Or have Labour totally lost the plot wrt women’s rights?

[Lion400]

Does Starmer really underestimate women this much??

‘Would you vote for a party that promised to let men parade around bollock-naked in women’s changing rooms?

Or a party that was alarmingly blasé about gay kids being ‘corrected’ with drugs and surgery?

Or a party that threatened to clamp down on thoughtcriminals who refer to people with penises and testicles – you know, men – as men?

If not, then don’t vote Labour in the upcoming General Election. Because it’s possible it will pursue all of these petty tyrannical policies’

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/03/13/tyranny-in-drag/

And It’s not Tory policy so why do you think they’re any more supportive?

As so many Labour fans say, the GE isn't announced yet, so we will have to wait for the manifesto to see what the policies are for the next parliament!

At least there are people trying to do something about it within the Tories. Truss isn't the only one either.

Labour can even, you know, vote for Truss' Bill. If they don't, then we know where they stand!

This earlier is my thinking on difference

Gender ideology is incredibly hard to change, we are one of the few countries who have stopped puberty blockers for example.

The school guidance is also useful

It takes a huge amount from women to get somewhere but it is happening

My concern is Labour will be more receptive to TRA lobbyists who are generally angry and highly motivated

I think the reason that no party has definitively set out its stall, on this, is that it’s likely legally complex.

The Truss bill, for example, doesn’t seem like a credible attempt at legislation. The right to be legally change your gender comes from the ECtHR and I would expect that a blanket change to remove people with GRCs from the definition of woman (or man) would see a prompt and successful challenge to the ECtHR.

This is presumably why ministers like Kemi Badenoch (who do want reform) have previously told Truss that legal changes to the Equality Act, to better protect single sex spaces, will take time.

Truss is proposing her bill to bolster her new “warrior against woke” image, she knows it isn’t a viable solution.

Gender isn't 'legal sex' though, is it? Nobody is saying that those who believe in gender identity can't say they have an identity which doesn't match their sex if they want to.

Defining sex as biological sex doesn't affect a change of gender as they're different.

I'm trying to find the ECtHR's definition of gender (in the context of legal right to change the same) to work out whether there'd be an issue or not.

Good luck pinning down the specifics (think it will take a deep delve into caselaw) but the right to change one’s gender identity includes a right to have sex markers changed on ID documents (so yes, I think that does mean changing your “legal sex”.)

It's a nightmare! Every article (so far) on it uses gender where I assume they mean sex. And many of them refer to 'gender assigned at birth', which instantly discounts them as a serious source of information.

I've not seen 'sex markers' referred to yet, only 'gender markers', which is just complicating my research further. 🤯

Yeah. I've now read the word 'gender' so many times, it's ceased to have any meaning! 🤣 Looks bloody odd too after enough times.

Here’s some fairly recent (Aug 22) guidance from the court. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Guide_LGBTI_rights_ENG

Page 22 is the relevant bit. It equates gender recognition with the change of sex markers on legal documents.

This would most likely instantly render Truss’s proposed bill (if it passed) unlawful and is why gender-critical people, from her own party, acknowledge that (lawful) reforms will take a lot more work.

There’s also the practical issue: if you suspect someone’s biological sex might not match their legal sex on ID documents, how do you maintain single sex spaces?

That document refers to gender assigned at birth. And also states it doesn't bind the Court. So I'm not sure its guidance is actually law.

As you note, even the title of that section conflates gender and sex!

Yes the document does not bind the court because it is just a written summary produced by the court (i.e. it’s a summary of laws, and not a law itself).

You can dig into the cases yourself, if you wish, but as things currently stand, gender recognition is a legal right and includes (or equals) the right to change your sex on official ID documents.

Yes, I know that's a legal right. But where does it say that changing the sex marker gives you the right to be treated at all times as if that's your biological sex? Gender isn't sex, so the right to have it recognised doesn't mean there's agreement that you've become the opposite sex biologically.

Isn't this where Lady Haldane's judgment comes in and why For Women Scotland are allowed to seek clarity on the issue?

Laws aren't always thought through carefully!

I don’t think it does give you that right otherwise how do we manage criminals in prison estates?

It is complex though, and I always find the legal part of it interesting

It is fascinating (and frustrating in equal measure)!

I don’t think there is anywhere that says allowing you to change the sex marker gives you the right, at all times, to be treated as a member of that sex - and I suspect this will prove a complex legislative area and that meaningful changes to the Equality Act, that would survive a challenge to the ECtHR, will have to be very carefully considered and drafted (both in terms of legalities and practicalities).

I don’t think that Truss’s proposal, to simply change the Equality Act to define women to mean biological women, is a serious attempt to reform the law and basically chucks the right of gender recognition, in its entirety, out the window (which I’m sure many would agree with in principe, but I don’t see how it could be implemented without withdrawing from the ECtHR).

I would expect that the ECtHR would need to see the that any limits on the right of gender recognition be as narrow as possible, and based on specific public interest concerns. That does seem to be the Government’s view, too.

I have seen on other threads ‘it’s easy they could change it overnight’ I don’t think that’s the case.

The ECHR makes it very complex

It does to me look like we can treat people differently to their legal sex otherwise we would have to put males with a GRC in a female prison, which we don’t do anymore

If not a prison I assume other spaces can handle the same treatment

But it’s more a conversation and I’m always hoping lawyers / people with insight contribute on these threads

Is she attempting to at least get people talking about it and discussing the need for amendment? Bearing in mind she's always been gender critical, I'm not sure she's jumping on any populist bandwagons, as some have alleged (if she'd remained as PM, I imagine this would've been through a proper legislative process by now).

We need the For Women Scotland UKSC appeal to take place if the government isn't going to get its act together!

Yes Truss stopped Self ID in 2020 thankfully, it’s not a new interest

I have no issue with as much discussion as possible to move this forward. At least some are trying.

Others try on behalf of TRAs

She’s been a bit mixed on it really; she made it easier and cheaper for people to apply for GRCs (actions that would no doubt draw immense criticism if proposed by Starmer) but has frequently expressed gender critical sentiments.

If the government was not already trying to legislate on the issue, or if trans issues weren’t already a major issue in public discourse, maybe she could get some credit for shining a light on the issue - but I don’t think that’s what she’s doing here.

I think this is part of her re-invention as a culture warrior - which recently saw her sharing the stage with far right Americans who were explicitly calling for an end to democracy (and replacing it with a religious theocracy…not exactly good for women).

I don’t know what Truss’s motivations are for raising this, and nor does anyone else; the fact it has been highlighted and will be discussed in parliament tomorrow - is only good news. Every step taken is a step closer to putting the gender ideology woo woo in the bin. And if tomorrow highlights Starmers’ intransigence on this issue - or if he surprises us all with a u turn - or if he is a no show - we will be more informed about his stance on women’s sex-based rights (or lack thereof).

Friday is constituency day so attendance in the Commons tomorrow will be sparse to say the least, it certainly won’t be any indication of interest or lack thereof on anyone’s part.

Yes Truss stopped Self ID in 2020 thankfully, it’s not a new interest

She was against protecting single-sex spaces as recently as 2022, though.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/government-no-interest-banning-trans-people-single-sex-toilets-liz-truss-tells-equalities-tsar-1474413

Would certainly be an excuse used for a no show.

If men can be women based on undefinable feelings of gender then how can we know which people are more affected by day to day issues?

The word we used to have for women has been appropriated by men.

It is vulnerable women who are more likely to be impacted by the erosion of women's rights due to the fact that they are more likely to need services (such as refuges). Suddenly single sex refuges for women only no longer exist because the word woman is now meaningless.

Yes there are other important issues but it is ridiculous to suggest that we can't advocate for all things that impact women at the same time.

Labour could do better on this issue if they saw fit to do so. But instead they are relying on people saying that this is an insignificant issue. That's how they get away with it.

The tide is now starting to turn. The NHS has banned puberty blockers which is a great step. So why, oh why is the Labour party not following the science on this and applauding the fact that children are going to be protected from harm. Why are they still blithering on about banning 'conversion therapy' which, in real terms, means counselling/ talking therapy. Most children desist from feelings of being trans post puberty so the fact that any child has ever been prescribed puberty blockers which can result in horrific life long side effects is beyond awful.

So you can vote for who you want but don't try to lecture/ guilt women into shutting up about this.

I think you'll find you're the one lecturing.