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.

I'm not going to get into the spat, because I've been skim reading and concentrating on the main point of the thread. But what I will say is that I have heard in passing from several friends, or posters on blogs/forums online, that casual anti-brown racism is very much a thing in the north. I've never lived there, so I can't judge.
Also I don't think that accusing someone of racism is itself racist. That's silly. It may or may not be true or justified, but that's a different matter.

@thedancingbear and here you're showing you don't understand legitimate grievances of a population affected by an attack on our free speech and women's rights.

People in the two issue groups are not the same, although there is definitely a crossover.

Both are enraged by the encroachment of Stonewall's agenda into public life, without any public consultation.

One of these groups may be prone to less enlightened attitudes to race, but you're implying that both are.

That's guilt by association, a common authoritarian tactic.

Women who are sick of this stuff are not racist, it's just not true!

@ZuttZeVootEeeVo
Regarding actually challenging people in practice, I agree it might difficult or scary for a lowly employee. But if we were able to change the environment, ie clarify the definitions in the act, make SS provision mandatory with light (but annoying) penalties for noncompliance and, crucially, announce the phasing out of GRCs, the employee's hand would be strengthened and potential transgressors might be less emboldened. In addition, many public places and businesses already have security guards. Perhaps they could support the employee? Just a few ideas, maybe overoptimistic.

The GRA does not ask for the recipient to pass, that has never been part of the process. I think the assumption with the GRA and later with the EqA is that there were few transsexuals and most didn't want to stand out, so wouldn't go into single sex spaces where they would be noticed.

The number of people with a GRC is still very low, but is the number covered by the PC of GR even known?

I don't know if anyone is capable of objectively knowing if they pass in a female only space, but we do know that non passing males do now want access to women only spaces and opportunities because of the GRC and EqA. And have the id and the perception of GR = changed sex on their side.

As far as I can tell, the Conservatives have traditionally relied on market forces to persuade companies to supply SSE where necessary, and labour have had their head in the sand.

So now that the Conservatives have acknowledged that these acts aren't working for women and need to be accessed, its a move in the right direct for me. I think we'll be waiting for real safeguarding catastrophe for labour to acknowledge that the acts they passed are a danger to women and girls. I think they are that oblious to the reality of implementing SSE.

He could make a start with equally by not arrogantly talking over women as he did with Truss in the BBC debate. At least they both know what a woman is.

That all sounds very sensible.

I agree @ZuttZeVootEeeVo which is why, in my opinion, the GRA/GRC has to go, to me it is regressive and sexist and is causing untold difficulties in upholding the provisions of the Equality Act and has been responsible for the self-id by the back door that we have now because of the veil of secrecy over the damn thing.

All the issues with single sex provision stem from the GRA/GRC and the EqA can't solve those issues for the reasons you have so eloquently stated.

It was presumed that where single sex spaces were designated single sex on the basis of being a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim those with GRCs would respect that and those without would never think they applied to them in the first place but that has been proven to not be the case, the bond of trust has been irrecoverably broken, women's boundaries and needs are being ridden roughshod over and in some cases with unmitigated glee by those doing it.

Time to ditch the GRA/GRC and get rid of the entitlement to trample all over women it has bestowed on those who enjoy doing so.

A more progressive, liberal and tolerant system would be to say that anyone can dress as they choose, change their name by deed poll to any name they desire, make any cosmetic or other changes to their bodies - provided they are adults - and be accepted and not discriminated against. Accept the rich tapestry of difference in people. However, their sex does not change, none of their documents which require sex as a part of the identifier can be changed either. That way there will be no issues upholding single sex spaces and services, everyone uses the ones for their sex and is confident that those in there with them are the same sex as them whatever they may look like. If there are those who wish not to use the spaces and services for their sex and require a space and service that they feel better meets their needs then they can make the case for additional spaces and services to suit their needs.

@ZuttZeVootEeeVo I was referring to the EA, not GRA. There is this passage in explanatory notes 'examples':

'A person who was born physically female decides to spend the rest of her life as a man. He starts and continues to live as a man. He decides not to seek medical advice as he successfully ‘passes’ as a man without the need for any medical intervention. He would have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment for the purposes of the Act.'

It's an interesting wording.

And I agree with you all and playing a devil's advocate to clarify my own thoughts, I guess.

The cleanest and best solution would be 'grandfathered' GRA and strengthening of EA.

But both may not be achievable, politically, and the priority is the EA, in my humble view, so I'm delighted it's high on both candidates' agenda.

Passing transsexuals are still men and must go to the male bathroom we should not care if they pass And we should not value the privacy of male over natal females

GRA Is nothing more than a legal fiction used by you people to hide the past crimes and identities invented by the patriarchy so women would not be able to question them and anyway

That's one hell of a haircut if a women can pass successfully as a man, without any surgery or hormones, in all situations.

They shouldn't have to.

There should be enough respect of women and girls that male born people should realise that female changing rooms are not the place for them.

It has been encouraged by Stonewall et Al that women deserve no respect so we need to find a way to educate these people that they really do have a detrimental impact on woman and girls when they use single sex spaces. I think some just really don't give a fuck because they are so self absorbed and all about the validation, but many generally think they are women and caught up in the Stonewall fantasies. So education is needed.

Until men who believe themselves women start to show women some respect, we are up shit creek. Even a change in the law is not going to stop the entitlement of a natural born misogynist.

And the Tories will never fund anything properly.

Until men who believe themselves women start to show women some respect, we are up shit creek. Even a change in the law is not going to stop the entitlement of a natural born misogynist.

New/amended legislation will need to come with penalties for those who have an over arching sense of entitlement and are base misogynists and those who provide the spaces will also need to be held liable/culpable for not enforcing said space or service.

I would agree that "woke nonsense" means more than gender issues, though it's wrong to say that isn't seen as part of it.

There are a heck of a lot of wc voters who have relatives, ILs, grandkids, partners, that are not white.

I sometimes get the impression that because they don't say the same kinds of things about race and sexuality as umc types, that it's interpreted as racism.

Not wanting "woke" absolutely includes stuff about things like race and sexuality, but it doesn't necessarily mean being a bigot. There are a heck of a lot of people who are not happy with the way intellectual freedom is being treated, who are uncomfortable with LGBTQ+ groups in primary schools, who do not want statues torn down, who do not think that patriotism means being a colonialist, who don't think whiteness is evil, and want to repudiate all of that.

Removing the GRA could be argued from a position of conservative political principles, as being unnecessary - typically conservatives prefer to legislate as little as possible.

I'm just not sure it would be a good use of political energy at the moment. Tightening up the Eqalitiies act seems like it's a lot more plausible and maybe it's not unnatural that somewhat complicated legislation would need some tidying at this point in its life.

Safeguarding isn't about education alone. We need to put actual barriers in place because the people who want to disregard sex segregated places are always going to believe their wants are more important that women and girls rights.

The most obvious, least confrontational way to keep males out of women and girls spaces is to ask for proof that they are female. When the GRA give males female id (and gives them the id at the start of the process not after they complete it and lots of people never complete it) what can anyone do? The process itself, together with the drive to normalise men being she/her makes it impossible.

At the very least the government need to separate gender from sex, stop giving males female id, and explicitly say who is protected with the PC of GR means to the PC of sex and SSE.