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.

Thought this was worth saving for posterity - non binary Lib Dem campaigner declares single sex hospital wards to be ‘vile hate towards the trans community’.

Kobe Bibbon’s official Lib Dem profile appears to repeatedly misgender they/them. Bad Lib Dems!

mgcb-libdems.org.uk/en/page/ward-longsight

That doesn't even mean they're going to disallow transwomen on women's wards, surely? This person has read a promise to get rid of wards that allow plain old fashioned men and women to be put in together and assumed it's targeting trans people because this person knows that nobody can actually change sex.

It’s illegal in most cases to ask to see a GRC. Anyone with a GRC also has a new birth certificate attesting to their ‘new’ sex. So in practise if GRCs are given out to anyone it will be very difficult to protect single sex spaces because even if someone is clearly biologically male they will have a birth certificate saying their sex is female.

Now, mixed sex wards is another matter. When Labour says it's going to end them, it very likely means mixed gender wards.

Feel free to distrust that bit of the manifesto, fellow wims!

The exemptions are real though.

I just do not know what to do!

I think the thing to take away from this is that Labour have realized that their attitude was going to cost them votes from women and are therefore potentially open to being shifted further if it is made clear that this isn't enough. It's not the concession I wanted but clearly they've realized that they can't just ignore us.

PULL

twitter.com/languesbians/status/1197477675029409792

The replies here are remarkable. Roz Kaveney seems to think the EqA single sex exemptions were little more than an accident and then there is this corker:

‘... they earlier chose not to allow trans people close enough to leadership to prevent killing us through policies. Where I'm from that's called conspiracy to murder’

Crikey, where is this person from? I’m not visiting anytime soon if not being allowed to talk to the leader of her majesty’s opposition is conspiracy to murder! 😃

Absolutely barking.

I mean, this is better than the blatant fuck off that they were giving women before

But look at the absolutely ludicrous lengths women have had to go to to get to the stage of being given less of a fuck off than they (Labour) had been till now.

It's a cynical short term ploy to fool women into voting for them; and one they only conceded after a bitter battle for acknowledgement of the sex class of woman and realising we weren't just gong to shut up I suspect it will vanish into thin air soon enough.

Oh yeah, I don't trust them one bit. But the fact that they've realized that "begone, witches" isn't going to work means that rather than giving up we should push harder.

Handy guide:

I've had a walk. Lang's right. This is a genuine concession, and I know why the AWAs are in such a tizz about it - they thought they'd sewn it up and that women had been entirely squashed by the ostensibly progressive parties. To see us being thrown a bone, however unimpressive, is a marker that actually, we don't count for nothing they way the AWAs have been spinning it. I do feel a teensy bit better, though I am still undecided. But it is a real, concrete thing.

I think the thing to take away from this is that Labour have realized that their attitude was going to cost them votes from women and are therefore potentially open to being shifted further if it is made clear that this isn't enough. It's not the concession I wanted but clearly they've realized that they can't just ignore us.

Yes.

The only purpose of those exemptions is to exclude TW from certain services and provisions.

Lang which exemptions do you mean? The single-sex exemptions are about providing different services for women and men (like single-sex hospital wards) or about providing services for only women or only men. Nothing to do with transwomen.

What on earth does the bit about 'review blood donations' mean?

One would hope it means that they acknowledge that sex-not-gender is the key point when donating (or receiving) blood.

The opposite, I'd imagine.

@LangCleg (and others) I hope you're right, that this is a step in the right direction. Like you though, not sure if it's enough for me to actually vote Labour (which I normally do). I have to vote for someone though! Who? I feel so let down by the very politicians who should be championing women. I only came across the Labour Women's Declaration petition today and signed. Nobody I know IRL seems to even see the problem with self-ID.

Lang. Do you know how they enforce the exemption? As people have pointed out someone's birth certificate will say female. Where do you go from there?

Presumably they’ve mentally changed the meaning of sex to ‘lady/man brains’.

From the Manifesto p68:
^Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people, but we are not
complacent about the culture shift required to make LGBT+ inclusivity a reality^.

They say 'LGBT'. They mean, 'T'.

As people have pointed out someone's birth certificate will say female.

And both the EHRC and MoJ have said that legal sex is the only thing that matters.

I know there are supposed to be exemptions that apply to someone with a GRC. But I don't know how that works in practice

Plus, there is absolutely no guarantee, whatsoever, that the Labour Party actually understand the law in the way that we think they might.

They could easily be saying they'll make it easier to get a GRC, and limit spaces to those with the GRC. That makes perfect sense in terms of what they might view as a 'compromise'.

Do you know how they enforce the exemption? As people have pointed out someone's birth certificate will say female. Where do you go from there?

The real unsquareable circle is privacy. Not GRC or no GRC, self-ID or gatekeeping.

That's what I meant when I said I'd need far more substantial detail before I change my vote.

Let's say you're advertising a job to work at Rape Crisis. It's advertised on the single sex (XX, not legal sex) exemptions. You'd need a method to confirm applicants meet the requirements but privacy means you can't have one.

Additionally, as we all know EHRC, which provides guidance on the exemptions, has been thoroughly captured and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to remove parts of guidance it put out that actually went contrary to legislation.

A tiny paragraph in a manifesto does not address how Labour plans to surmount these issues and, since the party and its candidates seem determined to avoid interrogation on this as much as possible, my vote's staying in my pocket.

But - it's still a concession. It's still signalling awareness there's a problem. This is a good thing.

I know there are supposed to be exemptions that apply to someone with a GRC. But I don't know how that works in practice

I can see how it can work regarding a rapist in a women's prison, and a wax my balls' case.

But this isn't going to help women and girls on a day to day basis.

The only thing that it will lead to is businesses and services providers making changing rooms and toilet really gender neutral as a result if customer complaints.