Post Westminster Hall Debate - what are the next steps to ensure the sex based rights of biological women

[IwantToRetire]

The other thread is now full https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4800027-debate-relating-to-the-definition-of-sex-in-the-equality-act-2010-will-be-in-westminster-hall-on-12-june-2023-430pm

And what it will achieve we will have to wait and see.

But is clarifying the EA the most important campaign to ensure women's sex based rights.

Or ...

Repeal the GRA.

Repeal the GRA, no males should ever be given legal classification women.

expand the bandwidth of being male, males can wear dresses, have long hair, carry a handbag, they cannot change sex. Just like I cannot change sex.

Just catching up. As an ex biology teacher can I just say we need more MPs who have got a scientific background - or even the knowledge of biology taught at GCSE in combined sciences.

Aha, that answers part of my Q about why I could not comment! OK I watched to end, (on You tube...) Do I gather that today's debate was just the start of the matter? And that either there will be further debates, (that the public can have access to,) or do they go straight to private chamber, further meetings when they will finally have a vote and come up with a decision either way? Or is this just a preliminary to say, 'Yes we need to have the discussion in the house and review the whole thing?' Confused...

Ben Bradshaw declaring that today was all about "rolling back trans rights" and Luke Pollard patting himself on the back for being "an ally"

These men are absolute idiots and would be laughable if they weren't so dangerous.

Statuary instrument:

twitter.com/mforstater/status/1668162788710129664?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

And then post legislative scrutiny of the GRA. I think it should be repealed but would not want a Labour or Lab-Lib government replacing it with anything even worse.

males were given GRCs to allow them to marry, or claim a pension. Not to change sex in reality. Now the system is being abused the whole thing has collapsed. I didn’t grant them a GRC it’s not my problem to sort out

sorry to be blunt!

At the end of the debate there should be a statement from the Government. They can make this clarifying amendment with a statutory instrument. It doesn't need a Bill.

There should, and there wasn't. Just a lot of waffle about the complexities, and meeting different needs. Lots to be looked at. Advice sought, blah, blah, blah.

Short of an Isla Bryson moment not sure this is going to be high on the Tory agenda.

Although it was good to hear so many of them had understood the issue of women's rights.

Unlike Labour who will probably be the next Government.

And if you think of the comments from Labour MPs today what hope is there.

Unless of course Jess Philips because leader of the party, and next PM!

At least she understand about single sex services.

If the GRA really does remove the sex based rights of lesbians (as the EHRC claims) then its homophobic, and I can't see how its lawful.

Missed previous thread but was reading the tribunal tweets thread.

I had thought Jess Philips was rather on the fence so delighted to hear her speaking up for single sex spaces!

Repeal the GRA.

The person who said "there are non-binary women and non-binary men" needs to be held aloft as a shining example of intolerance and transphobia (I did laugh when I read that on TT)

And reading TT, I was scratching my head at who the "JP" could possibly be, saying all the terfy* stuff - Yes I know Jess Philips is on the list, but who's THIS?!

*meant tongue-in- cheek

I have to say, I was really quite impressed by Tim Loughton - My parents used to go to council meetings and rag me along when I was a kid.
Was never keen on him back then, but it was really warming to see he'd not only done his research for this and was present, but was proudly standing up and speaking on behalf of sex based rights.

Trying to figure out when statutory instruments happen. I'd have thought earlier in the day?

Anyway, I was looking at the page which seems to be a jumble, and I happened on this one:

statutoryinstruments.parliament.uk/instrument/3W5CEKl1/

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/602/made

"2023 No. 602
EDUCATION, NORTHERN IRELAND
The Relationships and Sexuality Education (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
...

(2) After Article 5(1) insert—
“(1A)
The curriculum for every grant-aided school shall, in relation to key stages 3 and 4, include age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate education on sexual and reproductive health and rights, covering prevention of early pregnancy and access to abortion.”.
(3) After Article 10 insert—
“Relationships and Sexuality Education
10A.—(1) The Department must, by 1st January 2024, issue guidance on the content and delivery of the education required to be provided by virtue of Article 5(1A).
(2) The guidance must be issued with a view to ensuring that—
(a)
pupils receive education on sexual and reproductive health and rights, covering prevention of early pregnancy and access to abortion; and
(b)
the education received by pupils is age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate.
(3) In exercising their functions as respects the school, the Board of Governors and principal of every grant-aided school must have regard to guidance issued under paragraph (1).
(4) The Department may at any time revise its guidance under paragraph (1).
(5) The Department must by regulations make provision about the circumstances in which, at the request of a parent, a pupil may be excused from receiving the education required to be provided by virtue of Article 5(1A), or specified elements of that education.
(6) Before making regulations under paragraph (5), the Department must consult such persons as the Department considers appropriate.”."

Sorry for the detour but I thought others here might like to know.

The wiki quote has been moved to carer - can't be denied as being not a fact there! Reworded sure but not removed.

Thanks to the pp pointing this out on the previous thread. Kirsty Blackman's wiki page now says:

In a parliamentary debate in 2023 she came out as trans, stating, "I have no idea what my chromosomes are. I have an assumption that they are probably XY".

In all seriousness thank you for doing these threads. I haven't the energy (or in some cases the knowledge) to follow these properly and I do appreciate your doing this.

Also the comments are bloody funny!

The TRAs have lost sight of what the GRA was for. Was it to allow men into women's toilets? I don't think so, it was a fudge to enable same sex marriage.

I am very pleased that Jess Philips has finally made her position clear. Eventually. Maybe now a senior Labour MP has explicitly said that biology matters she has now made it easier for other Labour MPs to take reality-based positions. Fingers crossed for a gradual shift in Labour positioning over the coming months. As someone desperately wanting a credible alternative to this current government, there is a glimmer of hope that I could vote for Labour again.

As an aside, it’s always striking that there are a fair number of back bench Tory MPs that are actually credible and knowledgable. People that I could civilly disagree with while recognising they honoured their principles. I had one as an MP for a while and while I could not support the government that he supported, he was by far and away the most qualified and knowledgable person to represent the constituency when I attended a hustings for a general election. I just wish I knew why such seemingly honourable people could keep the whip while so much dishonourable behaviour has been going on in Downing Street in recent years.

Thank you cards/golden bridges wouldn't go amiss:

https://members.parliament.uk/member/4370/contact