Sunak would amend the Equality Act

[achillestoes]

Rishi Sunak has been trailing Liz Truss in the Tory leadership battle, and he is now trying to re-invent himself a bit. He has strengthened his positions on sex in the Equality Act meaning biological sex, and specifically said the following about the EA:

“The worst offender in this regard is the 2010 Equality Act, conceived in the dog days of the last Labour government.
“It has been a Trojan horse that has allowed every kind of woke nonsense to permeate public life.”

There is a suggestion that he would ‘review’ the Equality Act. Not sure whether that means he would amend it or repeal it, but obviously we would still have the GRA, which without the Equality Act to alter its meaning, even if slightly, would give the TRAs a boost.

@thedancingbear 'the people in the seats the tories need to win an election don't mainly associate 'woke' with gender issues. It will be mainly issues around ethnicity and sexuality.'

Where is your evidence to this? Are 'people in the seats the tories need to win' extra racist in your opinion, or do you have any stats on voting intentions and outcomes showing racial bias in UK?

Are racial minorities underrepresented in UK public institutions and power structures?

@littleburn Agree with that 100%, also with @PrinceYakimov
The EA2010 is really not the problem here.

Also pps have said that provision of single sex spaces needs to be mandatory, agree strongly with that. The EA guidance has examples of how businesses can comply if space is tight - there is no reason at all not to provide them except for ideology.

But the EqA doesn't mandate single sex spaces, so it is the problem.

How else are we going to ensure SSE if not reviewing the EqA and how it works on practice?

Sorry, I'm not trying to derail. my point was that the 'woke nonsense' messaging was not, I felt, coming from a good place: it stinks of dog-whistle politics. The tories have a pretty non-existent track record of sticking up for disadvantaged groups and I don't think for a moment that the leopard has changed its spots.

Even if they do make some readjustments in the field of gender and sex (and those will be welcome), if that means, for example, binning the Equalities Act wholesale, then I have real concerns about the greater harms that will do.

I made a side point that I thought a BAME politician running on an 'anti-woke' agenda was potentially self-defeating, that on reflection didn't help the discussion. I'm happy to park the conversation about whether racism remains a (big) problem in the UK, if you are.

Re Sunak (and other MPs) lack of knowledge about all this, It's evident that they're only just starting to get to grips with all the nuances. The press have started to move from the "anything the sacred caste says must never be challenged" to a far more critical and articulate position. Some of the current coverage in the Mail is as intelligent and informed as numerous posts on here.

Equally MPs also have a steep learning curve as they step away from the shackles of #nodebate and face the realisation of what's happened on their watch. Having heard Kemi Badenich talk about how civil servants work hand in glove to obstruct her from meeting with whistleblowers, detrasnitioners etc, they're evidently complicit in all this

It is, plus the gender recognition act complicates defining that.

I would very much like to see Kemi get a big job within the next cabinet, ideally focusing on an area covering these issues - she knows her stuff!

All irrelevant. He ain't gonna be PM.

I grew up and lived a majority of my life in a 'red wall' area, and following that, in a very different part of the UK. My lived experience is that, as a class, people are more racist in the first, which is of course not to say that everyone there is a racist. I'm not going to run off and perform a meta-analysis of voting intentions in these places, but it seems to follow from my lived experience that some people in these places would not vote for a BAME person on principle.

Others feel this discussion is derailing so I am happy to leave it if you are

I look forward to a time when we replace words like dogwhistle, woke, fascist and all the other slurs thrown around so casually and read, respond and discuss the issues. (just a vain hope I know).

Given the initial MP voting, it's been quite a turnaround

The EA2010 is really not the problem here.

The problem is how it intersects with the GRA and the legal fiction of someone having changed sex, the fact that no-one can ask or know if someone has a GRC it causes issues with the protected category of sex hence the problems we now have.

Also pps have said that provision of single sex spaces needs to be mandatory, agree strongly with that. The EA guidance has examples of how businesses can comply if space is tight - there is no reason at all not to provide them except for ideology.

Definitely single sex spaces need to be mandatory, but as per my previous comment, the GRA/GRC undermines the concept of sex by claiming that some people have changed sex and have the altered Birth Certificate and GRC to 'prove' it albeit no-one can ask or see this magical document.

The EqA is a problem due to the woolly nature of the definitions and the Gender Reassignment clause. In order to protect female only single sex spaces, services, sports, refuges, hospital wards it needs to be explicit that these spaces are for biological females only, but this would be so much easier if we got rid of the fiction that someone has changed sex and been allowed to alter a Birth Certificate to that effect.

Indeed. That's why secondary legislation exists, to clarify the primary one, and negate unintended negative consequences.

It happens all the time, it's a much more used legislative instrument than primary legislation.

It should not be difficult, nor should it be controversial, to make single-sex exemptions mandatory, and clarify that it's biological (not 'legal') sex that applies here, so possession of GRC is irrelevant.

Clarifying a mess of protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment', and its interplay with GRA is trickier, so 2 secondary instruments seem eminently sensible.

@thedancingbear You came here accusing large parts of population of racism in their voting intentions, seemingly based on your personal experience.

You were told that's kind of racist and got on your high horse about that, 'cos you're an immigrant.

Now you can't offer any stats or further argument.

Please feel free to stop derailing this, and hopefully other, threads with baseless accusations of racism towards people who are sick of 'woke nonsense'.

It's a massive reach, and is extremely unhelpful.

It should not be difficult, nor should it be controversial, to make single-sex exemptions mandatory, and clarify that it's biological (not 'legal') sex that applies here, so possession of GRC is irrelevant.

With consequences for those that won't/don't provide or uphold said mandatory exemptions.

Clarifying a mess of protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment', and its interplay with GRA is trickier, so 2 secondary instruments seem eminently sensible.

I think the whole of the GRA needs to be revisited or scrapped.

If the GRA is scrapped, then GR makes no sense and the EqA would need an overhaul.

While SSE aren't mandatory, and the PC of GR is linked to the GRA (where a man can become female), I can't see how any business in practice would enforce SSE.

Prisons and hospitals wards can't manage it, so why would a small poorly funded swimming pool enforce it in a changing room?

I agree with Rishi Sunak 100-percent there is to much woke nonsense that has ruined too much of this country the Equality Act should be amended to only protect men and women With strict biological definitions

"Sunak plans to stop organisations such as Stonewall from delivering sex and relationship education, after concern that inappropriate topics have been taught to young children. Schools would be given guidance about what was acceptable, while parents would be able to request to see teaching materials, including from external groups, through an amendment to the Schools Bill. However, schools would have the final say on what to release."

But the last sentence is not, and shows he's got a way to go. Someone please tell me why I can't see those materials? What's the reason?

Agree, remove that line and I'm fully on board with that proposal.

People need to be careful who they jump into bed with, because they risk their own rights being chucked under the bus.

I have zero say in the Conservative party leadership election, so not "jumping into bed" with anyone.

@VestofAbsurdity I'm not sure we would be successful in a campaign to repeal the GRA.

Legal recognition for transsexuals is quite possibly not a cause that I disagree with, but GRA needs to be tightened, and interplay with EA clarified, with good examples in 'explanatory notes' provided with secondary legislation.

I’m so bored of identity politics. Bored of “the white man” against the “brown man” against the “only woman”. I care what these people intend to do not what they look like.

I am not sure we would either but since the overarching purpose of the GRA was to allow two people of the same biological sex to marry as long as one of them had a GRC and same sex marriage is now on the Statute Books then I see no reason to continue with this legal fiction that people can change sex.

‘I’m sorry you feel you’ve encountered racism, but if you can’t produce peer-reviewed papers demonstrating this, it didn’t happen’

i think each of us understands where the other is coming from at this point. I’ll leave you to it.

All true, but politically a mine-field. I'd say easier to leave in place but tighten/clarify interplay, practically.

@thedancingbear 'I’m sorry you feel you’ve encountered racism, but if you can’t produce peer-reviewed papers demonstrating this, it didn’t happen' is a gross misrepresentation of my position.

Would you like to apologize? Don't normally ask this, but as you're into that sort of stuff