WPUK and the attack on the Equality Act exemptions

[PeakPants]

Not sure if everyone has seen this- it's from WPUK's twitter account. As you know, there has been some significant progress in that the government has now officially confirmed that they will not be amending the exemptions to the EA that allow same sex spaces. However, there has been the usual patronising rubbish about how feminists got it the wrong way round and that amending the EA was never on the table (both on here and on twitter). This is a great summary from WPUK showing that it most definitely WAS on the table and that the campaigning has had a real impact.

My view is that the EA must be reformed to place a duty, not an option on service providers to provide same sex spaces where proportionate and necessary for safety, privacy and dignity. But this is a good start to that.

womansplaceuk.org/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

Your hyperbole is showing SarahAr

Relevent thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3242812--Amnesty-International-Mermaids-and-Stonewall-have-signed-an-open-letter-to-Penny-Mordaunt-stating-the-importance-of-reforming-the-Gender-Recognition-Act
[OP]
'May 2018 Pink News exclusive:
"In 2017, the former Equalities Minister, Justine Greening, announced plans to review the 2004 law, which allows transgender people to gain recognition by changing their legal documents – but the process has since been delayed multiple times.

This has been partly due to pressure from the right-wing press.

Multiple departures from the ministerial position have also contributed to the confusion.

Mordaunt is now the third Equalities Minister since the announcement of this review — following the departure in April of Amber Rudd — it is currently unclear when the review will begin and how much of a priority it will be.

Reports last year stated that the review would begin in spring 2018, but there has been no further information about the review’s time frame.

In the open letter, the groups have highlighted the “humiliating” process the current law requires to change the gender on legal documents, as well as pointing out that transgender people face discrimination and abuse that remains unchallenged while the government delays the review.

“The longer this delay goes on, the longer abusive invective is allowed to continue unchallenged by a government who rightly pride themselves on robustly speaking up for its minority citizens,” the letter states....." continues

SarahAr

There was increasing awareness.

There was a petition:
"Consult with women on proposals to enshrine 'gender identity' in law
The government proposes to amend the law to allow people to self-identify as men or women, and to stop allowing organisations in sensitive situations to exclude people of the opposite birth sex. We call for women to be consulted on how to protect women and girls' rights, safety, privacy and dignity."
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214118

The petition reached 10 000 so the Government responded:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3269463-Government-response-to-the-petition

At 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament

SarahAr two questions:

1. Did you not read the government's response to the select committee report? They did not immediately condemn the proposed removal of the exemptions and merely said they needed to consider the matter. How can you take from that there was never any intention to remove them.

2. Could you explain what is transphobic about insisting on sex segregation in some instances? No really, I am interested. If you say that trans people should be afforded dignity and privacy by not having to use the facilities corresponding with their birth-sex, then why should women not be afforded the same dignity and privacy? How do you defend your position which seems to only give rights to one group and not another? That's what I don't get.

1) Government policy has not changed.
2) Women's Place have achieved nothing but stirring up transphobia.
3) The horrific transphobic in the far right wing press (Daily Mail, Times) has been completely unnecessary.

Translation:

1. women's campaigning warded off the threat of government policy being changed
2. Women's Place have achieved nothing but stirring up the recognition that women's rights are under threat and matter
3. The horrific support for and recognition of the impact on women's rights in the press across the political spectrum is not appreciated.

More dishonesty from WPUK! No surprises there!
Because it doesn't actually prove that the government ever proposed changing the Equality Act, though, does it? All it shows is that some organisations suggested possible changes, which were rejected.
It's a bit like me posting extracts from MN threads as "evidence" that the government is planning to remove all legal protections from trans people. It wouldn't be true, but it would be a good excuse to set up lucrative protest meetings and get myself lots of column inches and air time.

They are direct quotes so hardly misleading. Given that the proposal to change it came from a government minister who at the time had responsibility for formulating proposals for reform, I think it’s fair enough to say it was under attack.

Anyway, the feminist viewpoint is that the current protections don’t go far enough. As you guys always say, trans rights are not up for debate. Well soz, neither are women’s. I will happily argue in favour of state obligations to trans people and I will call out transphobia where I see it. This is not transphobia on any level. It is about reconciling competing rights and if people can’t see that, there isn’t much we can do to help them unfortunately and no doubt their inability to see what is there impedes them in other areas of life too.

Damnthatonestakentryanother2

I suggest you read the statement linked below by WPUK before making any further allegations. It may be that you are unaware of the facts.

"In an open letter to Hugh Brady, signatories make unfounded slurs against Woman’s Place UK which we write now to refute and rebut.

Who are Woman’s Place UK?

We are a campaign group run by working women on a voluntary basis. We are from a range of backgrounds including trade unions, women’s organisations, academia and the NHS. We are united by our belief that women’s hard won rights must be defended.

We are against all forms of discrimination. We believe in the right of everyone to live their lives free from discrimination and harassment. Women face both endemic structural and personal inequality. This is reflected, for example, in the high levels of sexual harassment and violence against women and girls; the gender pay gap; discrimination at work. This is why sex is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act (2010) which we believe must be defended... continues

"We have been shocked and depressed at the keen enthusiasm with which so many people are content to see women demonised, harassed, abused, threatened and assaulted simply for asking questions or asserting their rights.

Sadly, Woman’s Place UK members have become used to being misrepresented and slurred. At times, we have to had to seek legal advice and take legal action in defence of our reputations. It shouldn’t be this way."

womansplaceuk.org/womans-place-bristol-university/

But the fact that Women’s Aid are now considering removing single sex provision shows that it is imperative that these exemptions are made mandatory, not voluntary.

Absolutely. I mean, just look at the rage that occurs when this topic is even mentioned hereabouts. How many red flags do we need to say that women subject to DV need their own spaces?

Scrap case by case EHRC guidance and bring guidance in line with objective justification for indirect discrimination

This is an excellent practical suggestion and would greatly improve practice.

Similarly proper scrutiny is needed for policy impacting medical issues particularly around children. And related to this any educational materials, guidance or policy in schools.

Yes. Policy makers need to understand that safeguarding comes first. Always.

Because it doesn't actually prove that the government ever proposed changing the Equality Act, though, does it? All it shows is that some organisations suggested possible changes, which were rejected.

I posted this above.

In response to the Inquiry Maria Miller went ahead to try to change the EA2010 and introduced a private member’s bill in the last parliament with the aim of pushing through the recommendation to change the protected characteristic to Gender Identity despite lack of formal government support. It never got past the first reading because Theresa May called a snap election for June 2017.

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-12-01/debates/38CFE29B-D261-45DF-9C31-0546E3CBC3B8/PointsOfOrder

So are you going to explain this away? Or is it imaginary like so much that we hear? Without the election stopping any business that may well have been shoved through, as was intended by whoever lobbied Miller into the Private Members Bill. Unless of course that just dropped down from heaven into her lap?

The never ending lies here are very revealing.

eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62016CJ0451&qid=1530012353353&from=EN

All change. It still has to go back to the Supreme Court but in this judgment it seems that a GRC is not necessary to acquire the entitlement of sex = female (or sex = male as the case maybe): living as a woman for a period is sufficient.

Has nobody here considered that maybe the Government decision not to change EA 2010 isn't a victory for WPUK? Maybe the Government decided trans people don't need more protection in the Equality Act because those rights have been achieved through the courts instead?

This also fundamentally changes the Self-ID debate. We now have a situation where, after an indeterminate time, someone acquires the rights of sex = female (or sex = male) anyway. Not having a date for that is admistratively inconvenient for things like pensions so the best outcome for the Government is to streamline the Gender Recognition Act and encourage people in that position to get a GRC so that there is a clear date.

Snappity, you and damn are undermining each other here.

Damn said there was never any intention to change, now you are saying there is a decision not to change? You need to get your team sorted out properly. Tons of flailing about going on here.

These are WPUK demands:

Respectful and evidence-based discussion about the impact of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act to be allowed to take place and for women’s voices to be heard.

The principle of women-only spaces to be upheld – and where necessary extended.

A review of how the exemptions in the Equality Act which allow or single sex services or requirements that only a woman can apply for a job (such as in a domestic violence refuge) are being applied in practice.

Government to consult with women’s organisations on how self-declaration would impact on women-only services and spaces.

Government to consult on how self-declaration will impact upon data gathering – such as crime, employment, pay and health statistics – and monitoring of sex-based discrimination such as the gender pay gap.

Respectful and evidence-based discussion

I think Snappity many posters would reasonably demand similar from this discussion here:

Damn said there was never any intention to change, now you are saying there is a decision not to change? You need to get your team sorted out properly. Tons of flailing about going on here.

I haven't said there was an intention to change. I am just saying that the claim of a "victory" for WPUK is not made out.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Excellent thread thankyou

Lets just take one of those

Government to consult on how self-declaration will impact upon data gathering – such as crime, employment, pay and health statistics – and monitoring of sex-based discrimination such as the gender pay gap.

On the basis of this judgment, a woman like MB without a GRC has sex = female. So in statistics, in response to a question about sex she should answer female. But how long does someone need to have lived as a woman to become sex = female? A month? A year? Two years? Five years? It's unclear. That's bad for statistics. So to improve data gathering we need to remove any obstacles preventing people from getting a GRC so that there clarity on sex for statistics.

From the thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3284251-Lisa-Muggeridge-Suspended-by-Twitter-and-Quoting-her-breaches-MN-Guidelines?

Lisa Muggeridge Comment:
"You do not have to debate being a woman. You are one. Your biology, the inequality you lived, the knowledge you have that came from this. You do not need to debate whether you are a woman. Or their definition of woman. Outside being clear you do not see yourself reflected in them, you do not need to debate this. They do.
When you are discussing systems and laws that evolved over 70 years to protect women and girls you do not need to centre their identity in that discussion. It is irrelevant to that discussion. Those systems were fought for and created by women you dont know, they did that so you dont have to. You do not need to have arguments that are already done and are reflected in euqality legislation.

Do not have arguments you dont need to have. It is ridiculous to use failure to validate males as an insult. It is ridiculous to treat ‘you didnt think of males when you thought about inequality so you are a TERF’ as valid. You dont need to defend the right of women to self assembly without male supervision, it is yours already, they need to explain why they think it should end. If hearing about their male biology is offensive, that is not your fault. THey are male. That cannot be altered. You are not required to repeat things you know to be untrue because of the threat of violence and coercion. You are not required to be ‘inclusive’ and ‘nice’ at a cost of your own safety and rights. EVER...." continues

You should propose that to the government in the next consultation snappity. Obviously it means the opposite of clarity, but we are all used to your mix ups by now.

I can't get past this
Scotland's Children's commissioner said: "We did not undertake and therefore do not hold" any research looking at how other pupils might be affected by the guidance.

An actual quote confirming they didn't do a single bit of research on the effects of the guidelines on the vast majority of pupils? Is that normal? Do they do this for other minority groups?

One of the top stories when I went to the BBC website.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44612117

'Transgender woman wins pension court battle'

To quote her: 'In the sight of God.'

I have to ask why mumsnet has 'conception' and 'pregnancy' as one of its go to links. Clearly this is anti trans.