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.

Whatever bastardization occurs due to the GRA or any reform thereof, one of the protected characteristics in the EA2010 is sex.

But what do they mean by sex? If they mean biology, there isn't a problem, but if they mean the sex marker on your birth certificate, it means men can be women, and the protected characteristic of sex disappears at that point. If men can be women just because they say they are, and get their birth certificate changed to say female, then sex becomes a matter of choice, not biology. It therefore no longer exists in any meaningful sense.

I'm not disagreeing with you as to the self ID pitfall (or even, frankly, the GRC pitfall.in the first place).

But I'm knackered, and up way later than I should be, and I havne got the energy for this. Off to ma bed.

and up way later than I should be Yep. Me too. Night night.

Crucial terms are not clarified.

In the current climate, I tend towards cynical. As OldCrone says above:
But what do they mean by sex? If they mean biology, there isn't a problem, but if they mean the sex marker on your birth certificate, it means men can be women, and the protected characteristic of sex disappears at that point. If men can be women just because they say they are, and get their birth certificate changed to say female, then sex becomes a matter of choice, not biology. It therefore no longer exists in any meaningful sense.

I know it's fudgy and I know we'd still have the mother and father of all battles. However at least it now looks like we'd still be in the fight, which is more than we'd get with the other centre-left parties.

I've effectively got a choice between Labour and Lib Dem and I think my priority now is to vote to keep out the Lib Dem.

Looks like they might be backtracking already judging by this tweet: twitter.com/helenlewis/status/1197778910836117504?s=21

Depends where you live in terms of how tactical voting for you.

As a Jewish woman, I face 3 existential threats - to the NHS and therefore my life and health and that of my loved ones from the Tories (Tory cuts to the NHS killed my DF), to Jews from Labour (many of my family were murdered in the Holocaust; Corbyn supports Holocaust deniers and terrorists who state plainly that they are in favour of murdering all Jews); and to women from all parties.

Of those 3 threats, the one to women is the only one which doesn't actually lead imminently to murder. And is one area where I feel the tide may be turning slightly.

But we all have to vote according to our own priorities. I wish I could fight on one front alone. What a luxury that would be.

I'm not LGBTQ and so making sure they are 'centred in everything we do' doesn't interest me.

The alphabet soup only means T, anyway. I wondered about Madigan’s reaction but that account is currently set to private.

I'm not LGBTQ and so making sure they are 'centred in everything we do' doesn't interest me.

I'm the B part. I don't think we need to be centered. Taken into account like everyone else, certainly, but centered, no.

Whilst Labour keep insisting that TWAW, one has to assume that any statement re protecting 'women's' rights will, by definition, be inclusive of transwomen.

Weasel words.

Until a statement comes directly from Labour, via a named spokesperson, Ellie Mae O’Hagan should be ignored,

No doubt there are woket than wokists working for the party who desperately wish that TWAW is true but that’s not what the manifesto says, it’s not what was discussed at the commons select committee and it’s not what the trade unionists at WPUK have been working on within the party.

Whether labour will officially capitulate or not remains to be seen, but the intent of the manifesto is clear.

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/women-and-equalities-committee/news-parliament-2017/equality-act-role-of-ehrc-report-published-17-19/

I think that select committee hearing and subsequent report will turn out to be more significant than we realised at the time.

So thanks again to Karen Ingala Smith for her fabulous performance giving evidence (and thanks also to the other witness for the sex toys on the train hilarity. You helped more than you could ever realise).

I don't think the significance of the Labour manifesto is that it is actually any good for women's protections (it probably isn't) - I think the significance is that Labour felt sufficiently pressured to fudge it. We all expected a fully Woke genderist tub thumping as per the Lib Dems and the Greens. That we didn't get it is a positive signal.

Our best response now is - nope, not good enough. You've fucked us over for long enough. The message needs to go through that we won't be listening to our Inner Beryls and we won't be satisfied with the odd bone thrown our way.

However, if Labour is arguing that trans women are biologically female, then this is factually incorrect? Are parties allowed to put "fake news" in their manifestos?

If not, might we have another lawsuit?

Dawn Butler has weighed in to clarify that natal women will basically have no sex protected rights (I'm paraphrasing, but her tweet states NO spaces can discriminate against trans.) Archived for the future.

We must press on, definitely. Beryl can cock off.
And yes, more law suits whenever necessary.
So far, no one in the judiciary seems to have forgotten how babies are made.

Labour is a mess of contradictions, "let's throw every incompatible, Ill thought out concept into the manifesto."

I wondered about Madigan’s reaction but that account is currently set to private

LM doesn't seem worried and I can see why.
TW are able to apply for Labour's all women short lists which are covered by the EA. To allow TW to apply for these positions Labour's reading of the EA must be that TW are W for all purposes.

If Labour's manifesto promise to strengthen women's sex based rights does not include TW they do not need to wait until the GE, they could start right now by saying AWSLs are for women only.

EA Guidance
This section allows registered political parties to make arrangements in relation to the selection of election candidates to address the under-representation of people with particular protected characteristics in elected bodies.
336.These arrangements can include single-sex shortlists for election candidates, but not shortlists restricted to people with other protected characteristics. With the exception of single-sex shortlists, arrangements made under this section must be a proportionate means of reducing under-representation.
337.This provision applies to the selection of candidates in relation to elections to Parliament, local government, the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.
Background

338.For sex, the section replicates the effect of similar provisions contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, as amended by the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, relating to the selection of candidates. For the other protected characteristics this section introduces new provisions allowing political parties to take action in their selection arrangements in order to address under-representation in elected bodies (apart from shortlists restricted to people with a particular protected characteristic) where this would be proportionate. This will, for instance, allow political parties to reserve places on relevant electoral shortlists for people with a specific protected characteristic such as race, disability etc.
Examples

A political party can have a women-only shortlist of potential candidates to represent a particular constituency in Parliament, provided women remain under-represented in the party’s Members of Parliament.

A political party cannot shortlist only black or Asian candidates for a local government by-election. However, if Asians are under-represented amongst a party’s elected councillors on a particular Council, the party could choose to reserve a specific number of seats for Asian candidates on a by-election shortlist.

I've thought about this long and hard. Like so many of us, I've spent far too much emotional labour on this issue.

I suppose I'm pleased to see that Labour are trying to be more nuanced about it.

However, the issues for me are as follows:

What is Labour's definition of woman?

Do Labour believe that people
can change sex?

Once someone has legally changed their 'sex', how can you enforce any exemptions allowed by the EqA?

Privacy issues - how do you prove who should
be allowed into single sex amenities and spaces?

How to protect the (mainly) women workers who will be on the front line of making policies work and enforcing them?

What happens if (women) workers disagree with these policies - will it impact their job?

If the GRA is changed to allow self-id, will the certificate say legal sex or legal gender? Will
it say both?

What is Labour's definition of sex? What is Labour's definition of gender? How many genders exist?

How will they balance introducing self-id with protecting young people's health - and ensuring
self diagnosis doesn't lead to an even bigger upsurge in damaging cross-sex hormones and risky, radical surgery?

How will everything be paid for?

Who is/will be advising them on this?

What do they mean by changing the 'culture' around these issues?

Will there be any 'cultural' changes that allow alternative pathways for trans identifying young people to explore in medical and therapeutic settings - other than the affirmative only pathway that currently exists?

TLDR: Labour's manifesto raises many more questions than it answers.

This goes back to the pre-New Labour/Tony Blair era. The Labour Party manifestos in the 80’s and first half of the 90’s. Contained massive contradictions. That was because the writing of the manifesto would be farmed out to a group of people for one issue and a different group of people for another issue. They would then essentially cut and paste different position papers into one document (the manifesto) regardless of the direct contradictions in policy. They were considered unelectable back then, much like now.

I don't think the significance of the Labour manifesto is that it is actually any good for women's protections (it probably isn't) - I think the significance is that Labour felt sufficiently pressured to fudge it.

This.

John McDonnell is the power behind the manifesto. He is not woke, indeed he might well be GC but too careful to let on. He wants Labour to be elected in order to progress other priorities. Hence a careful tightrope designed not to lose votes, and perhaps pick up LD votes along the way.

her tweet states NO spaces can discriminate against trans

I'm wondering what Dawn Butler's position would be in a Yaniv 'wax my balls' situation. Would she force unwilling women working in a salon to comply?

Dawn Butler's tweet:And there is no way spaces will be permitted to discriminate against trans people. That is illegal and it will stay illegal.
Well yes discrimination is illegal. But as I understand it, single sex (not gender) spaces in specific circumstances are not illegal. My take - as a non lawyer- is that this is either another careful bit of word play or Dawn Butler does not understand the law.

Labour are trying to be more nuanced about it

I don't think it's nuance. I think they are being dishonest.

What is Labour's definition of woman

Whatever Labour's definition of women is I think it's clear that it includes TW. Otherwise their AWSLs would not be open to TW.

There must be someone in the Labour Party desperate to try and pull the wool over our eyes. There have been quite a few threads on FWR recently stating, sometimes IN CAPS, that they are for women’s rights when they are actually undermining them.

I don't think it's nuance. I think they are being dishonest.

They are doing exactly the same on this as they are on many other issues - trying to face all ways, saying one thing and saying another at the same time to hoover up as many votes as possible.

Yep, it is dishonest rather than nuanced. And as as said previously, it feels like being thrown a bone to distract us.