Labour promises to keep single-sex exemptions

[RoyalCorgi]

From the manifesto:

labour.org.uk/manifesto/tackle-poverty-and-inequality/

"Ensure that the single-sex-based exemptions contained in the Equality Act 2010 are understood and fully enforced in service provision."

This is quite something.

Bird I understand the EA, it’s Labour I don’t understand! I think my wording was ambiguous.

Just when I thought I could vote. Along comes Dawn Butler and wipes the floor with women’s rights. WOMEN AND EQUALITIES MINISTER ?? MY ARSE.

Oooh.

ooooh indeed @DuMondeB - god I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in that meeting

That sounds plausible to me. But to be honest, I don't care what any of them tweet or put on Facebook, or about any of their confidential press briefings. The only people who can clear this up are the party leadership.

And I don't think we should underestimate how angry the TWAW wing of Labour will be about this. They've not exactly lost but they must have thought they had it in the bag and I imagine they'll be fighting back pretty hard.

Ok, so no changes to the single-sex provisions according to the "sources", but they will amend the Equality Act to make gender identity a protected characteristic - yes? That is what their spokesperson told Sky.

So this "Labour party" is it some kind of nursery school?

Yes but did the spokesperson give their name? Cos unless it was Corbyn or McDonell then I'm not interested.

The Sam Coates tweet is exactly the same as the O'Hagan tweet - comes from a non-affiliated-to-Labour LGBT "Labour" group. So O'Hagan with the fake news and Coates too lazy to source check!

A big hitter is going to have to clarify - everything I'm hearing is that the single sex exemptions bit was genuinely fought for and won by the GC wing of Labour, and that the manifesto is intended to seek a middle ground by making it easier to get a GRC but at the same time beefing up the exemptions and limiting what entitlements a GRC confers.

But the Woke wing is in revolt and refusing to accept it.

So, since we have no idea which wing would win out were Labour to form a government, a vote for Labour is not currently safe for women.

And what Floisme said.

So this "Labour party" is it some kind of nursery school?

And to think I just called the LibDems the spoiled toddler party on another thread.

Are there any grown ups left in politics?

'Female' is, by definition, a sex marker. If any male can self ID as 'female', single-sex provision for females will inevitably include males.

Weasel words. You'd have to be really naive to trust Labour on this, whether it's from the leadership or not.

As I asked before, will female beauticians then be obliged to wax the balls of other females, even if they specify that they offer female-only services? We're running out of words to describe ourselves.

Some grownup (politician? Judge?) needs to get a grip and provide us with accurate and legally binding definitions because otherwise we're sunk

The Labour Party must take decisive action on the deliberate attempt by some senior people to set aside a direct manifesto commitment to women’s rights. Put it this way. If you can’t control Dawn Butler how the hell can you expect us to believe you can run the country.

As ever, Lewis Moonie cuts through the sound, fury and utter bullshit

twitter.com/Moonie_l/status/1197875722943127552

Some grownup (politician? Judge?) needs to get a grip and provide us with accurate and legally binding definitions because otherwise we're sunk

I would give my eye teeth for someone like Lady Hale to deliver a verdict in the same brilliant, razor-sharp fashion she did the prorogation issue.

at Lewis Moonie. I would say a vote for Labour means a vote for a no holds barred, knock down bare knuckle fight that we might well lose.
But that still feels slightly more promising than a couple of days ago, when I was resigned to spoiling my vote. I still have to decide whether it's enough, but there's a strong Lib Dem/Green following here and having watched them double down since yesterday, I most definitely want to keep them out. If I was in a safer seat - for any party - then I'd probably be thinking differently.

If they make gender identity a protected characteristic, and my gender identity is whatever I say it is, I say my gender identity is "gender critical". Would I be protected?

everything I'm hearing is that the single sex exemptions bit was genuinely fought for and won by the GC wing of Labour, and that the manifesto is intended to seek a middle ground by making it easier to get a GRC but at the same time beefing up the exemptions and limiting what entitlements a GRC confers.

That would be a step forward, depending, of course on what limits are set on the entitlements a GRC confers. But I don't know how they'll get round this conundrum:

'Female' is, by definition, a sex marker. If any male can self ID as 'female', single-sex provision for females will inevitably include males.

A better solution would be to repeal the GRA since it is no longer required: its main purpose in 2004 was to allow same sex marriage by another name in a form which was acceptable to homophobes.

If they make gender identity a protected characteristic, and my gender identity is whatever I say it is, I say my gender identity is "gender critical". Would I be protected?

Will my lack of a 'gender identity' be protected in the same way my lack of a religion is?

I have lots of questions but see few straight answers from Labour, or anyone else.

The Sam Coates tweet is exactly the same as the O'Hagan tweet - comes from a non-affiliated-to-Labour LGBT "Labour" group. So O'Hagan with the fake news and Coates too lazy to source check!

Thanks Lang, I had a feeling it was but couldn't be arsed to check.

But Dawn Butler, who was/is Labour's shadow minister for women, is actually still trying to undermine attempts to protect women's rights - that wasn't fake news or an old tweet?

A better solution would be to repeal the GRA since it is no longer required: its main purpose in 2004 was to allow same sex marriage by another name in a form which was acceptable to homophobes.

Absolutely concur.

But Dawn Butler, who was/is Labour's shadow minister for women, is actually still trying to undermine attempts to protect women's rights - that wasn't fake news or an old tweet?

Dawn is rushing about retweeting everything she's been saying for the past couple of years before the 2019 manifesto was agreed, pretending it's still party policy and the GC wing hasn't won any concessions, thereby deliberately undermining the manifesto - presumably in the hopes the leadership is too craven to contradict her (which it probably is).

They sacked Heidi Alexander for doing similar on health a while back.

Politicians have got this so wrong. The public are against self ID, against the brainwashing of children & horrified by the medical experimentation being done to children. Why can they not see this?

Dawn seems to be having a toddler tantrum. If Dawn can't act like a grown up then she shouldn't be in politics.

Why can they not see this?

They can see it, they don't care.

Dawn seems to be having a toddler tantrum. If Dawn can't act like a grown up then she shouldn't be in politics.

I know, how on earth are labour electable to be in power?

@CaptainKirksSpikeyGhost with the state they're in at the moment they are just not suitable to run the country and I say that as a former labour member.