Janice Turner calls on Keir Starmer to get off the fence re the EA

[Clymene]

I so love her writing. I'm not optimistic that he will turn his back on the shrieks of the TRAs but I'll be watching

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5fc9f474-d576-11ed-9f4d-c5bd4b89feab?shareToken=1919c0cc4b466ca2baee0bb02a66eba2

I’m fine if they do it beforehand but no I don’t think it’s an easy question or issue

It’s the kind of small change in policy that has major implications and could absolutely be decided by the electorate.

If they run on biological sex and Labour run on gender ideology surely even the most ardent Labour supporter can see the difference?

Present it simply and get people to vote on it.

It’s risky though but at least people need to take ownership of outcome.

Is it because they don't woant to whip their own MPs? They have a good few such as Caroline Nokes, Penny Mordaunt, Gillian Keegan and Alicia Kearns who wouldn't vote for a clearer definition of sex.

I thought it would be a statutory instrument but not sure which procedure:

www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/affirmative-procedure/?id=32625

"Affirmative procedure is a type of parliamentary procedure that applies to statutory instruments (SIs). Its name describes the form of scrutiny that the SI receives from Parliament.
An SI laid under the affirmative procedure must be actively approved by both Houses of Parliament. Certain SIs on financial matters are only considered by the Commons."

www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/negative-procedure/

"Negative procedure is a type of parliamentary procedure that applies to statutory instruments (SIs). Its name describes the form of scrutiny that the SI receives from Parliament.
An SI laid under the negative procedure becomes law on the day the Minister signs it and automatically remains law unless a motion – or ‘prayer’ – to reject it is agreed by either House within 40 sitting days. Certain SIs on financial matters are only considered by the Commons."

There's more on all the routes here:

www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/statutory-instruments-sis/

So, this is how it might end up at the GE.

Tories propose the sex > gender recommendations of EHRC, and leaving ECHR over migration.

Labour don't, but promise funding of NHS, end of life care, childcare, and bumping up rape convictions etc.

What a choice!

Is it because they don't woant to whip their own MPs? They have a good few such as Caroline Nokes, Penny Mordaunt, Gillian Keegan and Alicia Kearns who wouldn't vote for a clearer definition of sex.
What I'm trying to say is that, if my understanding is correct, then it doesn't even need to be debated in parliament because it's a clarification, supported by EHRC. I'm happy to be corrected if that's wrong. In fact I think ResisterRex's post just now adds some clarity and I should probably have read it properly before posting this, sorry Resister!

But even if that's not correct and if it needs to go through parliament, then the government has such a big majority that they should be able to get it through quite easily, even if there are dissenters / rebels within their own party. And I don't see why they should be squeamish about whipping their MPs - it happens all the time

They could do this and still make political capital from it if they so wish - I'm sure lots of Labour MPs would be more than happy to oblige.

Ok thanks ResisterRex, I've read it now. So whether or not it has to go before parliament first depends on whether it's classed as as an affirmative or a negative procedure? Do you know who gets to rule on which it is?

That's the bit I can't work out. Which is why they don't pay me the big bucks!

(I assume it's buried somewhere in the EQA though)

This most be one of the most legally delicate issues we’ve known

But also the biggest

Sex or gender - divide society by one, which is it

Zero sum game.

Never been a bigger one, Brexit pales in comparison.

Sex >>>>>> gender.

The law all day long, but knock yourself out arguing over whether you ID in a dress.

The grown ups need to get back in the room, and re inforce the rules.

A totally manufactured one. Didn't used to be a major conundrum for most people.

It is. But it’s also not just ours. Assaults in universities, in NZ, turd, huge fake breasts in Canada, Barbie K

I agree pales with pp Brexit in comparison, it’s a fight across western democracies. We’re hanging on here, just, but many have just said ok and finished it off with welcome letters from politicians and no violence here and the like.

Can we stand out? Seems a big ask but hopefully so

The UK does stand out. We are in the very privileged position of having the first trans MP.

Here's Jamie discussing Cyber Sercurity in the Commons. Jamie knows a lot about the internet and I'm loving the new hairdo. We are also very fortunate to have Jamie on the Women's and Equality Com.

https://m.facebook.com/jamiewallisbridgend

It looks like Starmer is getting pressure from Scottish Labour - especially on the "substance of the issue" ie go with gender, not sex:

Support gender switches at 16, Labour urged by Scottish leader

digitaleditions.telegraph.co.uk/data/1301/reader/reader.html?social#!preferred/0/package/1301/pub/1301/page/26/article/NaN

"SIR KEIR STARMER should pass a law to allow 16-year-olds to change their gender if he wins the next election, the Scottish Labour leader has suggested.
Anas Sarwar said his party must “learn the lesson from Scotland” and pursue gender reforms “over a longer period of time” while reassuring women and protecting single-sex spaces based on biological sex.

But he said while he and Sir Keir agree on “substance of the issue” on transgender rights, he has a “different view” on the age teenagers should be allowed to change their gender in law."

Re trans person as MP it’s a mistake to focus on an individual over wider situation.

Trans people exist, do jobs, even become MPs, unless pp is suggesting that they can’t.

Better to focus on the issue rather than a person. It’s not returned as often TRAs focus on an individual such as KJK or JKR with targeted hate and abuse. But it’s not necessary. This is a societal situation.

Thanks ResisterRex, that's really helpful. Let's just hope there's a decision soon.

I'll be watching Starmer's position on this quite closely as well, not the least because I've just read this article in The Critic gleefully advocating for Sunak to lose the next election to re-set the rudderless Tories and leave Labour with a whole pile of messes to have to sort out:

thecritic.co.uk/the-tories-should-aim-to-lose-in-2024/

Just in case anyone thought women's rights were front of mind for either set of party members!

Scottish Labour are simply trying to cover their own backs here; after all they voted through the GRR as propsed by the SNP. They don't want for the discussion to further open up and derail from their chances of picking up a few seats in Glasgow

I disagree Marsha. I am deeply concerned about the Tory party's decision to appoint a TRA, ex pimp, trans MP to Women and Equalities. This is a political issue which is why the focus is regularly on political parties, MPs and what they say and do.

JW is the most powerful trans TRA in the UK.

It's a scandal JW is anywhere near any position of power, let alone public office.
I wouldn't let him shine my shoes.

Sarwar's hottest of hot takes.

Now I know how politicians get where they get. The sheer bare faced cheek and chutzpah of this man.

Pleading for subtlety and sensitivity. After he whipped Labour MSPs to vote for the most toxic Self ID law, and supported Sturgeon in no exemptions even for sex offenders IDing after arrest.

He can really go to Hell.

Just posted on another thread but probably of interest here as well.

A thread by Michael Foran on "for all purposes" and how the government could act. Main link:

twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1645462887979274240?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

A part of the thread:

"S9(3) limits the application of the “for all purposes” clause by reference to the provisions in the GRA or in any other Act which might limit the applicability of a GRC.

Within the Gender Recognition Act itself this means that having a GRC does not affect one’s status as the father or mother of a child, it doesn’t affect peerages or their inheritance, it has complicated effects on marriages and civil partnerships and it doesn’t affect sport

So it’s clear that a GRC does not change sex for those above purposes. But what about other statutes? There is some ambiguity over whether s9(3) requires explicit invocation in other statutes or if it is taken to apply where the statute sets out it’s own definition of sex.

If the latter then the ‘for all purposes’ clause won’t apply to the Equality Act bc the Act has its own definition of sex, tied to whether you are male or female. But this isn’t entirely clear and we haven’t had much caselaw testing this. What is we’ve had has been conflicting.

So if it’s not clear whether s9(3) is applicable for the Equality Act, then s23 of the GRA may be relevant

This permits the Secretary of State to issue regulations clarifying whether GRCs affect the operation or interpretation of the Equality Act. That would not require primary legislation and it wouldn’t require the insertion of a new definition of sex into the EA.

It’s not clear what the government will do in response to the EHRC letter if anything but it could enact primary legislation to insert a definition of sex into the EA or it could issue regulations making it clear that a GRC does not change sex for the purposes of the EA.

Either way it’s wrong to say that the Gender Recognition Act intended for GRCs to change sex for all purposes or to imply that clarifying this ambiguity is contrary to the purpose of the GRA. It was clearly envisaged that issues might arise such as this. That’s why s23 exists."