To think that all of these proposed policies are pointless?

[Dyrne]

General Election 2019: Labour promises year of maternity pay www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50338831

Was reading this article where labour are crowing about how many lovely policies they are proposing around Maternity Pay, Sexual harassment, discrimination etc; and was just thinking that all of that is completely pointless?

If anyone can identify as a woman; then you’re not protecting female spaces. If a self declared man can be a mother, then suddenly it’s not sex discrimination to be fired for having a baby, because men can be mothers too.

Labour are pretending to champion women on the one hand while on the other systematically destroying what it actually means to be a woman.

YANBU. I like these policies but don’t want Dawn Butler Brent anywhere near the Cabinet.

From the bbc article I just read:

^Labour says it wants to transform the workplace for women. It's a powerful statement of intent from the party.
It's a policy pitched at a large chunk of the electorate. The proposals on maternity pay are obviously designed to appeal to younger women, who want to start or extend a family. But there are also plans for a "menopause policy", which will force companies to address the needs of women at a very different stage in their lives.
And then there are the measures to reduce the gender pay gap, and create a right to flexible working. That would affect pretty much every female employee.^

Maternity leave post-birth and menopause are sex-specific issues that affect natal females only. Like you say how can labour rate on one hand that anyone can self ID as a woman and then state they want to protect and reduce sex- related discrimination on the other?!

This is why our right to define ourselves as women/female is of utmost importance and Labour are stripping this from us. It is hogwash and as for Dawn Butler - well, I have no words for her.

I think are a bit muddled anyway. Given that Dawn Butler doesn't know what a woman is and thinks anyone can self-ID into womanhood, it makes the whole thing a bit of a joke.
I'll be voting for them anyway but keeping my fingers crossed that they appoint a shadow women and equalities minister who isn't in the pocket of Stonewall.

It will be a cold day in hell before I vote Labour again. I left the party two years ago and will never, ever forgive the way they have treated women. Never.

Isn't diminishing these proposals, cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Yes, you make her the odd TRA making a fool of themselves and trying to claim some of this, but that's hardly a reason not to bother.

i don't want more maternity leave. i want dads to be expected and able and willing to take paternity leave, because that can help equalise childcare responsibilities and reduce the feeling that it is all mum's job.

goadyficker but my point isn’t “let’s mock these policies because it’s labour”, or the fact that a TRA may try to manipulate the system; it’s the fact that none of these policies may be actually enforceable If they continue to erode what it means to be a woman.

Someone may come along who can better explain it, but my understanding is that Maternity discrimination relies on Sex discrimination laws to be successful. If Jane takes her employer to court for Maternity discrimination; the company could argue that it’s not sex discrimination, because Bob in accounts (formally Kate) also gave birth, and because they are legally a man, any perceived discrimination against Jane therefore cannot be Sex discrimination, as Men can get pregnant and give birth too. So the entire case falls apart.

If someone has a link to the case where the woman filed a claim of discrimination over lack of breast feeding or pumping facilities and it was dismissed on the grounds that (trans)men can breasfeed too then that might be helpful.

(I didn't save any links unfortunately.)

If a self declared man can be a mother, then suddenly it’s not sex discrimination to be fired for having a baby, because men can be mothers too.

Fortunately, the law does not currently work like that.

There are specific provisions in the Equality Act for pregnancy/maternity which are separate from the sex discrimination provisions.

Equally, if something affects women more than men (even if it does not affect all women), then it can still fall within the indirect discrimination provisions. Eg the courts have held that discrimination against part-timer workers always falls under the indirect sex discrimination provisions because women are more likely to work part time. So even if some people who were legally regarded as being men change their legal status to be regarded as women, it shouldn't stop the sex discrimination provisions from working.

I do agree with you on single sex spaces though. In practice, even with the law providing a so-called gatekeeping GRC process there are lots of people who do not pass as women who have been given GRCs and you cannot realistically ask someone if they have a GRC before allowing them into single sex spaces so we have de facto self ID already. Additionally, some providers who arguably should be using the single sex exemptions for safeguarding reasons (eg rape/DV shelters) are too scared to do so. The whole thing is a mess.

I think that case was in the US.

They still haven't offered to make misogyny a hate crime. Now that Fair Cop have revealed that a hate incident will show up on a DBS, we know that it would reveal the scale of hatred against women in the UK, and prevent many men from working around children and vulnerable adults.

The current state of affairs means openly GC women (or any woman you just don't like) can be treated as a safeguarding risk, but not many abusive men.

I saw from another thread that the Green say they will make misogyny a hate crime but as the UK justice system struggles to prosecute rapists (what is the figure? 1.4 for Wales? Is it 6% of rape cases in UK?) I don't think the police could cope with the number of cases reported if misogyny was made a hate crime. Imagine if wolf whistling was treated and report as a hate incident let alone a hate crime! I'd support the idea but can't take it seriously.

I bet you £10 that if they do the first prosecution will be against a woman.

Inebriati yes you're probably right!

What @parietal said. Shared parental leave on a 'use it or lose it' basis would be much more beneficial to women.

I thought we had shared parental leave and hardly any men take it?

There's no getting away from the reality that most mothers are the primary carer for their children and are so by choice.

The idea of a menopause policy makes me nervous. It could become another reason for businesses to avoid employing females: this time after they've had families, not just before.

I hate the idea of a menopause policy. It's a stage of life, not a disability. Most women sail through it with hardly any problems. Yes, some women do have problems, but to treat ALL menapausal women as having a disability is just stupid. But hey, that's Labour

I bet you £10 that if they do the first prosecution will be against a woman.

Yes, I wouldn't take that bet.

I’m concerned that taken with all of labour’s other changes affecting business the overall result will be lower employment for women.

@Gone2far

Replace the word 'menopausal' in your post with 'pregnant'.

Hey presto, the arguments against maternity leave etc

If we're serious about improving the gender pay gap and discrimination against women at work, it needs to be parental leave not maternity leave.

As long as women are the ones seen as the ones taking time off to have babies, it will be women's careers hit

Ditto Menopause leave - it will just be another excuse to see older women in the workplace as incompetent and a liability.

We need to normalise parental leave for both sexes, reduce the culture of presenteeism, reduce the working week and make flexitime and working from home (where feasible) the norm.

That will help women. And men. And children.

If someone has a link to the case where the woman filed a claim of discrimination over lack of breast feeding or pumping facilities and it was dismissed on the grounds that (trans)men can breasfeed too then that might be helpful.

That case was in America and is not applicable here. As Lass (I miss her!) pointed out, our Equalities Act is very carefully worded - something doesn't have to affect women and only women for it to count as sex discrimination, it just has to affect women disproportionately relative to men.

Ah thanks for the explanation re: sex discrimination laws. That’s something, at least!

Someone may come along who can better explain it, but my understanding is that Maternity discrimination relies on Sex discrimination laws to be successful

Your understanding is completely wrong. What Labour is referring to is specific physical characteristics which will be protected regardless of whether someone says they are a man, a woman or a Klingon.

The issue with Labour's policies is they haven't a clue about economics.