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.

Lang: "I see no big hitter has yet come out to clarify and defend the manifesto "compromise" and to enforce party discipline."

I have this mental image of a bunch of wonks jostling each other outside the Labour War Room, all saying "No, YOU go in and tell them!", "No I did it last time! It's your turn!". At some point one will get shoved right through the door and stand there, beet-red, mouth flapping like a codfish.

I see no big hitter has yet come out to clarify and defend the manifesto "compromise" and to enforce party discipline.

My reading of the manifesto is that they have been fairly clear about what they intend to do, but there are some parts which need more clarification.

They say they're going to ' Ensure that the single-sex based exemptions in the Equality Act 2010 are understood and fully enforced in service provision.' This means that they're going to stop the current trend for mixed sex/gender neutral toilets, and keep places like hospital wards and prisons single sex. This is what the 'single-sex' exemption in the EA2010 is for - the provision of services for one sex only or different services for the two sexes.

This is where the law is a bit of a mess. In theory, simply having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment should only protect someone from discrimination on that basis, but shouldn't allow someone to self-identify their way into spaces for the opposite sex, so a transwoman without a GRC is legally male and should be excluded from women's spaces on the grounds of sex. But they are currently able to self-identify into women's spaces and services. Are Labour saying that they will stop this? They need to be clear.

They also say they're going to bring in self-ID for obtaining a GRC. That means anyone who wants to can change their legal sex, and get a new birth certificate with their new acquired sex on it, with no gatekeeping.

There is a further gender reassignment exemption in the EA which can keep transwomen, even those with a GRC out of women's spaces if it is a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. It is currently uncertain if this is ever actually enforced in practice for GRC holders, or even if it could be. And that uncertainty, along with GRCs being obtained by self-ID, means that it might be impossible to stop any man from being able to self-declare himself a woman and enter women's spaces. So it is unclear what Labour intend to do about this situation, or even if they consider it to be a problem.

My feeling is that Labour think TWAW (all women shortlists open to self-identifying women), so I think they are saying that they'll stop transwomen without GRCs from using women's spaces (which will be retained), while at the same time allowing anyone to get a GRC on demand, with transwomen with GRCs to have exactly the same rights as women.

This fits what they say in the manifesto, as well as Dawn Butler's comments.

So the spaces won't be open to just anyone, but everyone will be able to get a CRC, meaning they can go into those spaces....

So it's pointless.

Thank you for the summary, OldCrone.

And this is why Labour are currently dead to me. If they do not provide single-sex spaces for natal women only under the EA 2010, then they enshrine sex discrimination against women in law. It is discrimination to treat somebody less favourable because of their sex. Women are, as a sex, physically weaker than men and bear the burden of pregnancy and childbirth, ergo they need special protections. Is that really so hard to understand?

So it's pointless.

That's what I think. But they've made the wording sufficiently vague for people to think that they might be planning to keep TW out of women's spaces. I don't think they have any such plans. While they are still allowing men to self-identify as women for their all women shortlists, how could they?

Labour's motto:

"For the many, not the few"

except they appear to be happy to sacrifice the safety of many women for the few.

The images which accompanies the section in the manifesto which outlines policies on 'Women and Equalities' contains not one image of a woman - but an LGBT rainbow flag instead. Says it all for me.

Every other policy section has a very clear image of what that section is meant to represent.

So it's pointless

Yes, it is pointless. Every discussion I've had with party members and activists over the last couple of weeks confirms that. 'Equality' is the main priority and policy pledge - which means that TWAW and should have full access to the services and facilities which match their gender identity.

Not all activists are on board with this by any stretch of the imagination - but by remaining in the party and voting for the policy they are supporting it. "It's a like a bad marriage" one female activist told me.

'Equality' is the main priority and policy pledge - which means that TWAW and should have full access to the services and facilities which match their gender identity.

I don't think equality is the priority of everyone in the Labour Party at the moment.

Protected Characteristics recognise that there are specific reasons why some groups are prevented from participating in society on equal terms, but many people in the Labour Party seem strangely reluctant to agree that they are necessary.

The toilets at the Old Vic are a really good example of how policies can reduce equality while claiming to support inclusivity. By pretending that a room full of urinals is a comfortable space for either women or people who suffer from gender dysphoria they have given themselves permission to create more facilities for men.

Dawn Butler can't even be bothered to check the correct terms when she talks about the EA, so 'gender reassignment' becomes meaningless 'gender assignment'.

But they've made the wording sufficiently vague for people to think that they might be planning to keep TW out of women's spaces. I don't think they have any such plans.

I think it’s worse.

When they replace ‘gender reassignment’ with ‘gender identity’, no one will even need to get a GRC to legally become the sex they identify as.

Gender reassignment refers to people who have bothered with the reassignment process, while ‘gender identity’ is just whatever feeling someone has at any given moment. It cannot be verified and does not come with any requirements to consistently identify that way.

All the parties are either using weasel words, or avoiding the issue.

Labour seem to be saying that they will safeguard women's single-sex spaces - but also supporting Gender Self-ID. Which means self-ID for men into women's spaces - which automatically obliterates women's rights. Women's spaces are all now men's spaces.

Slow hand-clap to you, Labour.

And don't get me started on the effing Women's Equality Party.

The Labour party manifesto, in its section on women and equalities ( the accompanying image shows no women, just a rainbow LGBTQ flag)

They wouldn't dare. How would they be able to depict a woman as an obviously female person?

Young Labour rep - maybe about 25?- came to the door last night asking if I knew who I was going to vote for and if I had any pressing issues I wanted to discuss.

Said that as a woman with two daughters I was concerned about the way there were two inconsistent sections in the manifesto - I was delighted that they were planning to maintain single sex spaces and protections as per the Equality act, but didn’t see how this would work when they were also saying that they would make it much easier for anyone to self-identify as female and thus gain admission to previously safe spaces (yes, I’d thought about this and had a little mental speech planned!).

He looked rather surprised and said he didn’t know about that, but (making things up on the spot) suggested “That sounds like the kind of thing that would happen much less in a society that has less poverty and more police on the streets to stop crime”. ???? I said perhaps he could go and read that part of the manifesto and see what he thought about the potential for any male bodied person to go into female-only spaces, and if he really thinks extra police would really make a difference.

He changed the subject to Brexit and then the girls needed me, so that was the end. I will be writing to our current Labour MP (majority of 600) to see what his opinion is on the question.

He looked rather surprised and said he didn’t know about that, but (making things up on the spot) suggested “That sounds like the kind of thing that would happen much less in a society that has less poverty and more police on the streets to stop crime”. ????

Bless him

He looked rather surprised and said he didn’t know about that, but (making things up on the spot) suggested “That sounds like the kind of thing that would happen much less in a society that has less poverty and more police on the streets to stop crime

That's it, though. Most members and activists have little awareness or knowledge about what is going on - and there is a culture of silence around talking about it. This thing is being pushed through top down - and until those at the top speak out honestly it will be pushed through.

Everyone says, at best " Oh, that is a sensitive issue", and I heard another say, " I'm not getting into that thicket"......

Gender reassignment refers to people who have bothered with the reassignment process, while ‘gender identity’ is just whatever feeling someone has at any given moment. It cannot be verified and does not come with any requirements to consistently identify that way.

Not exactly. In fact the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' is not that far removed from 'gender identity'.

This is from the EA2010.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7
A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

Note that phrase 'proposing to undergo'. So someone just has to decide that that is what they are going to do and they are covered. Also 'physiological or other attributes of sex'. What are 'other attributes of sex'? That is not defined. Does it mean a man who puts on a dress and lipstick?

As I said last night, the legislation is a mess.

There's a major category difference between Gender Reassignment and Gender Identity though. Gender Reassignment is a yes/no question. Trans people answer yes, everyone else answers no. Gender Identity is a freeform text box. A transwoman or a woman who identifies as cis might put "woman". A gender critical person leaves the box empty or writes N/A. Gender Identity would actually fail to protect trans people from discrimination as it doesn't distinguish them from non trans people. (Unless their gender identity is nonbinary or sthg.)

I do think there's a difference between 'gender identity' and 'gender reassignment', as 'gender reassignment' implies a change of some sort, something that is at least measurable in a 'before' and 'after' sort of way.

'Gender identity' first of all assumes that everyone has a 'gender identity' and that there is no process of 'transition' that is required. I am not an expert on this, though, and I am happy to be corrected.

I do think there's a difference between 'gender identity' and 'gender reassignment', as 'gender reassignment' implies a change of some sort, something that is at least measurable in a 'before' and 'after' sort of way.

Yes, there is a difference, but the point I was trying to make is that there doesn't really have to be a process in place in order to be protected by 'gender reassignment'. You just have to 'propose to undergo' a process. And you could continue to 'propose to undergo' that process for decades if you were so inclined.

I agree that 'gender identity' doesn't specifically protect transgender people, but as I've said before, I think the intention is to remove both 'gender reassignment' and 'sex' (or 'assigned gender' in newspeak) from the EA and roll them both into one category of 'gender identity'. This gives more protection to transwomen than it does to women.

Gender Identity would actually fail to protect trans people from discrimination as it doesn't distinguish them from non trans people.

Agree. How could you claim that a trans person had suffered discrimination at a job interview if they have the same gender identity as the successful candidate?

How could you claim that a trans person had suffered discrimination at a job interview if they have the same gender identity as the successful candidate?

That's a good point. Why is the trans lobby arguing for this?

I can only assume it's because the trans lobby are vocal TRAs led by men who identify as women and want access to women's spaces. This is their main aim, and 'gender identity' would achieve this. Meanwhile, the fully transitioned transsexual who could be discriminated against when applying for a job, because of their transgender status, will have no recourse to the law if that happens.

When are the political parties going to wake up and realise that they are shitting all over women and transsexuals in an effort to give fetishistic cross dressing males everything they desire? While flinging the door open to rapists and other perverts who will grasp the opportunity to gain easier access to victims.

You're right, OldCrone. There's a lot of damage being done to the interests of transsexuals by the aggressive TRA agenda. Just as with detransitioners and children with GD.

If the activists genuinely had the interests of the "community" to heart they'd be pushing for research and for employment protection. They'd care about the wellbeing of the two groups I mention.

But they don't. Because the "community" isn't cohesive. It's made up of very different groups with different objectives and priorities.

When are the political parties going to wake up and realise that they are shitting all over women and transsexuals in an effort to give fetishistic cross dressing males everything they desire? While flinging the door open to rapists and other perverts who will grasp the opportunity to gain easier access to victims.

This. A thousand times.

Looks like WPUK wrote to Labour HQ for clarification. They've just posted the response they got:

womansplaceuk.org/2019/11/26/labour-clarifies-commitment-to-single-sex-exemptions/