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.

No apology from me. As I say, I think we understand each other well at this point.

@ZuttZeVootEeeVo
The EA is clear - even with a GRC, a person can be excluded from opposite sex facilities. It's Stonewall who have claimed that a GRC and by extension the PC of gender reassignment = changing sex for all purposes with no exceptions. That is not the law, so making single sex provision mandatory would not include TW in women's spaces or TM in men's.

@BellaAmorosa totally agree with above, but it would be good to have it restated in clear language, for avoidance of any further doubt, whilst making single-sex provision mandatory (with opt-outs for small businesses etc.)

But how does a receptionist at a leisure centre tell the male person with female id - birth certificate or passport that the changing rooms are female only and that he isn't allowed in there?

The GRA was, in part, to allow same sex people to marry, but it also gave a holder or GRC privacy. And that privacy is what's stopping SSE being workable in practice. Given that the EqA was written after the GRA, I cant help but think that SSE was never a serious, workable part of the EqA.

I think it's because the tories favour lack of state intervention - they were originally elected on a platform of "cutting red tape", including for schools.
Who could have envisaged that we'd have groups busily removing child safeguarding and the rights of girls and women to single sex sports, spaces etc in plain sight.
There's a balance between the rights of schools etc to be governed as those responsible see fit and where the state has to intervene and say must - hence schools get guidance (advice with best practice examples) and statutory legislation (they must comply).

A school that defied new guidance and offered the children age inappropriate porn soaked materials (like so many of the offers we've seen from lobby groups) would be in for a very hard time and would likely have to defend their decisions to Ofsted (who hopefully will be released from the talons of the trans extremists very shortly in the light of Cass).

@thedancingbear I still do not understand why you brought Sunak's race into the discussion about potential strengthening of women's rights through legislation.

Why would you do that?

Is told he has misrepresented someone.

Refuses to apologise, making the claim that actually he understands LK1972 well.

Clearly some people don't grow out of contradicting other people for the sake of it, then. Depressing.

I would like to see the GRA grandfathered. No more GRCs to be issued. We no longer need the act to allow for trans people to marry a person of the same sex, so it’s pointless. And also sexist when you look at the section on inheriting titles etc.

The Equality Act also needs reviewing to strengthen the definitions of male, female and homosexual, and to ensure wording around single sex spaces is strengthened.

Hmm, good point. There may need to be an additional document issued to those that may potentially be mis-sexed, to avoid embarrassment and harassment?

My daughter is continually mis-sexed, but that has never been an issue for access to service, as when they challenge, and really look and talk, it's obvious.

But it may be helpful for all those butch lesbians who apparently face 'continuous harassment' in the ladies.

So I guess my point is that yes, documents are compromised and we may have to address that separately. But as long as people's eyes and ability to demand (proper, legal) proof is not, I'm ok with GRA.

I don't feel I've misrepresented her. She has adopted the position that my suggesting that racism is a problem amongst a particular group is itself racist. It's a mechanism to shut down discussion, and I will have no truck with it. it stinks of shit.

I acknowledged upthread that my reference to race was intended as a passing comment, not a derail, and I suggested we leave it to one side, as it was peripheral to main point. But LK1972 wanted to carry on the discussion. Whilst accusing me of derailing.

People can read the posts. it's all pretty black and white.

I posted at 15.11

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

In response to that, at 15.23, LK1972 posted

^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...

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'.^

Clear as a bell, isn't it?

She has adopted the position that my suggesting that racism is a problem amongst a particular group is itself racist. It's a mechanism to shut down discussion, and I will have no truck with it. it stinks of shit.

We call that the 'Mr Menno defence' around these parts.
😆

@thedancingbear that's not what my position is:

'She has adopted the position that my suggesting that racism is a problem amongst a particular group is itself racist.'

You're very much missing an argument because you think issues are 'black and white'. Very few things in the world are.

I suggested that when people talk about 'woke nonsense' they may not necessarily be racist homophobic bigots you implied they were.

In fact, they may also not want women replaced as a legally protected class with those who 'identify as' us. The voters may be better informed then you think.

Can you see the difference?

*than you think, sorry

People can read the posts. it's all pretty black and white.

They can't read one of the ones that kicked this all off at 13:34. That one from you got deleted at the speed of sound.

I didn't report it, mind. I think it's best if grandstanding comments speculating on mumsnetters' racial origins are left to stand so everyone can see them.

So ask MN to reinstate it, would you?

So @thedancingbear may I offer my TLDR impression:

You think people who are sick of 'woke nonsense' are actually racist homophobes.

I mildly suggest that's kinda a racist, throwing these words about with no evidence, and they may well have different motivations.

You in turn accuse me of shutting down discussion with a well-known racist tactic, thus implying I'm a racist.

Wow, I'm kinda impressed

Ooh, can we do that?

Fine with me.

We probably can't, but it's worth a try, LK1972. He wants to be judged on his posts after all.

I don't think you are understanding it. When someone is issued with a GRC,they can then apply for a revised birth certificate with a new 'gender'. That will look identical to the birth certificate issued to any other woman at birth, but where on a women's birth certificate female will mean sex, on the males new birth certificate female will mean gender. The GRA has assessed a man as having gender dysphoria, recognised his new gender,then switched it to mean sex.

The GRC can stay in a cupboard for the rest of time. Few people have the right to see it, and who would know about it anyway.

To help people obtain a GRC, they can have other id changed to their new id, including a passport.

So when the receptionists asks for id, and the person gives a passport with female on it. How do they know if it's a sex female, GRC female, or planning to be female?

ID isn't compromised accidentally, it's the aim of the process. It's about giving the person with the GRC legal privacy.

ID isn't compromised accidentally, it's the aim of the process. It's about giving the person with the GRC legal privacy.

The legislation here seems to have been drafted, with the assumption that transitioned male humans were indistinguishable, post-surgery, from female humans.

To be fair, I was under the same impression in 2004, and I think the law here owes a lot to Coronation Street.

Happy with that. I was accused of of seeing racism ‘in the mirror’ and made the point that the PP had assumed I was white, and that MN was overwhelmingly white. Both of which are true. No curse words, no insults.

I think plenty of people who rail against ‘woke nonsense’ are nasty bits of work, yes.

'So when the receptionists asks for id, and the person gives a passport with female on it. How do they know if it's a sex female, GRC female, or planning to be female?'

Services may have to be given a right to refuse entry to single-sex provision if any doubt is raised, without an additional document, as a compromise @ZuttZeVootEeeVo? On top of limited mandated mixed-sex (fully private) spaces, to avoid the need for any identification to be produced?

Passing transsexuals will not be questioned, so not actually discriminatory, gender non-confirming people will get extra protection if they want to use single sex, or use mixed sex.

GRA privacy was created for passing transsexuals and is widely misused, but may be of value to them, in certain circumstances.

Don't know, hope whoever wins gives this to Kemi to sort out, I trust her grasp of the detail and nuance. Here's for hoping!