To think that Labour have just shot themselves in the foot?

[Redrosetat]

https://twitter.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1768647056111861760?s=19&t=wqgtbWPG_X1xZDMhuF871A

‘Just now Labour MPs prevented debate on a new law to protect children and single sex spaces.

Instead they used parliamentary time to discuss ferret name choices.

@Keir_Starmer is terrified of debate on safeguarding & his MPs actively work to ignore the concerns of constituents’

I missed the Equalities Minister on the media round this morning, was she pre-announcing a Commons announcement about the bill she is going to introduce now that Truss' PMB failed. Failed entirely predictably given Truss' place in the PMB ballot?

Well said.

To be fair to Kemi Badenoch, I think we do know why she hasn’t introduced a bill (and my apologies if I’m telling you stuff you already know, I do appreciate your Qs are rhetorical).

Amendments to the current legislation are going to be difficult. We have the Gender Recognition Act because the UK was required, by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), to recognize the right of transgender people to be legally recognized as the gender of their choice (including having their sex markers changed on ID docs).

To minimize the risk of any new law re single sex spaces being found to violate the ECtHR, it will need to be based on a thorough analysis of the impacts on women and transgender people, will likely need to be as narrow as possible, and will likely need to not meaningfully impinge on the right of gender recognition. There is, of course, the practical issue around how you’d enforce the law too (do people need to show ID docs? How will that work if their ID shows their chosen gender as opposed to biological sex).

Badenoch is aware of the above hence, as a precursor to drafting any proposed bill, she wrote to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) for input (and the EHRC’s response confirmed that a thorough analysis of the effects on any changes, to women and trans people, would be a necessary precursor to any changes).

Labour say that they support these efforts.

Truss’s bill is, as the government have pointed out, unworkable. Anyone who pretends that you could just quickly and easily change the Equality Act to define sex as biological sex, is playing to the crowd and not actually advancing the issue.

People demanding the Labour spell out, at this time, the exact and particular changes they would make to the law are not being realistic. Neither the current government nor Labour are going to be able to tell you that. If any change in law is going to survive a challenge to the ECtHR, then it’s likely going to need to follow the “analysis first, legislation second” approach recommended by the ECHR. I don’t know for sure but I’d imagine that committing to the changes first, before seeking to fully justify them as a matter of public policy, might increase the risk of the law being found in violation.

Incidentally, anyone know where the Tories are at, in this process? I wouldn’t be wholly surprised if they are leaving it dangle until after the election.

@ThisQuickFinch are you based in the UK? Only asking because you use Americanised spellings of certain words. I noticed that on another thread yesterday and again on this one tonight.

Badenoch didn't turn up to that debate because she's all words and no action.

I’m from the UK but I’ve been living on the other side of the pond for the last few years. Am not the best speller and am relying on my autocorrect, which is probably set to American English.

Cool so why such an interest in the current UK political situation if you don't live here? Do you get to vote in the election as an ex-pat?

I nearly responded to this fully, but have decided not to. It’s disappointing to have posters focus on me (as happened on the other thread) rather than the words I’m saying (beyond how they are spelled) and I don’t need to justify myself.

I don’t have any particular expertise so, if anyone wants to tell me that my understanding of the legal situation is wrong, please go ahead. My life story is irrelevant.

Very wise. These threads get way too personal.

I think if you are posting political opinions it is a valid question.

It is a shame you are bowing out rather than explaining what your interest is and then having an honest conversation about the content of your post.

But that's up to you. No one can force you to continue on the thread.

Assuming that you currently live in the UK, do you think you would lose all interest the second you moved overseas?

Could you let me know why you seem to have posted on several threads about American politics? Surely you cannot have opinions on the politics of more than one country at once, or do you split your time between the two? Could I get full details of your relevant living arrangements? If you have family members who aren’t British, could I get their background too?

Have you suitably verified that all other posters meet your rigorous standards for expressing an opinion?

It was a fair summary of the issues. The problem I'd say is your analysis is too even handed for some and they are rude

Blimey why so defensive?

Of course you can take an interest in the upcoming election I didn't say you couldn't. But having an interest in this particular issue is interesting because it normally comes from an ideological viewpoint, especially if you are commenting on this specific issue from a country which is ideologically much further along the line than this country is in trashing women's rights in favour of the rights of males to identify as they wish.

You said earlier you don't know so much about UK law. That shows in your post. What qualifies you to make the statements you have made about the barriers to amending the Equality Act for example? I know it isn't easy to amend UK legislation because I have a background in the UK as a lawyer but I'm wondering what knowledge you have to make the statements you have made?

And you are right, I don't scrutinise the posts of all posters but not all of them make the bold l statements that you have made about laws of a country that they don't reside in and say that you have no knowledge of.

To minimize the risk of any new law re single sex spaces being found to violate the ECtHR, it will need to be based on a thorough analysis of the impacts on women and transgender people, will likely need to be as narrow as possible, and will likely need to not meaningfully impinge on the right of gender recognition. There is, of course, the practical issue around how you’d enforce the law too (do people need to show ID docs? How will that work if their ID shows their chosen gender as opposed to biological sex).

This is simply wrong.

For the protected characteristic of sex to be clarified to confirm that it only means biological sex and to exclude males from the definition of biological woman or female, there doesn't need to be any analysis on the impact of people who are not of that sex. Gender doesn't come into this definition at all.

This is the major amendment that is required to protect single sex spaces under the existing Equality Act 2010.

If that is done then the Exemptions under the Act will be able to be used, as was originally intended, to exclude males, even ones with the PC of 'gender reassignment' where single sex exemptions are necessary.

Not to say that passing changes like that will be easy. Who knows if there will be political appetite from either party. But it is not the situation that has been implied with regards to impact on males.

So to be clear, this is not about making New Laws. It is about clarifying the original intention of the Act as was drafted. There would not be separate protected characteristic of sex and gender reassignment if it was not intended that they are separate things. Only ardent ideologist would claim that trans women are actually female sex and should have the benefit of both PCs leaving women with no protection.

Once it is clear that Sex when it comes to females means biological women only then if a trans woman feels that they are discriminated against in regards to access to a space they can claim on the basis of the PC of Gender Reassignment.

Then the value judgement comes in. This part also requires some clarification but at the moment it is up to the service provider to determine whether the space should be single sex or otherwise. If the service provider determines that a space should be single sex then they can exclude trans woman on the ground of the sex exemption.

And as for the EHRC they may not be the trans ally you think they are with regards to sex exemptions under the Equality Act - see an article from the Telegraph 16 March on Single Sex jobs.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/16/ehrc-reviews-employer-guidance-single-sex-jobs-trans-women

She was mulling it over. What more do people want? 😁

I don’t think I am wrong.

This is the ECHR’s response to Badenoch

https://dev.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2023/letter-to-mfwe-definition-of-sex-in-ea-210-3-april-2023_0.pdf

The issues I flag are described by the ECHR, in that letter, as follows:

“It is also important to consider the human rights implications. There is a question whether defining ‘sex’ as biological sex would engage the right to respect for private and family life in Article 8 of the European Convention on HumanRights(readwithArticle14). Inconnectiontochangestolegalsex,the courts have found violations of Article 8 if what is at stake is simply an individual’s right of recognition. This includes the right to marry and the right to a pension in their acquired gender. However, in cases where a state is balancing competing rights, for instance the rights of trans women and of biological women, Strasbourg has allowed a wider margin of appreciation. Indeed, human rights law may require the statutory recognition of biological sex. For instance, the enjoyment of separate sex and single sex spaces or sporting activities (see 8.6 and 8.7), when closely related to biological sex, is likely to fall within the material scope of Article 8. The more targeted any change is, the less likely it is to be a violation of Article 8 rights.”

and:

”The potential implications of this change should be carefully identified and considered, with due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty and in particular any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.”

It might not make require a whole new Act but it would at least require amendments to the existing one. Per the above from the ECHR, changes run the risk of infringing certain Articles of the European Convention of Human Rights, so could be found to be violations by the ECtHR.

Thats about the EHRC, not the ECtHR. I think I’ve muddled my acronyms in at least one place, too (due to the similarity).

The European Court of Human Rights (what I’ve tried to call the ECtHR) is the body that has found the right to recognition of one’s gender to be a human right, and which required the UK to implement the Gender Recognition Act (or legislation to that effect).

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is a UK public body. They’re the ones who are advising Badenoch on how the Equality Act might be amended without falling afoul of the European Convention of Human Rights (which would be enforced by the ECtHR).

I’m muddling acronyms here - this is the EHRC. I might switch to calling them the Human Rights Commission…

No only 2 Conservative and all the rest were labour. I watched it on TV.

@Redrosetat actually several Labour females were naming their pets and wasting time too.

Thank you for linking that letter, I hadn't read it before.

It doesn't say what you are suggesting it says. The EHRC was asked it's opinions by the Government, in particular Kemi Badenoch on changing the meaning of sex, it was asked to give a balanced view on the rights of people who would be impacted by this change. Clearly trans women with a GRC would be impacted by a change. This doesn't mean the change should not happen for the benefit of those of us who wish to rely on the pc of Sex, particularly in regard to single sex spaces.

Some parts of the letter you have ignored for the purpose of this discussion -

The EHRC has looked at this issue over several successive Board meetings and has considered various routes forward, all of which have advantages and disadvantages for one group or another. There is no straightforward balance, but we have come to the view that if ‘sex’ is defined as biological sex for the purposes of EqA, this would bring greater legal clarity in eight areas.

These are as follows.1 • Pregnancy and maternity: As things stand, protections in the EqA for pregnant women and new mothers fail to cover trans men who are pregnant and whose legal sex is male. Defining ‘sex’ as biological sex would resolve this issue. • Freedom of association for lesbians and gay men: If sex means legal sex, then sexual orientation changes on acquiring a GRC: some trans women with a GRC become legally lesbian, and some trans men with a GRC become gay men. As things stand, a lesbian support group (for instance) may have to admit a trans woman with a GRC attracted to women without a GRC or to trans women who had obtained a GRC. On the biological definition it could restrict membership to biological women.

Freedom of association for women and men: As things stand, a women’s book club (for instance) may have to admit a trans woman who had obtained a GRC. On the biological definition it could restrict membership to biological women. • Positive action. Currently, trans women with a GRC could benefit from ‘women-only’ shortlists and other measures aimed at increasing female participation. Trans men with a GRC could not. A biological definition of sex would correct this perceived anomaly.

• Occupational requirements. Employers are sometimes permitted to restrict positions to women or to men. An employer can (for example) require that a warden in a women’s or girls’ hostel be female. At present, such a role would be open to a trans woman with a GRC, but not to a trans man with a GRC. A biological definition of sex would correct this perceived anomaly.

• Single sex and separate sex services. Service providers are sometimes permitted to offer services to the sexes separately or to one sex only. For instance, a hospital might run several women-only wards. At present, the starting point is that a trans woman with a GRC can access a ‘women-only’ service. The service provider would have to conduct a careful balancing exercise to justify excluding all trans women. A biological definition of sex would make it simpler to make a women’s-only ward a space for biological women. • Sport. At present, to exclude trans women with a GRC from women’s sports, the organiser must show that it was necessary to do so in the interests of fairness or safety. A biological definition of sex would mean that organisers could exclude trans women from women’s sport without this additional burden.

• Data collection. When data are broken down by legal not biological sex, the result may seriously distort or impoverish our understanding of social and medical phenomena. A biological definition of sex would require public bodies like universities to apply this category, without the complexity added by a legal definition of sex, to the analysis of data collected in fulfilling the Public Sector Equality Duty.

It is interesting that some trans people (the female ones) will also benefit from clarity over the legal definition of sex in respect of a number of those benefits to women.

The letter goes on to say

On balance, we believe that redefining ‘sex’ in EqA to mean biological sex would create rationalisations, simplifications, clarity and/or reductions in risk for maternity services, providers and users of other services, gay and lesbian associations, sports organisers and employers. It therefore merits further consideration.

It then goes on to say that the government should seek legal advice and 'consider if there are other means of achieving the same ends'.

So you have not made up the parts you have selected to support your world view but you have omitted balance which is something we frequently see on these threads.

As I said upthread changing laws are not easy. Governments do have to consider effected parties and whether they might fall foul of other laws. I do not agree that making changes to protect women for the PC of sex would fall foul of European Human Rights Laws. The only way you could conclude that is if you think that women should have less rights than men with gender identities.

This is rapidly changing area of law and policy, as more and more women are being harmed because we have effectively lost words to describe ourselves independently of males and protections under the Equality Act wrt single sex exemptions, I would imagine political appetite to protect women from harms will increase. We are also human and deserve rights too after all.