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.

Don't see how this is good news

Wasn't Labour already saying they weren't going to change the Equality Act, and that self-ID doesn't change that?

Have they said anything different in their manifesto?

All they've said is that they'd make the guide on exemptions clearer

But what if that means they're going to turn around and say, "exemptions only apply to rape services, nothing else." That's clearer. Still screwing over women and girls though

You'd need a method to confirm applicants meet the requirements but privacy means you can't have one.

Doctor's letter to confirm biological sex? Birth certificate won't show the relevant information but there's nothing to say you can't ask for other forms of documentation in cases where the single-sex exemptions apply.

Or is there? I am very open to the possibilty that I'm missing something.

Without a full and unqualified condemnation of the harassment of the WPUK meeting in Brighton, it is very difficult for me to accept that this is a sincere and determined attempt to address our concerns.
If they meant it, there would be recognition of the obstacles placed in the way of women trying to discuss this issue and a pledge from the Labour party to facilitate our future meetings.

I think another poster commented on this upthread, but
but we are not complacent about the culture shift required to make LGBT+ inclusivity a reality
sounds pretty Orwellian to me. I wonder who's going to be expected to shift

It sounds much the same as before. Progress of the progressive agenda by stealth. Educate the dissenters.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. There's no way Labour can win the election so once it's over in three weeks the manifesto will be meaningless. It does indicate they have listened and it is encouraging they do actually call women women and refer to single-sex spaces.

The most encouraging thing is that the Tories, who were in power when the election was called and are highly likely to remain in power, have rowed back on gender self ID.

However I'm pleased there is a differentiation between Labour and the Lib Dems and Greens. It does demonstrate they've listened even if they have fudged it a bit.

I would very much like to vote Labour but I can't due to the antisemitism it has allowed to flourish. I'm not keen on voting Lib Dem due to their stupid policies on gender and refusal to recognise women's sex-based rights. I'm still in a quandary as to who to vote for.
I am basically having to decide which matters most to me - my feminism or being Jewish!

EqA exemptions, if invoked, exclude all XYs regardless of GRC.

They don't. The single sex exemptions are based on legal sex, so whether someone has a GRC or not is important.

In exceptional circumstances when a 'proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim' applies, men with a GRC which makes them legally women can be excluded. But in most circumstances a GRC makes them legally indistinguishable from women.

I think another poster commented on this upthread, but
but we are not complacent about the culture shift required to make LGBT+ inclusivity a reality
sounds pretty Orwellian to me. I wonder who's going to be expected to shift

I agree Gone2far . To me it sounds as though they are just buying time while we all go through some sort of re-education to get us in line.

I’m dubious - don’t trust them. Don’t trust any party right now, but definitely don’t trust this. It’s much like Brexit- trying to say they are on everyone’s side.

But in most circumstances a GRC makes them legally indistinguishable from women.

Just to add - this is the whole point of a GRC. What would be the point of a GRC if it didn't make someone legally the opposite sex to the one they were born?

The single sex exemptions are based on legal sex, so whether someone has a GRC or not is important.

You keep saying this but it's not the case, even though EHRC insist on issuing non statutory guidance from a position of capture. See RadFemLawyer's tweet above.

Single sex exemptions can include GRC holders. That is the point of them. The proportionality for application is higher for GRC holders than not, that's all.

exclude not include sorry

Well they've promised us the moon on a stick they might as well throw this in too.

The manifesto is insane but if you want to live in Venezuela as long as there are single sex toilets, go ahead and vote Labour.

Single sex exemptions can include GRC holders. That is the point of them. The proportionality for application is higher for GRC holders than not, that's all.

Ok, so we agree. Whether someone has a GRC or not is important. A man who identifies as a woman but doesn't have a GRC is more easily excluded than one who does, since the legal sex of the former is 'male' and the latter is 'female'.

If they bring in self-ID alongside better enforcement of the single sex exemptions, there will be many more men who are legally female, making it harder to exclude them from female spaces.

For example the new prison policy I referred to earlier. A man who has a GRC making him legally female is automatically initially placed in a female prison. Without a GRC he is legally male and goes to the male prison and has to go through a process if he wants to be transferred.

I have no idea whether the prison policy is compliant with the EA2010 (I think it is, but IANAL), but it's what is in force now. The EA2010 appears to make it possible to make a judgement of when people with the PC of gender reassignment should be excluded on a case by case basis. The prison service and MoJ seem to have decided that legal sex is more important than biological sex. If RadFemLawyer thinks that they are acting illegally maybe she could tell them.

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

Not buying it - Liebour will spout anything that they think will get them votes.
They clearly think people have short memories and won’t be getting even a whiff of my vote on the basis of empty words.

The privacy thing was supposed to be so that a man, who identified as a woman, could go to, say, a new job, and not be outed as male. Simply walk in, look like a woman, behave like a woman, be accepted as a woman, have F on their birth difficult and no one knows any different.

So the only solution is to get rid of the privacy angle. I.e., you can ask for written proof. Or you simply stop administering GRCs and cross your fingers that you can confine it to the 5000.

I don't buy it. There's a world of difference between allowing single sex spaces and requiring them. See how quickly the changing rooms issue has moved from a decade long expectation to privacy to 'tough' we're not providing anymore.

The privacy thing was supposed to be so that a man, who identified as a woman, could go to, say, a new job, and not be outed as male. Simply walk in, look like a woman, behave like a woman, be accepted as a woman, have F on their birth difficult and no one knows any different.

Which was always daft in itself because there are very, very few TW for whom this is a realistic situation. Some transmen may fair a bit better on that score due to the immense effects of T but even so the vast majority of people are very adept at recognising bio sex even if when significant attempts to disguise it have occurred. Even more so in a work setting where people spend a lot of time together.

This oil tanker is going to take years to turn around (because it's been years - if not decades - to get where we are today) but the Labour manifesto having these two contradictory positions (pro self-ID and pro EA SSEs) is a start. When they come to debate either, the other will come into play and there is now enough awareness of the rights conflict that it will now be impossible to, say, reform the GRA, without invoking the EA SSEs. Or to amend the EA without asking what the interaction with the GRA would be.

The EA does make provision for excluding those with GRCs in some instances - but the SSEs are not well understood and/or those who might want to invoke them are not confident in doing so (and of course they have been wilfully misrepresented by some of the LGBT lobby groups).

The journey of a thousand miles and all that...

The EA does make provision for excluding those with GRCs in some instances - but the SSEs are not well understood and/or those who might want to invoke them are not confident in doing so (and of course they have been wilfully misrepresented by some of the LGBT lobby groups).

Yes, this is what the EA2010 says about single sex services and gender reassignment:

A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.

But note that this is left to the discretion of the organisers of this group - if they wanted to, they could lawfully include transsexual people. In both cases they would be applying the EA2010 correctly. What is happening is that such people are being told that they can't exclude transgender people, even though the actual legislation says they can. This is happening because, as you say, they are being advised by lobby groups, and as Lang says, the EHRC has been captured so is issuing guidance which also implies that transsexual people cannot be excluded.

I don't know if this is going to be enough to win my vote back. The casual misogyny with which they ignored us for YEARS still sticks in my craw.

But it's a small step back instead of a headlong rush forward. That's good. Wind direction def changing.

"Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people

Which makes their stupid promise to women useless.

Hmm I'm still furious about Brighton and my first reaction was, fudge, fudge, fudge, do you think I'm stupid Labour? But I've been thinking about it all afternoon.

Firstly it definitely looks like they're rowing back from Corbyn telling Stonewall (? I think) that they would abolish the Equality Act exemptions. Someone has got their ear.
Secondly it seems to me that there's now a very narrow strip of clear water between them and other centre/left parties. I feel I therefore need to give serious consideration to voting for them in order to keep the Lib Dem out in my constituency.
I will be thinking it over a lot more but, although I still don't trust them any more than I can spit them, they may have just done enough. Which is presumably exactly what they were counting on but that's politics.

I don't think they've changed their position. The fact that they have mentioned this at all is just a sop, because they know they are losing votes over this.