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.

Theoretically you can do both - allow more men to be treated as female under self ID and ensure that organisations can apply single sex exemptions on a case by case basis - except we know that organisations are already not applying these exemptions - the law needs strengthening in this area not just leaving as it is.

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

Whilst actively pushing for self ID? They clearly don't 'understand' do they?

The problem with the EA is that it allows female (actual female not 'bought a birth certificate female')facilities, spaces and opportunities when it is proportional. It's still open to interpretation and the onus seems to be on women and services providers to prove that they should be exclusively female.

With these two policies, women and girls will have to fight for our spaces continually.

Is it possible for one or both OPs to ask for a merged thread or something?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3749325-Hang-on-Labour-manifesto-references-single-sex-exemptions

This reads like Labour want the penny and the bun. They can’t afford to annoy women voters but they need all the woke students to win seats. I momentarily got my hopes up, but then saw the LGBT+ excerpt. I will be writing to my candidate with questions.

I think hospital wards would be a good question to probe.

With these two policies, women and girls will have to fight for our spaces continually.

My view precisely.

How can single-sex exemptions be enforced when any individual can change "sex" on their identification documents at will?

They can't. If Labour, or any party, were serious about upholding sex based rights they would include a specific pledge that as part of GRA reform they would legislate for documents to retain actual sex and, for those who wish have an additional 'gender identity' marker and then clearly demarcate those areas when sex would take precedent and 'gender identity' be ignored.

This will not be enough for the TRAs. They will not accept any restriction on their "womanhood" whatsoever.

And given Labour has willingly and eagerly bent over backwards to accommodate them on everything to date, there is zero chance they will suddenly find the balls to stand up to them and outright say they are not woman enough for x, y or z service.

are understood and fully enforced in service provision."

I hate to say it, but could this be interpreted that GC woman will be made to understand that transwomen are women and therefore covered by the equality act. Iyswim. I might be wrong but this interpretation would square better with the rest.

they put self id agenda.
can't believe them.
may be it's a trap.

like 'respect yourself' didn't mean 'respect'.

But it also then says: "Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people". If they bring in self-ID and any bloke can legally become 'female' then the single-sex exemptions in the Eq Act are unenforceable.

Exactly! Not that I believe a word they say anyway.

I read it as 'You can identify as you like but sex based exemptions will remain and be enforced'

Its definitely trying to please everyone but it's clear that they recognise this is an issue for women which is far better than the 'la la la' fingers-in-ears that the LibDems put out

It's not enough for me.

Me neither Lang.

I read it as 'You can identify as you like but sex based exemptions will remain and be enforced'

Yes you can read it that way but only if you understand gender and sex to be different things. The question is whether the labour party consider gender and sex to be interchangeable linguistically....

Otherwise youre both talking about different things

As a feminist I find the idea of a gender recognition certificate pretty offensive anyway. I'm going to struggle to be Ok with anything that embeds it further.

so it's a no from me I think.

bum

Yes you can read it that way but only if you understand gender and sex to be different things. The question is whether the labour party consider gender and sex to be interchangeable linguistically....

No. The manifesto is clear. I understand your levels of distrust but don't let them blind you.

The single sex exemptions are limitations to the entitlements conferred by a GRC. Labour is promising to a) retain them and b) encourage use of them by services and organisations.

At the same time, they are promising to make it easier to get a GRC.

These two things are not incompatible at all.

It's not a fudge or a lie about language. It's a genuine concession to women. Does it go far enough to earn them a vote from me? No. But it may be for some.

At the same time, they are promising to make it easier to get a GRC.

Wouldn't transactivists just see that as a pointless sop then?

When you look at Dawn Butler et al, I'd say it's far more likely this is an error in the manifesto that no-one's noticed rather than a trap

Wouldn't transactivists just see that as a pointless sop then?

Yes.

Because nobody wants to face up to the fact it's a zero sum game.

No point in getting a GRC if it's been defenestrated.

*[post edited at poster's request]

I think the Parliamentary Committee (the one with the twit searching sex toys on the train and Karen IS being super) is what's forced the inclusion of the single sex exemptions thing into the manifesto. Also, perhaps some success for internal party lobbying by WPUK.

A situation where women and girls have to justify and fight out every single case where we need a space or service to be female only isn't good enough. Not only in general and on principle, but in the sense that what happens in the meantime, while the exemption is being sought? What about all the women and girls who will have no protection at all during that time period?

Didn't take long for Karen White to rape fellow prisoners, or for Hambrook to do the same in a Canadian women's shelter. How many traumatized women and girls does Labour think is reasonable in the name of "inclusion"?

(Just reading back - bad and unintentional pun with neutered there. Sorry monitors! PMSL at self.)

Just on a point of detail, Prodigal, I don't think Karen W raped anyone inside prison - did sexually assault them though, and had raped before going to prison:
'despite dressing as a woman, the 52-year-old had not undergone any surgery and was still legally a male. [KW] was also a convicted paedophile and on remand for grievous bodily harm, burglary, multiple rapes and other sexual offences against women.

In September last year [KW] was transferred to New Hall prison in West Yorkshire. During a three-month period at the female prison [KW] sexually assaulted two other inmates.'

The issues remain. That feminists might have a marginally better chance of having their voices heard in Labour than in the Greens or LibDems isn't saying much over the baying crowd booing the idea of women meeting unharrassed to protect their rights.

It's something. But fucking hell, what a disgrace that 100 years after getting the vote, and not even 30 years after rape in marriage was acknowledged in law, women in a western democracy are still having to fight desperately to retain basic freedoms and protections. Jesus, I need to go and walk in a wood and remind myself that life is generally a good thing, because I fucking despair right now.

It means absolutely nothing if they refuse to recognise accurate definitions of WOMAN and FEMALE

I agree.

I don't trust it one bit.