@JoodyBlue
I think it is a good statement in the current social context. I don't read the Equality Act as ambiguous really. Although the guideance that has been given on what it says has been widely incorrect. This statement means biological sex is recognised. Gender reassignment is recognised. Both are protected in law. Gender reassignment is something serious that you sign up to under some scrutiny. So it is no longer a legal free for all right of access to women's space. The government cannot and must not simply deny rights, freedoms and recognition to trans people. If we can't accept that then there is no moving forward. I would agree that for most of my life trans people have lived happily alongside women without issue. It is only the TRAs demands that introduced difficulty. This statement gives no cause for complaint, since all of the reasonable requests in support of trans people have been met, but the ability to become a woman by saying so is still off the cards. Thank goodness!!
I agree.
If Ann Sinnot wins, then we're in a good place. We retain single sex provision where we need it, and women can still be defined in law as a sex class. And those rights are spelled out, and the misleading advice replaced with accuracy. That way, companies and charities can make their own choices, and stand or fall by them, instead of erroneously believing that the law forces their hand.
I don't want trans people unable to have good medical care, or deal with horrendously long waiting lists. (And I would hope that this good care would involve a real exploration of any trauma, or neurodevelopmental conditions that might lead them to mistake their distress as caused by gender, too. Especially with young people.) That's a real step forward, though of course the devil will be in the detail. And I think it's right that given a lot of trans people are low income (we know that, from how many were already exempt from GRC costs as below threshold - and in means assessment for the state, that threshold is almost always very, very low) the cost of a GRC isn't a barrier. Don't see any issue with it being done online, as opposed to hard copy paperwork, either. The two year wait matters most - the commitment is demonstrated by that. It's not fair that a trans person with rich parents could get a GRC with ease, while a low income, but not wageless, one couldn't.
I care that trans widows retain the right to a no-fault divorce before being summarily in a same sex or opposite sex marriage they never signed up for. And I care that we can ensure Nia etc can stay single sex, and not single gender. Sadly, if Labour or Lib Dems got into power tomorrow, they would erase that right as a matter of urgency.
Transphobia is wrong. So is sexism. Denying that sex impacts women especially, and that women need services, protections and recognition based upon it, is sexist. And we have the right to campaign against sexism. In fact, the way that campaigning is demonised, whilst transactivism is applauded, is more evidence of quite how sexist this world remains.