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.

If they want to make ‘gender identity’ a protected characteristic then they would have to define it.

@Birdsfoottrefoil and what of those of us who do not have a gender identity? What happens to us or are we not as important?

Former Labour member here as well. Even if they go back to what their manifesto says, the farce over this aspect of it is confirmation that they're not fit to govern

We'll all be assigned a number on the jelly baby spectrum

www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2019/the-barbie-gi-joe-scale/

Are you Barbie or GI Joe?

Funny tweet from Jean:

twitter.com/JeanHatchet/status/1197869640988463104

But interesting reply from a policy guy who works in Westminster:

Ignore her Jean. She hasn't got the authority to change the policy, and a shadow cabinet member told me this morning "she's off the reservation" so just ignore her. She changed her position in the space of two hours because she got a bollocking.

If this farce really is down to the TWAW wing of Labour trying to undermine the manifesto, then the last thing I want to do is give them what they want. But if Butler and supporters have gone rogue then the leadership need to show some ... um leadership, and they need to do it quickly. I think the next couple of days could be interesting.

Loving this guys tweet in response to more of DB’s nonsense 😂

I'd already decided that I couldn't vote Labour this time.
If I had been waivering, the way that Dawn Butler is handling things today would have convinced me.

When I was on Twatter I followed Rob the policy guy and he was always accurate in what he said. I think Labour needs to clarify but it does look like Delta Dawn has gone rogue.

But if Butler and supporters have gone rogue then the leadership need to show some ... um leadership, and they need to do it quickly

What about the leadership of the Labour party over the last few years would suggest they have the ability to act with any ability or decisiveness? I mean, I don't disagree with your assessment, but the lack of leadership is one of the things which has led the party into the abject swamp of crap it finds itself in currently.

I can't argue with that. It's just my sunny optimistic nature
Plus I would really prefer not to spoil my vote.

how on earth are labour electable to be in power?

They aren't. I'm bemused that some sort of possible change of mind on this issue somehow makes them acceptable.

Dear goddess, what an absolute shitshow. Democratic party my arse.

Dawn doesn’t appear to be very bright.

Julie Bindel's take on it in The Spectator

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/11/women-are-the-losers-in-labours-trans-equality-fight/

Suffice to say, she's not impressed by today's shenanigans.

Julie writes

A third Labour party insider told me:

“If the Labour party end up backtracking on the current manifesto, things can only get worse for them. They can’t rewrite it, but certain individuals are desperately trying to re-spin it. They could shelve and therefore drop the single sex exemption if elected, which would be a disgrace. There is a war going on in the Labour party on Self-ID and women’ rights, and we won the battle on the wording of this manifesto, but we could still lose the war on democracy.”

From a New Statesmen journo:

mobile.twitter.com/languesbians/status/1197858340799500288

"Update on Labour's GRA/Equality Act policy: I'm hearing from sources within the party that MPs and candidates are being strongly discouraged from expressing public support for trans rights in their speeches and on social media."

she's off the reservation"

Anyone else think this is an odd turn of phrase for a UK politician? Apart from the fact it's racist.

Well the New Statesman journalist seems lovely. 🙄

It means to go against policy @Inebriati

janeclarejones.com/2019/11/22/whos-removing-whose-rights-anyway/

And, as ever, Jane Clare Jones clearly articulated what I've been - much less eloquently - trying to say throughout this thread.

I agree this is how it's all gone down, most likely.

Jane Clare Jones says:

the facts of the matter are that the Equality Act gives services for female people the right to lawfully restrict the provision of those services on the basis of sex. The relevant section of the Act reads as follows:

28(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)The matters are—
(a)the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;
(b)the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;
(c)the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.

But what does 'sex' mean here?

The GRA says:
Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

As I've said before on this thread (and I know others have disagreed with me), since people can 'change sex' in legal terms, the law does not allow for single sex provision on the basis of biological sex.

I can find nothing in the legislation or guidance which states that someone with a GRC can be excluded from single-sex spaces or services which are designed for people of their acquired legal sex. If anyone knows of such a clause, please will you link to it. I really want to be wrong about this.

I agree that I could not find anything in the EA that states someone with a GRC can be excluded via the exemptions.

However, I do remember reading in the guidelines that it was so and there was a specific example.

Mostly, it read that it was not discrimination to exclude the trans person from the single sex service, which I take to mean that it would not be discrimination if that person was to take it to court.

However, on a practical level, I cannot see how the person operating that service can clearly distinguish between someone who is of the sex that the service provides for and who has a GRC for that sex, if they are challenged, as all the paperwork disguises the fact that that person is not of that sex. There is nothing to support the service provider to make that decision.

omeone who is of the sex that the service provides for and someone who has a GRC for that sex

The exceptions under the Equality Act relate to the protected characteristic, which is gender reassignment. It includes both GRC holders and non GRC holders.