Fears Rishi Sunak will renege on promise to clarify definition of biological sex

[IwantToRetire]

Rishi Sunak is facing calls to make a public “cast iron guarantee” to follow through on a pledge to rewrite equality law to protect women, amid Tory MPs’ fears that he will renege on his promise.

Conservative backbenchers are planning to challenge Maria Caulfield, the minister for women, to give an undertaking in the Commons that Mr Sunak will deliver on his promised legal changes to ensure that “mothers and women are not erased from public life”.

Sources close to the Prime Minister insist he remains committed to the pledge, with one saying that the Government is carefully considering advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the matter and another saying, “It’s certainly not being delayed or dropped”.

But senior Tories fear that the party will lose its opportunity to change the law if Mr Sunak fails to act swiftly ahead of an election next year.

One backbencher said: “There is a debate within government about whether this is a hill to die on and it’s unclear how much of a row the Government wants, doing this in the run-up to an election. But if they can’t say what a woman is by the time we go into an election we’re in trouble.”

More ...

A Telegraph article reprinted by Yahoo Fears Rishi Sunak will renege on promise to clarify definition of biological sex (yahoo.com)

I wonder at the motive of the DT for pursuing this (not complaining just wondering)

Also confused:
Maria Caulfied is not the Minister for Women see https://www.gov.uk/government/people/maria-caulfield
Kemi Badenoch is the Minister for Women https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-for-women-and-equalities--3

Wonder why the article refers to MC as being the one who should ask Sunak in the House of Commons to clarify. Is there some signifigance in this that I dont understand?

I think this is the Telegraph giving Sunak a poke. I was recently given access to the Telegraph online and it's been interesting to see how the leader writers attempt to shape Tory policy.

This makes more sense. They need a push in the right direction.

100% a vote decider for me. At the moment we can't completely rely on either party doing what's necessary, but the balance of odds is heavily in Tory favour a at the moment. But we do need them to make a much stronger pledge on this, and be held accountable for it.

The Telegraph coverage has been great though I struggle to get archive articles sometimes.

Here is something from the Express which is more accessible.

Campaigners reveal in new poll majority of Britons want trans ban in female spaces | UK | News | Express.co.uk

"Ahead of a parliamentary debate on the Equality Act, campaigners say protections against sex discrimination and provisions for single-sex spaces must relate to biological gender, not the sex people identify as."

I can't wait for the debate next Mon, I'm not going to get any work done!

The full poll results are here and there is a short series of blogs on why the EA needs clarity and I've signed up for the webinar on Thurs which is about the debate.

You can still write to your MP about it too.

Right now: write to your MP about the debate - Sex Matters (sex-matters.org)

TBH I am surprised that the support for trans women in female spaces is as high as it is.

I’m convinced it’s the weasel wording of the poll questions. Lots of people don’t really grasp the full implications of what they’re saying yes to.

Do they think it's a woman identify as a man or general sport?

actual logic was ridiculous and made us sound like a washing powder 🙂. Organs washing powder

I just want them to do it, put it before Parliament, I can make my mind up on who is worth voting for after their vote.

I’d definitely agree that the wording is key and that previous surveys have used confusing wording but the Express says the survey was done for Sex Matters and I think Maya would make sure that there was no room for ambiguity.

Why would I vote for a party that claims it cannot deny what I am?

To use an unrelated example let's say that I was Black Caribbean and the Lib Dems said in an interview that it was very difficult to define what a Black Caribbean person was, that in fact it's more of a feeling, an identification, and anyone who says they are Black Caribbean is Black Carribbean. I'd be quite ticked off by that. I certainly wouldn't vote for the Lib Dems that's for sure.

Yes, 100%.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/02/counter-disinformation-unit-government-covid-lockdown/
I wonder if Labour will extend this to biological wash when they form a government?

Grim

The Conservatives are the most successful party in UK political history. Voting for them is actually completely normal for much of the country.

I have never given them my vote, but I am amused by those who think doing so is deviant, freakish behaviour rather than something actually quite ordinary.

On Maria Caulfield's profile it says "Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Women)". This is a post under the Minister for Women and Equalities, Kemi Badenoch.

Exactly she isn't the Minister for Women! Strange error for the Telegraph to make, but also doesn't explain why she is thought to be the one to ask the question.

Or in terms of party politics is it not the done thing for a Minister to question their PM?

The title in brackets specifies what kind of Parliamentary Under Secretary of State she is. There are others with similar titles, such as the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Primary Care and Public Health).

it's the government website that uses the title "Minister for Women", which I'm sure is why the MP's are using it. I assume that giving people the title "Minister for" means they can ask questions of the PM with the same authority as the Minister who heads the whole department.

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (or just Parliamentary Secretary, particularly in departments not led by a Secretary of State) is the lowest of three tiers of government minister in the UK government, immediately junior to a Minister of State, which is itself junior to a Secretary of State.

This is the pecking order. I suspect the Under Secretary is pushed forward to say things that might be contraversial so that the Minister can avoid contraversy.

I cant find any record of Sunak saying he would support a change to the definition of sex. The only reference I can find is this.

LABOUR said today it welcomes government plans to review the Equality Act, potentially defining sex explicitly as “biological sex.”

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak indicated on Tuesday he would back such a review, after the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) wrote to Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch suggesting such a clarification could have more advantages than disadvantages. The letter was welcomed by organisations for sex-based rights but criticised by trans rights campaigns.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/labour-welcomes-government-review-equality-act-over-defining-sex-biological

For some reason I cant see a date on the article but I think the EHRC letter was early April.

Which brings me back to my question in my OP, why is the Telegraph raising this now? Do they think the Tories aren't going to see this through as in terms of them winning an election, it is not an issue the majority of voters care about.

Apart from the get rid of the Tories at all cost voters, many others wont vote Tory because Brexit is now seen as a failure, and that as a whole the Tory MPs seem seedy and feathering their own nests.

That would make sense - send in the lowest-ranking government minister to take the heat.

He's going to lose the next election whatever he does. 14 years of Tories? Time for a change, many will think. I am worried by Starmer's ideological commitment to TWAW and also his alignment with teachers' unions which want to end the phonic check, which would be a disaster for children learning to read. But Tories on the NHS are looking dubious. Hunt wants a US style 'system' and the NHS is all that is left of the 'family silver' to sell off.

I can't access the NHS anyway due to Annexe B and they are quite useless, I say this as someone chronically ill, I don't care if it's sold off, it's a cult that has employees chant TWAW, it's really unhealthy.

I don't even know that they really do, tbh. It's more likely just an opportunity to scold women.

Just came across this when researching how to protest vote- if things don't look good next May. Thought worth sharing on here:
https://www.votenone.org.uk/protest_votes_count.html

Another yes, with a heavy heart though.

I would vote for the tories over this issue. Even tho it goes against every sinew and fibre in my body. I just can’t vote Labour or for anyone else who isn’t crystal clear what a woman is and isn’t prepared to put it into law. Properly.

He won't do it. He's running out of time to do anything. Besides, it's a great campaign issue which some will fall for.

They could change the legislation within the next six months. Then it could come into effect before the next election.

But they won't do it.