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.

I think this is a fudge that they believe will appease both sides for the purposes of winning more votes. Commentators close to labour are being relatively quiet on the issue, probably for that very reason. Their direction of travel has been clear for some time and appears to be consolidated by Dawn Butler's intervention today.

It is a bone yes, but is it a distraction or is it something we could potentially use in a fight? That's what I'm trying to decide.

Above post is incorrect - I misunderstood and will ask HQ to remove it.

Of course she did. Dr JCJ hasn't any clout to offer Dawn a nice freebie trip abroad or some other 'persuasive' awards evening for being a super duper ally and quoting lyrics from The Greatest Showman to further the great cause.

Dawn Butler, for example, is a...

Oh, she hasn't blocked her? May the freebies are still hoped for...

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.

This is true but not settled. The legal challenge is still to come (and the judiciary are seemingly still very sensible on this matter) and there are fewer Transwoman candidates this time. Heather Peto was on an AWS and withdrew (was unlikely to win, had not connection with the area and several very well respected local councillors were also standing).
Sophie Cook failed to be selected and is standing as an independent, so has obviously left the party.

Labour’s only trans candidates are a non-binary person, Thom Kirkwood, who has already got Thomself in trouble multiple times and has had officially complaints made against Thom to the NEC (standing in a conservative safe seat, not an AWS) and Heather Herbert who is the absolute last minute replacement for Kate Ramsden (and Labour have been 3rd or 4th in elections, after Conservatives, SNP and the Lib Dems).

www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/first-ever-non-binary-candidate-17269669

www.ellontimes.co.uk/news/politics/heather-selected-as-gordon-labour-candidate-1-5044144

So while transwoman candidates are entitled to apply for AWS seats, the local members who select candidates don’t seem keen.

I imagine Dawn Butler will be feeling the heat right now. Her allies had high expectations and she hasn't delivered. They won't be happy with her. I'm not inclined to take much notice of anything she says over the next few days. It's the senior leadership I'm watching.

I reckon DB’s inbox is full of shrill TRA abuse today.

Yup. I don't think we should underestimate how pissed off the TWAW lobby are going to be with her (DB). I'm expecting her to say all kinds of stuff to pacify them but unless, the leadership back her up, then I think it's pretty meaningless.

They are doing exactly the same on this as they are on many other issues

Brexit is a pretty good example.

Corbyn and McDonnell have waited a long time to a chance to deliver their social and economic priorities. And to give him his due McDonnell is being clear on what these are. Vote for Labour if you like the sound of what they are saying they will deliver, which might be summarised as "tax the rich to fund the poor", and don't if you don't. As for the rest. A Labour government might be too busy to think about other things, as they will want to move fast to implement the economic part of their manifesto. As for women, I don't think Corbyn or McDonnell care. They will be thrown under the bus if politically expedient. Equally the TRAs might find themselves out in the cold.

John McDonnell is the power behind the manifesto. He is not woke, indeed he might well be GC but too careful to let on.

Yes, concur. There is no way in creation John McDonnell is pomo-addled. Neither is he stupid. He's almost certainly "GC". However, he's got his priorities - not women - and he'll do an "after the revolution, love" if it suits him.

I imagine Dawn Butler will be feeling the heat right now. Her allies had high expectations and she hasn't delivered. They won't be happy with her. I'm not inclined to take much notice of anything she says over the next few days. It's the senior leadership I'm watching.

Yep. I bet the pomo-tastic Labour MPs (hello Stella, hello Wes, hello et al) are kicking themselves that they put sticking it to Corbyn over manoeuvring themselves into key shadow positions. Now they're left with Dawn the Not Terribly Bright speaking for them! Serves them right.

Rename this false title. Labour are trying to mislead us and face both ways just like they do with Brexit. They don't seem capable of being straight about a single policy!

James Kirkup has got an answer
twitter.com/jameskirkup/status/1197840966721441792?s=21
“Labour HQ says: “The Equality Act will continue to allow for separate and single-sex services, providing that such treatment by a provider is justified, but no spaces will be permitted to discriminate against trans people.”

How utterly deceitful. Pretending that they are going to uphold and enforce the single sex exemptions, when in fact they are effectively removing them.

Is discrimination when you can't prove there's a need?

Labour know exactly what they are doing with this.

James Kirkup is a very clever guy but I think the only people who can explain what was meant are the party leadership. I imagine they will do their best to avoid doing so but I still think it's significant.

It's not that long ago that (if I recall correctly) Corbyn was telling Stonewall that Labour would abolish the exemptions. The TWAW lobby did not expect this and that is why they are fizzing.

It's also not that long ago that the TWAW lobby were patting us on the head and telling us that we didn't need to worry cos exemptions. Now they've been smoked out. They will have to stand up and say what we knew all along.

I know it's not a winning goal but I see it as a penalty that might just take us into extra time.

Kirkup = clear and succinct.

The whole plan was to get all this through under the radar, EVERYDAY more and more the the public are becoming informed.

I don't think James has got the clarity he thinks he has. That is carefully parsed. Labour says that single sex exemptions will be maintained. It also says that no spaces will be permitted to discriminate against trans people - which can, as easily, be interpreted as a single sex exemption space cannot discriminate against XX trans people.

I agree with JCJ on Twitter - this is evidence of the party split with everything parsed very carefully so that it can continue to wait until the wind direction of public and judicial opinion is more clear.

It's still positive in my opinion. Evidence that there is a genuine fight to be had within the party - which there is not in the Lib Dems or the Greens.

Flo - the fact the Labour leadership feel the need to obfuscate on this issue is a distinct victory, albeit on a long road.

I still don't know what that means.

'Discriminate against' is not the same as 'distinguish between'.

I

Yup.

To me, the sneakiness is worse than anything. The ambiguity smacks of being deliberate. Otherwise why not just come out and clarify?