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 ain't going to work for women.

It's not working now when we have the exemptions and a relatively robust GRA.

Service providers will default to letting anyone in for fear of falling foul of a subsequent legal challenge.

It simply can't and won't work in practice.

The only solution for women is repealing the GRA and enforcing single sex exemptions.

Third spaces where necessary, but there won't be an overwhelming call for them as it rather removes the rationale for many.

Labour are trying to win back women they haven't won this one back.

It all seems like a non committal fudge to me; lacking in clarity and definitive statements which can be plainly understood by all. They are trying to keep all on side, and in doing so keeping no-one on side.

This is not enough to make me reconsider spoiling my ballot. It is not saying anything truly new. They've been saying they are going to retain single sex exemptions for ages - but if they are not clear about the differences between gender identity and sex, and the implications of Self ID then single sex is meaningless.

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.

I suspect this is all but inevitable now and women will have to spend several decades highlighting all the damage it has done and fighting over again for a right that was first won a century ago.

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

I agree! It just means an end to mixed sex wards - as most people understand them. Until the Labour party shows it understands what sex means it will not necessarily exclude male bodies people.

There is really nothing new here; no new statements or reinforcements of single sex spaces, services or anything else.
And that is because they have been essentially dishonest all along, and now find they cannot turn back from saying that TWAW.

This is a long term battle.

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

What does that mean? Why does LGBT inclusivity require self ID?
And culture shift - towards what, more science denial?
I want to believe, but after the Brighton incident and Labour Party's (non)response to it I'm not sure I can.

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

If that is true, and I'm not convinced at all it is...it has only been done last minute as a result of feedback from party activists still about how much this means to many women who would normally have voted Labour.

There is no real clarity that biological is referred to by 'single sex' provision. Until it is officially recognised that TW are not W, and certainly not female......then it will continue to be on the basis of gender identity.

biological sex is what is referenced by 'single sex

And culture shift - towards what, more science denial

That's how I read it too. The imaginary future time in which people have lost their supposed 'prejudices' and 'fears', and realised that there is no such thing as being female, and that being a woman is a state of mind, not about a sexed body. And that all trans people are lovely, misunderstood and uniquely vulnerable.

It's surely significant that the stuff about potential GRA reform comes before the "We will:" list of manifesto commitments in that section?

Surely it can only mean that they are not committing to GRA reform in their first term. (Doesn't mean they definitely won't do it of course - but they have certainly made it clear they may not).

Similarly "Ensure that the single-sex-based exemptions contained in the Equality Act 2010 are understood and fully enforced in service provision" is a manifesto commitment.

I don't think I'm reading too much into the positioning of the two things?

Seems to be a bit of confusion on EqA exemptions.

Hopefully RadFemLawyer's tweet should clarify. EqA exemptions apply to actual women (or actual men, in the case of services for men only):

🔸 If a male person transitions but has no GRC she will be treated legally as male. If she has a GRC she will be treated legally as a female.
🔸 The protections in relation to gender reassignment (EA) and the exemptions in rel to gender reassignment apply with or without a GRC.

twitter.com/RadFemLawyer/status/1197548429532127233

Well if JC wishes to publicly state that TWANW then this would clear things up substantially.

"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.

Yes I had the same thought.

We are in real danger of sex being seen as a fringe issue. Single sex spaces are valuable in ALL situations where women are vulnerable, this includes prison and refuges, but also toilets and changing rooms. If we manage to safe guard single sex spaces at all, I think it will only be for the rarer situations (prisons and refuges) not for the common everyday situations of toilets and changing rooms. It is as if you are allowed to be vulnerable or require dignity, but not every woman and not every day, that would be too “in your face”. The requirements of being a woman have to be as invisible as possible and not cause too much of a scene.

I can’t see how single sex exemptions can ever be workable when all official documentation is in denial of actual sex. The original GRA May have been theoretically workable as only 5000 certificates were envisaged. However if you remove what gatekeeping there is an move to self identification then the official I D is meaningless so there is no practical way for those operating the single sex services to enforce them without resorting to mass Olympic style sex tests and we all know how well that works.

If a male person transitions but has no GRC she will be treated legally as male. If she has a GRC she will be treated legally as a female.

So if they bring in self iD and hand out GRCs like candy then the end result is the same. Loss of single sex spaces regardless of exemptions because there will be zero rigour to the process of becoming 'female'.

The single sex exemptions are for the provision of single sex services, they are nothing to do with gender reassignment.

Yes and so are all women shortlists, but Labour still take the possibly illegal view that males can self ID onto them.

I'm not convinced they mean biological females only, we all know that they think they are getting "ahead of the law" by including MTFs as women's officer, on shortlists etc.

So if they bring in self iD and hand out GRCs like candy then the end result is the same. Loss of single sex spaces regardless of exemptions because there will be zero rigour to the process of becoming 'female'.

Yes and no.

Like I say - privacy granted to GRC holders is the actual issue.

EqA exemptions, if invoked, exclude all XYs regardless of GRC. But how one enforces them except by some ridiculous honour code when privacy is granted to GRC holders is unclear.

The exemptions are real though.

It is clear that the law allows for males with GRC to be excluded if it meets the "proportionate, legitimate" test.

But what's not so clear is Labour's interpretation of EA exemptions, such as with AWS. They believe males can self ID into these positions.

I agree it's a concession. But I'd like to see stronger wording spelling out that it refers to biological sex before I change my mind about not voting for them.

I'm not convinced they mean biological females only

Neither am I.

Anyway. This is how I see it. The Labour manifesto does not provide a clear timetable for GRA reform to self-ID: even though it's stated as an aim, that aim is qualified with the proviso that change must be slow if it's to be accepted. No capitulation to Stonewall at all - with regard to single sex exemptions, spousal veto, and replacing of "gender reassignment" with "gender identity" in EqA.

This, however genuinely helpful for women (not very), is a genuine rowing back from the extremist Woke agenda. Labour appears to be attempting to back away slowly from its new activist base and certain Woke lobby groups.

This is a good thing.

Still not enough for me to vote Labour but the wind direction has changed.

Well, what they've done is try to keep both sides happy - TRAs and gender-critical feminists within their own party. Arguably all they've done is piss off both sides (a knack they acquired with Brexit).

But it's OK. The point is that they're feeling the pressure - they know there are a lot of very angry feminists in the Labour Party who will hold them to account if they get elected. I think there is such massive public opposition to self-ID that they would find it very hard to get through parliament, even with a majority - and let's face it, the chances of Labour being elected with a majority are pretty low.

This, however genuinely helpful for women (not very), is a genuine rowing back from the extremist Woke agenda. Labour appears to be attempting to back away slowly from its new activist base and certain Woke lobby groups.

I agree with this even if they are lying through their teeth. They've realised they can't just ignore us all if they want to win the election.

I agree with this even if they are lying through their teeth. They've realised they can't just ignore us all if they want to win the election.

I'm aware I'm sounding like a cheerleader for all of this but I'm not, honestly!

The political temperature is always worth taking though and I do think it highly significant that the Stonewall policy agenda has been given a big fat no in the Labour manifesto.