"Reforming the GRA will not change anything because the EA will remain the same"

[PikesPeaked]

^^ The Govt's response to the petition:

We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single sex spaces. Any GRA reform will not change the protected characteristics in the Equality Act nor the exceptions under the Equality Act that allow provision for single and separate sex spaces.
The Government does not intend to change the safeguarding processes that are currently used in refuges and healthcare services. Providers of women-only services can continue to provide services in a different way, or even not provide services to trans individuals, provided it is objectively justified on a case-by-case basis. The same can be said about toilets, changing rooms or single sex activities. Providers may exclude trans people from facilities of the sex they identify with, provided it is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.

It's all totally irrelevant. Yes, the EA currently allows exclusion of trans people from sex-discriminated provision, but providers aren't doing so.

I don't believe it's because they are misguided by the information given to them by TRA organisations. M&S, TopShop etc all have legal departments to check the legalities of policy changes.

I suspect that they kowtow to the TRAs because it's probably more hassle to go through all the justification of exclusion than to just bow to the TRA pressure. Not to mention the hassle of dealing with the negative publicity of "Bigot!"

Unlike the obscure allusion of 'die in a fire', which is clearly open to multiple, benign interpretations.

Gibberty, how about career change?

I think that the intention is to make us feel that dissent is useless; that we can’t use the law to defend our services and spaces.

The fear is that we discover that either we can use the sex exemptions as we would like or that we fail and in failing to invoke them we expose them as being useless and cause government to review them and strengthen them.

My MP explicitly told me that they consider the exemptions to be sufficient. They WANT to see test cases. If they see that the laws don’t in fact protect women then they would consider making changes.

Again. I am a woman and am affected. The law protects me against a) men who invade women's space and b) any person, male or female, who misbehaves in a female space. That's what I need. It doesn't allow me, on the basis of prejudice, to exclude trans women (like my partner) just because of their gender history, and that is entirely right and proper.

The law is just fine as it is.

You're not affected, GibbertyFlibbert, its how you can be so glib. The problems faced by other women have clearly passed you by.

I think that the intention is to make us feel that dissent is useless; that we can’t use the law to defend our services and spaces.

This.

It's clear from this thread and the others on this theme that the EA is too woolly and confused to be clear. Even the government want 'test cases' to clarify it. Basically it's trying to do two conflicting things at once.

It's been clarified today in the tweet from the trans counsellor who is furious that it's been spotted that they managed to get the word 'sex' out of their county equality policy, and from previous comments from people like Madigan. What 'rights' are trans people actually seeking that they don't already have? The removal of biological women's rights. Trans rights MEAN the removal of all biological women's legal rights.

the fear is that we discover that either we can use the sex exemptions as we would like or that we fail and in failing to invoke them we expose them as being useless and cause government to review them and strengthen them

Yes

Pike I'm sorry. I agree.

What 'rights' are trans people actually seeking that they don't already have? The removal of biological women's rights. Trans rights MEAN the removal of all biological women's legal rights.

Absolutely. It's important to not lose sight of that, and it helps you see through the noise and bullshit. They want to erase biological sex as a meaningful category in policy and law.

Yes re councillor Sarah Brown.

There's no pretending it doesn't matter when one of those responsible says the wording was 'quite deliberately chosen'.

So basically their lie that 'the Equality Act will protect you' has led people to go and look at Equality Act guidance and its implementation through LA policy objectives. And lo, they are found wanting by those bothersome women. Oh what a tangled web they weave. They're losing track of their mendacity.

GibbertyFlibbert you said a little way back that "I have never said that men should not be challenged but you are trying to exclude women"

How can that possibly work? This was my point before. if someone in jeans and a beard walks into a changing room they may be a little girl. That's not a typo. That's the Brave New World you claim to have helped create.