EA petition EHRC are in favour of reviewing the definition of sex

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Sex Matters update

The petition worked. The full letter from the EHRC is worth reading.

Sturgeon went from legal challenges to resigning to her husband being arrested.

Funny people who lie about biology are arrested for being scammers, fancy that.

Jo Maugham says that making the equality act refer to biological females is harming one of the most vulnerable populations in the uk, and people in his comments seem to believe that clarifying that it will lead to attacks and violence against trans people.

Jolyon, Mermaids, Stonewall etc, should be ashamed. They manipulate people they know are hard of thinking and will just swallow any old bullshit they're told.

They deliberately lie to cause fear and panic in the group of people they claim to care so much about.

I must admit my first reaction was to want this to go through as soon as possible. But if it becomes an election issue then I will welcome that too because that would force Labour to make it clear exactly where they stood. And if Maugham's action helps to make it an election issue then all the better - I doubt whether Starmer will thank him.

From Kemi:

twitter.com/kemibadenoch/status/1643551638760693761?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

"Couldn’t have said it better @jennirsl"

With a screen shot of this text:

"The reality of sexual differences is that women don’t have men’s physical dominance and are permanently vulnerable to male violence. Many women are astounded by men’s insouciance about the removal of women’s single-sex spaces. I’ve realised why. Good men don’t know why they matter, and predatory men are eager to erode them. Decent men don’t realise how constantly wary women have to be of the small percentage of men who would assault them if they could. They have no idea how vigiliantly women have to move through the world, alert to flashers, stalkers, gropers, men who track behind them as they run, block their path on winter evenings, drug their drinks, stick hands up their skirts in crowded concerts. It is only in single-sex spaces that women are free from the exhausting necessity of being on guard."

From this article:

Starmer is taking 99.9% of women for fools

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a6c276b0-d31b-11ed-b5c3-54651fc826e9?shareToken=14719b02e341ec6238425d6445afe572

Some more toys thrown:

https://twitter.com/nancymmk/status/1643550526469033985?s=46&t=WHoOZ3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

So how is restricting the protected characteristic to biological sex rolling back trans rights? Trans people are protected under “gender reassignment” surely? Unless of course the fragrant Nancy knows many many of these “ trans folk” have no intention of putting in the effort of getting a GRC? The only people who will lose are those who jumped on a bandwagon, followed a trend, or used this gener ideology for nefarious purposes. Those with gender dysphoria will be protected. Win win.

Yes, and that's without even getting into how fertility, pregnancy, periods, birth and breastfeeding all impact on women - and only women. Many of the issues that affect women stem directly from our biological sexed reality.

Kemi has certainly ruffled some feathers. I wonder if the Statutory Instrument is quick? Because the last I read, there was "no time" for anything to change. Which is it?

https://twitter.com/moirarobin/status/1643458119563984896?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Slothtoes · Today 10:07
I’m so grateful to Sex Matters- and to scrolling leaves**

What a kind thing to say, and thank you, Sloth, but it was a huge concerted effort by so many here; and helped to a great degree by Scottish affairs and Scotland’s rage as shown red on the petition map, by Graham Lineham, PP, and JKR on IWD; and I was only ever originally just following up a bump another poster did to remind everyone.

There is an important lesson to keep in mind: that petitions really sink easily, and NB soon do not show up on active when they are active unless they are a few days new.

So if a petition is important, don’t let up, keep making new threads, and keep letting posters on other threads know of it wherever it is relevant to the thread.

I'm reading the PDF and trying to digest it.
I don't understand this point and I think it illustrates a fundamental problem caused by both the GRA and the EA;

''Direct sex discrimination. Section 13(1) outlaws direct discrimination against someone because of a protected characteristic such as sex.
For instance, a woman may be asked to provide a guarantor for a loan in circumstances where a man would not be asked to do so. Currently, a trans woman in possession of a GRC could bring a claim of direct discrimination if she had been treated less favourably because she was a woman. A trans man in possession of a GRC could not.''

The trans man with a GRC makes the unlawful behaviour impossible to challenge if you are a woman. The company can say that they are treating the trans man with a GRC as a man.
The GRA has created a situation where no other women can challenge them for this discrimination as they will be able to use the trans man as evidence their decision is not based on sex.

I think its possible to argue that if 'sex' is not clarified as 'biological sex' the GRA is unlawful, as it seems to erase all legal protection for lesbians and gay men.

So something that was “not an issue” has finally been recognised as a Massive issue for half the population. Well done everyone who has been raising this over the last few years. Incidentally I hear that although statistics have not been collated yet, in Spain, departmental offices have been overwhelmed with applications from male self identifiers to change their gender. Grim.

Great article by Jenny Russell ResisterRex

Front page BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65181018

This is a webinar from Sex Matters 30 March for anyone who hasn’t seen it. In the introduction Helen Joyce explains it is intentionally detailed and technical.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65181018

FFS- BBC’s report on thisfrom Lauren Moss and Josh Parry, ‘LGBT & identity correspondent and producer’- (is that one person or two, who knows?)- is so biased that they have used the same Stonewall quote twice in the same article. (No, they didn’t do that with with Sex Matters quote…)
Ironically the quote is: ‘LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall said it risks adding to a "manufactured culture war".’
Which is exactly what the BBC is doing right now…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint/#/Complaint

Yes you've done fantastic work in pushing this petition. Thank you so much.

I noticed that Sloth. But it lacks conviction and definitely lacks evidence!

As a aide note, where is the BBC's correspondent for women? 👀

That’s a really great article by Jenni Russell and I think she’s expressed the situation almost perfectly. As a small gripe I think that having been watching this debate for years the good man/predatory man split she identifies is too generous to men as a class. Especially to men in politics.

There are too many men who want women to stop moaning and be kind even when we have clearly and repeatedly outlined to them the reality of the threats faced- they know perfectly well that women don’t want to be subjected to those risks and threats.

But these men are fine with women running daily risks simply because they don’t want to see middle aged women not behaving like accommodating Mummies to everyone. We don’t have much sexual purpose to them at this age, so we may as well make ourselves useful to others.

Those men aren’t ‘predatory’ as in having plans of attacking women and girls in the ladies’ toilet necessarily, they are just bog standard found everywhere everyday misogynists. Budge up, be kind, TWAW, most oppressed people ever types. Not good men for sure.

There are some prominent good ones- Malcolm Clark, Glinner, who stick their necks out for women all the time (thank you) but the rest of this group of good men must have been literally hiding under a rock for the past ten years if they haven’t come across this before.

Hopefully they will all snap into action now they have heard women’s plight and get involved to support us? Perhaps donations and social media follows to Sex Matters will rocket as these good men come out? Jenni Russell can’t mean any current politicians are good men because they are all well aware of these issues and how women feel about them and have been for years.

Still, men do need to be involved to make legislative change so she’s probably just being tactical by being overly nice about it.

Indeed, his record of losses is quite something.

Labour belatedly notices rights hoarding 🦕. Or something:

Labour welcomes UK Equality Act review

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1672ef7e-d3a0-11ed-b5c3-54651fc826e9?shareToken=32a10e6fa83657c5e70f4ad1b2c2233b

"Labour has welcomed a review of whether the Equality Act should be changed to introduce explicit legal protections for biological women in same-sex spaces.

In a further sign of Sir Keir Starmer’s determination to appeal to women’s rights campaigners within his party, a Labour spokesman said: “Clarification is a good thing. We will look closely at what’s brought forward.”"

@ResisterRex

umm that's a more positive energy than I'd have expected -I do hope things are becoming more positive

Ok but he's not committing to support a change, just to 'look closely' at the review. Fair enough, Sir Keir, and I will be looking equally closely at your eventual response, because sooner or later, you will have to do so.

I would prefer gender to mean male/female and man/woman and ‘identifying gender’ to mean what you feel like.

In other languages it is indeed 'gender' that refers to being male or female.

Sex is intercourse.