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 ...

Go on share your theories, please.

I captured Blackman's updated Wiki page as a matter of course (and should it be deleted or edited.)

Is Kirsty Blackman just being monumentally dim by saying she's got no idea what her chromosomes are and that she'd guess XY?

No. Not even Kirsty Blackman is that dim. (Mhairi Black is possibly that dim, but I’m not sure)

Kirsty Blackman has borne two children. She knows full well what sex she is.

She is pretending because she knows that she will be punished if she doesn't.

Politicians in the Soviet Union used to pretend they thought Comrade Stalin’s latest idea was great, too.

Nothing original, I'm just mirroring what lots of others believe and think.

This could go in two ways, although I'm minded to think only one.

One, Sunak looks at this, listens to the EHRC advice, and pushes for legal change well ahead of the GE.

Possible, but unlikely. Despite most Tories speaking earlier being on the biological sex >>> gender divide. And the vast majority of the British people happy with this position.

Two, Sunak puts this to bed, the usual yada yada "we must take our time, we must consult further, we must be careful"...

My only doubt is whether Sunak resurrects this just ahead of the GE to use it as a bargaining chip to get GC Tory voters like me to fall into line.

Or whether he just ignores it/forgets it/de-prioritises it altogether. It remains a non-issue in the 2024 campaign for the Tories.

Whether my reaction to this is replicated amongst enough other voters to make a difference, I'm not sure at all.

I don't really care. I've learnt in my 59 years that you better stick to your principles, be true to yourself, even if there is pain in a decision.

And so it will be here, and even moreso for those GC female voters who can see all parties prepared to sacrifice their interests.

But in my case, I won't vote for the Tories if they ignore the EHRC advice, and I also won't vote for them if they use a promised change as an election sop.

Only if Sunak prioritises the right change well ahead of the GE, and goes on to stick up for the policy, will be have deserved to get me to consider voting Tory.

I'd put the chance of that as effectively zero.

I dunno - people who have never engaged in politics are emailing about this to mps

therr is a change. And the election seems unwieldy, the polling is unclear, the parties all lack cohesion

i don’t think it’s as clear cut as the TRAs say it is

If the Tory party wants this to happen, and wants GC womens votes, then they’ll commit to it very specifically in their next election manifesto.

I've just watched "Kirsty Blackman just being monumentally dim by saying she's got no idea what her chromosomes are and that she'd guess XY?" How on earth is she an MP debating this when she doesn't even know what she is. What on earth have I just watched with her speech. No wonder several people behind her were eye rolling and head shaking!

Then using suicide as a weapon, poor men don't get their own way so might kill themselves.

A room full of cic people debating trans people. Is she on coke!

I disagree that the issue is a lack of science knowledge specifically - we need MPs who are sufficiently competent to read around and understand whatever subject affects their constituents.

It takes two seconds to check which sex has which chromosomes and we need MPs with sufficient self-awareness to recognise when they need to check various technical facts before speaking to them, and who care enough about their responsibility to their constituents to do their bloody homework. That's the actual job, as many today demonstrated.

Just repeating what I said on the Sunak thread. This isn't about one man even if he is the PM.

The problem is that there are so many MPs, not just Labour who will fight any amendment of the EA all the way.

And given the huge economic agenda, plus all the spoilt toddlers in the Tory party out to wreck those left in government, it doesn't make much sense for him to prioritise this.

If you want it to be a priority then your energy needs to go into persuading all those against reform that it will not mean that trans people have no rights.

In total there were about 50 MPs at the meeting, which is a tiny % of sitting MPs and even if 2/3 were pro clarifying the EA, they aren't enough to guarantee winning a vote on this.

So even though most of us see this as a priority, with the main stream issues, Brexit, cost of living, cuts to the NHS, and so on, I doubt Tories will think this issue will be the vote winner for us at the next election.

As always our problem is with those captured. And how many of them do you think would admit, yes I was wrong, I will now support ammending the EA?

Some press coverage:

Politicians must be careful in how they speak about trans people to prevent them being “targeted in an inappropriate way”, a minister has said.

Minister for women Maria Caulfield urged MPs to be mindful of their language as they debated a petition from 110,000 people calling for the Equality Act to be clarified so the terms “man” and “woman” legally mean biological sex and not “sex as modified by a Gender Recognition Certificate”.

Ahead of the debate, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said biological sex is “fundamentally important”, but Ms Caulfield said the Government had not yet finished considering whether to make changes to the Equality Act.
After being asked to investigate changes to the Act, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in April said that while it found “no straightforward balance”, the change could bring “greater legal clarity” in eight areas including hospital wards and sport.
^^
Ms Caulfield told MPs said: “I know that Members in this Chamber today will be eager to hear updates and reassurances and the timeline around our next steps, but these issues under discussion today are complex and we need to be proceeding carefully and respectfully, because as we have heard in the Chamber there are a wide number of people who would be affected by any change.

“I hope that Members will agree it is only right and proper that we take timely consideration of the advice that we have been given before coming to any conclusions.”

MPs warned to use careful language to prevent trans people being targeted (yahoo.com)

Single-sex refuges must be protected, Jess Phillips has insisted in comments that will be seen as a challenge to Sir Keir Starmer.

Ms Phillips, the shadow domestic violence minister, warned “the status quo isn’t working” as Labour appeared to clarify its position on trans issues after months of confusion.

Anneliese Dodds, the party chairman, added that Labour “supports the protection of certain spaces that are for biological women, such as refuges for vulnerable women”. Ms Dodds argued these were already provided for in existing legislation.

Ms Phillips told MPs: “Sex and gender are different. I’ve never met a trans person who denied this or over the years of having very robust debates with them.

“In my life, the discrimination I have suffered at the hands of establishments rather than just your everyday sexism has always been because of my biology.”

Labour sources said the party agreed with Ms Phillips that sex is different from gender and pointed to parts of the current Equality Act they said already protect single-sex spaces.

Jess Phillips calls for protection of single-sex spaces in apparent challenge to Keir Starmer (yahoo.com)

HANSARD
Legislative Definition of Sex
Debated on Monday 12 June 2023

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-06-12/debates/F74BD8CC-4807-46F4-AA51-5402B7CFE8F9/LegislativeDefinitionOfSex

For posterity.

10 years later!
But better late than never.

That got reverted and the admins semi-protected the page. Apparently self-id only matters on Wikipedia if you were born with a penis.

Then using suicide as a weapon, poor men don't get their own way so might kill themselves.

A room full of cic people debating trans people. Is she on coke!

Pretty sure she pulled out exactly the same crap lines the last time there was a debate on this issue (re Westminster stepping in re GRA)

Yes, good point. You'd have thought the chair of the Women's and Equalities Committee would have something of a stake in this, and want to make sure points from that committee were put across.

Perhaps an example would be what she learned from effectively re-running the national consultation on self-ID? And how issues from that, were relevant to this debate?

I will always be gender critical. But those despicable Tories will NEVER get my vote.

She's really not done the TRA side any favours has she? The TT comments on her are hilarious!

Let her speak more, I say! She's peaking the nation for us 🤣

I wondered about this. Kemi Badenoch was not there either unless she was talking at the start . Are these debates only for back bench MPs to get an answer from Ministers?

"as we have heard in the Chamber there are a wide number of people who would be affected by any change."

51% of the blood population have already been affected ffs!!!

I think they sent a junior minister for the RSE one. Last year??

I went along, in part because my MP said he would try and be there. (No!)

We expected Joanna Cherry, Rosie Duffield and Miriam Cates to be good, and they were. What was impressive was the number of Tory men who had, presumably, listened to constituents, done some thinking and come to the conclusion that this was an issue on which they would engage. Time had clearly been spent on thinking through the issue, research and speech writing. Perhaps without exception speeches were considered and considerate. The MP's claiming the Tories were using this issue as a political trump card, could not have been listening. I particularly liked the guy with the great accent, who likened men in women's spaces to trip hazards. H&S inspections look out for trip hazards, not because everyone is going to trip, but because sooner or later someone will. Trip hazards are removed.

If red wall Tories get it, I assume red wall labour will. Men who understand that men in changing rooms may come across 7 year old girls. Daughters who would give up school sport because they have to share a changing room with a teenage boy, or a playing field with someone faster and stronger.

I assume that there are an equal number of Labour MPs who want a fairer, more equal world, and who could have made similar speeches. This is not a party political matter. I hope that Starmer can give them the green light to speak up. People need to know that Labour is not primarily made up of handmaidens.

My other take away was how weak the SNP representation were, JC aside. I appreciate that Westminster is a long way from home, but are these really the people the SNP has chosen to represent Scotland's interests. The Alba guy had great facial expressions. And the Labour woman who did not know her chromosomes.....get them tested!

Her name is Kirsty Blackman, more here.

twitter.com/theindyninja1/status/1668345399831150592?s=46&t=3vhG_KDq77qvuwlnTiE6jg

Am I the only one who was expecting some sort of outcome from the debate last night? I thought there would be a vote or a statement of intent or something. But, there's nothing. Is the government obliged to make a decision on this now? And if so, by when?