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.

This sounds suspiciously like getting rid of the protected characteristic of sex by making it impossible to define.

I think that is their aim. Remove the PCs of sex and gender reassignment and combine them under 'gender identity'.

Labour is a complete car crash. Maybe it should be made illegal for anyone to access a single sex space that doesn't match their birth sex. There was the concept of fraud in the self id proposals. There must be some onus placed on trans people to recognise sex based rights.

Eliminate remaining areas of discrimination in law, ensuring that LGBT+ people can live in safety and dignity.

It may refer to other policies.

I've just been reading up on 'dual-career' grants in Australian universities, which make it easier to recruit both halves of a couple to the same university so that the trailing spouse can be employed in the same place. Previously that seems to have applied only to mixed-sex couples and now is being extended to same-sex couples. Could (thinking optimistically) be referring to similar policies in the UK?

Previously that seems to have applied only to mixed-sex couples and now is being extended to same-sex couples. Could (thinking optimistically) be referring to similar policies in the UK?

Why would that not be covered by existing UK law?

We can best effect change from the inside, this is why I have rejoined. The manifesto page 65 is hugely positive, let's vote this in and work on the rest of it.

Can you clarify which source it is and I am happy to add it as a comment to the article.

Sorry - no time. Will dig out a link later if nobody else has but got to get off the internet now. Life calls! It's all upthread though, pretty sure.

I don't know! Just trying not to assume the worst about every policy. I fairly easily found a UK presentation saying that when a male spouse asked for support to move, they more often got it than a female spouse who was often assumed to be of 'limited ambition'. Could see any details on same-sex couples though.

The manifesto page 65 is hugely positive

It is meaningless

I don't think I fully understand the implications if "gender reassignment" is changed to "gender identity" in the Equality act. It seems to me that could cause issues for trans people. Suppose an employer is transphobic in the real sense of the word and decides to employ a woman instead of a better qualified transwoman. How can they claim discrimination on grounds of gender identity if they have the same supposed gender identity as the successful candidate?
It would also confirm without doubt that sex and gender identity are not the same thing if they are both protected characteristics.

Many apologies @OldCrone for missing your previous post. I agree that the Labour manifesto statement is about mixed sex services (women and men) as opposed to single sex services (women only). It says nothing about their position on the exceptions concerning gender reassignment. It’s a deliberately ambiguous statement to disingenuously win back the votes of women who they know are deserting them in droves.

I'm like thirdfiddle - I don't understand this properly. I can see that replacing the characteristic of sex with gender identity would be massive. But I'm not clear what the difference between 'gender reassignment' and ' gender identity' is legally. I don't know the exact wording (and can't check right now - sorry) but I thought the act defined 'gender reassignment' very loosely and that someone doesn't need to have a GRC or even be in the process of getting one to be protected.

"But I'm not clear what the difference between 'gender reassignment' and ' gender identity' is legally."

But that is not even what Labour have (repeatedly) called it. They keep banging on about "gender assignment". And these are people who know full well what the PC is and were issuing formal statements/clarifications on party position.

So what's their angle with the therefore presumably deliberate misnaming?

Previously that seems to have applied only to mixed-sex couples and now is being extended to same-sex couples. Could (thinking optimistically) be referring to similar policies in the UK?

Why would that not be covered by existing UK law?

I'm not aware of any provision in the UK of employers having to recruit both halves of a couple. However if an employer had such a policy they would have to apply it to same sex couples under current UK law; they couldn't apply it only to mixed sex couples.

Meanwhile the young Lib Dems are calling people TERFs on Twitter...

In defence of Laura Pidcock, that was her first attempt at saying anything vaguely GC in public. She’ll get better/bolder. It’s a journey that we are all on. I still struggle and I’m a nobody.

Twitter is calling her a terf left right and centre.

twitter.com/marykmac/status/1198218721850003456

No apologies necessary Sanddancer. It's a long thread and I think my comment got buried in discussion about the gender reassignment exemption.

Totally agree with you about what Labour are doing. They're not getting my vote.

They keep banging on about "gender assignment" (instead of REassignment)

That's because there is no real "they" - there's Dawn Butler, and Butler is too lazy and too ignorant to be bothered to know either the name of the main law that applies to her shadow-ministry, nor its contents, nor what it means.

I actually find the constant popping-up of that mistake rather reassuring. It shows that absolutely journalist is simply quoting the same unofficial and ill-informed off-record briefing issued from Butler's office.

I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of people in the Labour party that agree with Butler - I'm sure there are - but most of them are having the sense not to try to undermine the manifesto on the day that it's issued.

But all them them are making the Party unelectable for a lot of people.

They keep banging on about "gender assignment". And these are people who know full well what the PC is and were issuing formal statements/clarifications on party position.

So what's their angle with the therefore presumably deliberate misnaming?

It's just clicked for me. These are people who talk about us all being 'assigned a gender' at birth. When they say 'gender assignment' they mean sex. They want to replace 'sex' with 'gender identity'.

When they say 'gender assignment' they're not being dim, it's a deliberate misnomer, which actually states exactly what they propose.

When they say 'gender assignment' they're not being dim, it's a deliberate misnomer, which actually states exactly what they propose.

Yikes. That makes a horrible kind of sense. That would lump women and transwomen together under the same "gender assignment" umbrella.

Times has an article about it, can't do share tokens on this tablet:
www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-putting-women-at-risk-with-manifesto-trans-pledge-2njcv8z6g

The charming Anthony Watson has certainly had his money's worth from paying Dawn Butler's 'fact finding trip' to LA.

I’m not sure whether the following point has already been made so apologies if someone has already mentioned this. The Labour manifesto states the following:
“...we are not complacent about the cultural shift required to make LGBT+ inclusivity a reality....Labour will eliminate remaining areas of discrimination in law, ensuring that LGBT+ people can live in safety and dignity.”
It is must be remembered that the exceptions relating to gender reassignment are discriminatory, but it is lawful discrimination provided that it meets the legitimate aims test. This statement means that Labour intend to remove all the exceptions relating to gender reassignment from the Equality Act (noting that the deliberately ambiguous statement in their manifesto is about single sex services (women only) as opposed to mixed sex services (women and men). The manifesto statement is not about gender reassignment, its about discrimination on the grounds of sex.
It should also be remembered that the gender reassignment exceptions are not just about single sex services. For example the exception relating to sport exists for the safety of women and girls and equal competition. The Labour party may not be complacent about the cultural shift required for LGBT+ inclusion, but they are totally complacent about the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls. This is institutional misogyny on a monumental scale by the Labour Party.

I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of people in the Labour party that agree with Butler - I'm sure there are - but most of them are having the sense not to try to undermine the manifesto on the day that it's issued.

Yes, Butler is irredeemably stupid, but you know what? For an AWA/TRA, she is being really extremely forthcoming, and the problem is that not enough of us have any trust at all that she is just a lone crazy loose cannon - I think at this stage her co-religionists are simply more wily about keeping their counsel, as they have been for a very long time, and are just more savvy about waiting for the house keys before unleashing their chaos.