and a fair amount of translating, interpretation, amnesia and making shit up to maintain, but it's their belief and they're sticking with it.

Sometimes it can be funny but mostly it's sad. Like when your friend gets back with their abusive Ex because he said whatever and its all going to be different this time.

No political party is looking after women, as far as I can see…

Who said anything about getting rid of the GRA?

All that aside you don't have evidence that existing laws protect single sex spaces do you?

Yet you have a problem with women who raise a concern and want politicians of any political persuasion to put this right.

I have no idea why you don't want women to raise these concerns Adam but it strikes me as a bit odd that you don't know that single sex spaces are protected by existing laws but don't want women to talk about concerns about this either.

That I totally and utterly agree with.

Well I can't see any facts on which women's single sex spaces are protected by the Equality Act single sex provisions as currently drafted and the current case law?

That's why I am stating as fact that they are not.

If I am wrong. Surely someone will explain why and how I am wrong. Even the EHRC thinks that amendments to the Act will protect single sex spaces.