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 ...

No I don’t think so. Starmer isn’t telling anyone. That’s his approach, don’t talk about it and keep quiet on matters you don’t want mentioned.

I’m really not sure why after that debate people feel better about Labour when the numbers showed more TWAW on Labour and much fewer with Cons

Is it wishful thinking?

I don’t care if he’s ruthless in getting rid of people, he’s a fence sitter extraordinaire so actually doing something is fine by me

I completely agree!

I don't feel any better about Labour. My regard for them is at an all time low and I'm not sure it'll ever recover. But I feel ever so marginally cheered that an ambitious MP, who I imagine has her eye on a future Cabinet post, thinks that this is a good moment to speak up for single sex spaces. That's all, nothing more and nothing less.

And now I must have repeated myself at least three times so I think I'm done.

Note how Starmer isn't opposing Tory anti-protest laws.
^I can easily see Posie leading street demonstrations against impending Self ID, and Starmer stepping on her.
Quite the comparison to the Suffragettes.^

It doesn't matter who is in charge, all politicians want more power over the people. Especially the female people.

The left and the right are all misogynists. They only disgree on where the boot should go on women's necks.

once more for those at the back 😁

Capitalists will sell tickets to the event, and clean up on record boot sales.

Socialists will say that the activity needs to be an equal opportunity, poor men to have as much access to putting the boot into women as rich men.

Oh, and now men acting up as women.

It's come to a pretty pass, where one opinion is that there might be light at the end of this tunnel, if an MP speaking up could get Starmer's ear.

Pretty thin gruel, tbh.

Interesting positioning of Phillips, Labour, and Caulfield. Dodds seems to have got a rather generous write up(!)

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/06/12/labour-mp-challenge-keir-starmer-single-sex-spaces/

"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 issuess_ after months of confusion.
It came as Maria Caulfield, the health minister, warned it would “take time” before any final decision was made by the Government on changing the Equality Actt_.
“What we don’t want to do is to create additional problems by changing or clarifying the Equality Act that are unforeseen,” Ms Caulfield said.
In a debate about the potential reform, Ms Phillips said it was “utterly devastating” that some specialist women’s services have been decommissioned in favour of “all-or-nothing” offerings.
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 differentt_. 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.”
The Government has asked the equalities watchdog for advice on changing the wording of the Equality Act to specify that it protects “biological sex” rather than “sex”, with the Equality and Human Rights Commission saying this would “bring legal clarity” in eight areas, including single-sex spaces.
Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, said in April that “99.9 per cent” of women do not have a peniss_ and last year pledged to “update” the Gender Recognition Act despite warnings this could enable predatory men to access single-sex spaces.
In 2020, Sir Keir said: “Trans rights are human rights and I support the right to self-identification.” Members of his shadow cabinet have also given different definitions of a woman during the past year.
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."

Indeed! https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4816472-a-mumsnet-thread-about-a-book-about-a-mumsnet-thread-under-the-duvet-of-darkness-written-by-the-women-of-mumsnet-thread-2

Agreed.

There is something about these threads that means every thing needs to be said 4 or 5 times, or something about these threads that some read what they see to support what they think.

I dont thinkg JP acknowledging biological sex as a reality has in any way changed the Labour Party. Where has any one said that. Why is this now a "thing". I specificalls said we need to stop concentrating on individuals but take the opportunity of what she said to challenge Labour.

At the moment it seems like the Telegraph and the DM are the only active feminists!

If that is upheld then the meaning of sex will have been clarified in law.

This just isn't true and has been said over and over again on numerous threads.

Even if the Lady Haldene "judgement" was overturned, it is being heard in a Scottish Court. The EA is a UK wide law.

And why would it be overturned as what she said is exactly what the EA says at the moment thanks to the additions to the EA because of the GRA. By making the exemptions about the few instances when women's biological sex did matter, but "for all other purposes" it didn't. Logically you would have thought it would be the other way round, it for "all purposes" women's biological sex is the assumed norm, and the exemptions would be when those with a GRC could "legally" be women. (Exemptions courtesy of young Labour woman).

Why does anyone think a Scottish Court can change how the act is written and being intrepreted, particularly at a time when there are petitions, which have now had a debate, saying the wording is clear.

I would love to see the legal advice that ForWomenScot got because I know a number of women who think it is a huge waste of money.

But they - and me - would love to be proved wrong and for the ruling to be overturned and the UK High Court go of course we'll just go along with what a Scottish Court has said.

Although we could end up with the ironic situation (regarding the public stance of the SNP) of Scotland having a different definition of what sex in the EA means (aat odds with SNP politics) whilst in England all the Brexiter types will be throwing their hands up in horror and say we got rid of the EU to stop them telling us what laws we should have and now those (imagine a word) Scots think they can tell us what to do!

oops: saying the wording is clear = saying the wording is NOT clear

I dont thinkg JP acknowledging biological sex as a reality has in any way changed the Labour Party. Where has any one said that.

There was a feeling earlier that if Phillips is changing tack it shows the Labour party has also changed direction as she is politically expedient. I question this.

By all means use what you wish to challenge Labour, coming out of that debate they look very much behind with more arguing TWAW. If people want to focus energy on Labour fine by me, not something I share as they feel too removed from reality.

Yes- We urgently need highly visible within Parliament, consensus cross party working in the women’s groups.

Elected parliamentarians across the board in the UK need to know what we want them to do about changing the law and to know they will get votes for saying they will change the law. Three lines on an email with your address on, (copying in your own MP if you’re writing to a different MP) is great, if that’s all you have time for.

A political consensus across all parties is still needed that women’s human rights matter more than men’s personal validation and their access to women. No major party in the UK is there yet.

The Tories are not there yet. The responsible government Minister herself has just said that they are not there yet on the record in Hansard a couple of days ago.

Nothing will change for the better unless multiple women and men act now to make it happen. And things can get worse.

So let’s contact any MP who speaks up, to thank them. Starting with the ones who spoke up on the debate this week. They all need confidence to show their party leadership that they will get support for being GC and committing to changing the law.

If anyone on here can’t stomach writing to MPs in parties they don’t support then fine, just write to your own party ones. But do write

Is there a list of the MPs to write to somewhere?

I don’t know all their names

@stealtheatingtunnocks
Tribunal Tweets had a list of the speakers near the start of the thread. They give each MP initials for identification later on when transcribing their speech. Not everyone on the list spoke, but I suppose you could thank those who didn't for attending an important debate.

Lols I'm sorry. A biology teacher, teaching old biology that has significantly shifted on in terms of understanding. What we need is MPs listening to real science, but hey that is never going to happen when people can instead try and punish a very small minority of trans people trying to live their lives.

"Old biology"

Nearly spat my tea out, thanks for that, keep 'em coming.

Oh blimmin heck, biology has moved on! You have started the bingo game early today Mishy.

'Old biology' 😂

RJ - Ranil Jayawardena (Conservative)
JC - Joanna Cherry (SNP)
RD- Rosie Duffield (Labour)
NF- Nick Fletcher (Conservative)
PB - Sir Peter Bottomley (Conservative)
JP- Jess Phillips (Labour)
MC - Miriam Cates (Conservative)
JDP - Jackie Doyle Price (Conservative)
NH- Neale Hanvey (Alba)
TL - Tim Loughton (Conservative)
AF - Anna Firth (Conservative)
AR - Angela Richardson (Conservative)
AL - Andrew Lewer (Conservative)
JG Jonathon Gullis
CA Caroline Ansell

From my notes during the speech, I think this is all of the MPs who spoke in defense of women's rights and to clarify the EA.

I absolutely agree with this.

Thanks for this