Debate relating to the definition of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 will be in Westminster Hall on 12 June 2023 4:30pm

[IwantToRetire]

Just posting this as on a thread elsewhere I made some disparaging remarks that the debate will be shuffled off to some small committee room.

But they must think that more than a few MPs are wanting to take part as I have just seen it will be in Westminster Hall.

Will be interesting to see which MPs are willing to state views about the reality of biological sex in public!

Event will be broadcast live.

Westminster Hall debate12 June 2023 at 4:30pm
e-petitions 623243 and 627984, relating to the
definition of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010
Member
Tonia Antoniazzi Labour()
https://whatson.parliament.uk/event/cal42480

() Not sure what this means - is she the Chair?

[BreadInCaptivity]

Definitely a date for the diary!

[IwantToRetire]

Tonia Antoniazzi, the Labour MP for Gower. She was speaking in the House of Commons in a debate about crime and ‘safe streets for all’.

‘To find effective solutions we must fully understand the problem, and accurate data is key in tackling the causes of crime, protecting the public, providing justice to victims, and rehabilitating offenders. Data must be accurately sex-disaggregated in order to fully understand the impact of all crimes on women and girls. In order to combat sexism, we need to count sex, and in order to combat discrimination against other groups, there is a need to record separate and additional data. The offending patterns of men and of women show the highest differential of all, so we need to monitor the sex of victims and of perpetrators of all crimes.

For example, the proportion of women among those prosecuted in 2019 was 2 per cent for sexual offences, 8 per cent for robbery, and 7 per cent for possession of a weapon. ‘We all want to live in a society that is respectful and tolerant and strives for equality. Gender reassignment is rightly a protected characteristic and we must respect the privacy of transgender people, but in order to protect everyone when it comes to official records of offences, particularly against women and girls, we need accurate records of the biological sex of the victims and the perpetrators of crime, in addition to data on the gender identity of victims and perpetrators.

Why then are police forces recording the self-identified gender of victims of suspected offenders and not their biological sex? ‘I understand that at least 16 regional police forces now record suspects’ sex on the basis of gender identity, following the advice of the National Police Chiefs’ Council. Data based only on self-identified gender does not give accurate data on which to build a violence against women and girls strategy, nor to effectively plan services that support all victims and target all perpetrators whatever their sex or however they identify. ‘If police records are not robust and correctly disaggregated by sex, we end up with unreliable and potentially misleading data in reporting. For example, the BBC asked 45 regional police forces in the UK for data on reported cases of female perpetrators’ child sex abuse from 2015 to 2019. The data received indicated that there was an increase of 84 per cent. Data corruption means that we cannot tell whether this large increase is due to an increase in female offenders or those identifying as women, and that detail matters.

‘Women make up 3 per cent of the arrests for all sexual offences. The number of women convicted for these crimes is so low that the mis-recording of the sex of the perpetrator skews the data very quickly. Where offence categories are very rarely committed by women, the addition of just one or two people can have a significant impact on data. For example, a biological man convicted of attempted murder and other offences at Birmingham Crown court in 2017 was recorded as female, thus falsely elevating the number of females convicted of attempted murder that year in England and Wales by around 20 per cent.

We need to know what action the Government will take to ensure correct police record keeping and prevent the potential corruption of data on crimes and their impact on women and girls.’

Found this quote in the Spectator https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/mps-are-finally-engaging-with-the-gender-identity-debate/

Which adds "Her speech, which deserves to be read in full, is here:"

[Slothtoes]

Great news and thank you for flagging the date up!

[nilsmousehammer]

Thank you!

There will be those who will yet again get up with the violins and reel off the mantras that at this point we could all chant along with them - but there should also now be clear voices stating the actual critical thinking, issues and responsibilities, and 'awww bless' is not an acceptable solution. 'It's complicated' is the phrase of cowards who cannot manage the thinking involved or face up to the realities.

And Labour need to get their behinds off the fence and be clear: are they going to stand for male supremacism or not. Because trying to sneak it in under multiple fig leaves cannot wash with an election on the way.

[Tallisker]

How do we get to go? Can we?

[Slothtoes]

We can attend Westminster Hall debates
https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/visiting-and-tours/watch-committees-and-debates/debates/

[Tallisker]

Thanks Sloth. Must remember to take my Swiss Army knife out of my handbag when I attend this time

[IwantToRetire]

Someone has posted ideas for a letter you could send to your MP https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4803228-equality-act-debate-letters-to-our-mps

[IwantToRetire]

The petition against changing the Equality Act has now closed with 138,886 signatories.

The petition to change the Equality Act to make sex means biological sex closed with 109,463.

[nilsmousehammer]

Unfortunately the political lobby who mobilised to raise the figures haven't realised, this is not a popularity contest where the higher number wins.

It was about people getting women's needs and issues heard in a parliamentary debate. Which will now happen. Job done.

[BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn]

I wouldn't read too much to the location - they are usually in Westminster Hall.

I don't know about public access, but it will be streamed on Parliament.tv and you'll be able to catch up afterwards here petition.parliament.uk/#petitions-with-debated-outcome

[IwantToRetire]

they are usually in Westminster Hall

Many are not. Many are held in tiny committee rooms.

Hopefully in booking Westminster Hall enough MPs have expressed an interest in attending.

Lets just hope the majority aren't those who have been Stonewalled.

I wonder how many potentially GC MPs wont attend as they dont wont to be seen to be in support.

[jeaux90]

Just bumping this up as I came looking for the date of the debate.

[IwantToRetire]

Thanks for the bump was thinking the same!

[IwantToRetire]

Have just seen this on the page announcing the debate:

The Library will produce a briefing in advance this debate, please check for updates on this page.

Well that will be interesting.

And presumably as the debate is on 2 directly opposing petitions it will have to be "balanced".

I wonder if ordinary citizens (voters) are allowed to critique a House of Commons Library briefing paper?!

[nilsmousehammer]

I'll open the book now on how much of the debate will be taken up by prolonged disclaimers and virtue signalling as opposed to actually addressing issues.

[BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn]

Put me down for 40% virtue signalling and disclaimers; 10% addressing the issue (remainder meaningless waffle, obfuscation, and self-contradictory nonsense).

[JanesLittleGirl]

I'll show my arse in Lewis's window if they conclude that a woman is an adult female human and a man is an adult male human.

[IwantToRetire]

Do you think there will be a "die in"() protest to signal that the debate is "literal violence"?

() for the benefit on mumsnet moderators who haven't heard this expression it is a well known protest tactic ie not a threat.

[IwantToRetire]

At last!! House of Commons Library have published their "Briefing Paper" on the debate - and I dont have time to read it.

Two petitions will be considered in a Westminster Hall debate on 12 June 2023 at 4:30pm. Both relate to the definition of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010. The debate is sponsored by Tonia Antoniazzi MP.
The first petition, 623243, calls for the Government to “Update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic “sex” is biological sex”. The petition closed on 20 April 2023, with 109,463 signatures.
The second petition, 627984, calls for the opposite, and for the Government to “Commit to not amending the Equality Act’s definition of sex”. The petition closed on 15 May 2023, with 138,886 signatures.
Both these petitions concern trans and sex-based discrimination protections. This is an area of debate that is divisive and highly charged, relating to individuals’ strongly held identities and the rights that attach to them. Many similar issues were raised during recent debates about the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill and the Scottish Secretary’s “veto” of it under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998. 
This debate pack provides an impartial summary of some of the key points in the debate, and, in particular, the legal uncertainty that gives rise to it.

^^

[IwantToRetire]

Typical when you are in a hurry. Somehow forum software has mangled my message.

But to be clear the briefing is a pdf file.

Download from here https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2023-0120/CDP-2023-0120.pdf

[Clymene]

Keep Prisons Single Sex has a really interesting take on this - Kate Coleman argues that it is dangerous to suggest the word sex has multiple meanings: <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/2023.06.06-095130/conservativehome.com/2023/06/05/kate-coleman-clarifying-the-importance-of-biological-sex-must-be-an-urgent-government-priority" rel="nofollow noindex" target="_blank">https://archive.ph/2023.06.06-095130/conservativehome.com/2023/06/05/kate-coleman-clarifying-the-importance-of-biological-sex-must-be-an-urgent-government-priority/

Legal sex” has been misconceptualised, and that qualifying “sex” in legislation in any way or enshrining in law the misconception that sex can be changed has undesirable consequences and carries significant risk throughout the legislation and to sex-based rights under international law.

[IwantToRetire]

Okay, so reading the "Briefing" it isn't saying anything new. Rather summarising for those who haven't been following the arguements.

So as I said on the thread about KPSS arguing that there is no need to ammend the EA because itis clear that the original intention was always about biological sex, the problem is is that the GRA has created a pretence that that wasn't the intention.

Further undermined by the way the exemptions are written, because the implications is that there has to be a "special" reason why a service or provision should be single sex.

So whilst the GRA is still a legal document, it is essential to make the fact that sex in the EA was always and still is about biological sex.

But whether reworded or not the problem is the way the exemptions are written, and it may well be that this is what should be re-written so that the exemptions aren't about the limit on same sex provision, but the occassions on which trans women are entitled to be part of women's services.

That's why the Lady Haldane ruling didn't change anything as the law is currently written, becaue "for all purposes" a trans woman is a woman, apart from the areas covered by the exemptions.

If only we could repeal the GRA.

[nilsmousehammer]

It's been clear for a while that this is the only possible end to this mess.

[IwantToRetire]

It's been clear for a while that this is the only possible end to this mess.

Which means we aren't going to get out of this mess, because nobody is going to repeal the GRA.

And now with the Tories being sabotaged by disgruntled MPs resigning etc., even less likelihood of even a start on rewording the EA.

Feeling very pessamistic.