Law changes to strengthen women's rights by rewriting the Equality Act on the basis of biological sex instead of gender identity might not take place until next summer

[IwantToRetire]

The project to rewrite part of the Equality Act on the basis of biological sex rather than gender identity was proposed by equalities minister Kemi Badenoch in February.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission backed the idea in April, saying it would bring 'greater legal clarity' in eight different areas including allowing organisers to prevent transgender women from entering female-only spaces such as single-sex wards or sports teams.

But it has now emerged that the Cabinet Office has only recently advertised for a civil servant to work on the project – and specifies that it will not be completed until next July.

Whitehall job ad posted internally in August offered up to £75,000 for an official to take charge of the clarification of equality law.

It stated: 'The post is needed to lead a new team established within the Equality Hub at the Minister for Women and Equalities' request. One of the major deliverables is a complex legislative project that is due to be completed by July 2024.

'This is a role to consider whether and how legislative changes to the Equality Act 2010 could be made. This project is intended to be completed by end July 2024.'

Campaigners believe the change required to the law is only a simple tweak, however, and want it to be carried out urgently. They believe a piece of secondary legislation known as a statutory instrument – which would not have to be voted on by MPs or peers – would suffice. It could introduce a definition of women to the Equality Act, stating that it means those who were born female – and not those who were born male but legally changed sex by obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12494299/Law-changes-strengthen-womens-rights-rewriting-Equality-Act-basis-biological-sex-instead-gender-identity-not-place-summer.html

This was published a couple of days ago, and I did nto see or hear anything about it.

In the article it makes it sound like the Tories are committed to making this change, but I thought at the end of the Westminster Hall debate they just made some vague comment about having to look at it further.

Worrying that it will be an internal appointment given that civil servants have been Stonewalled.

I suspect like many of the articles in the DM and the DT and even TT this is another leak by a faction and / or to get public response so the Government can gauge level of interest, vote winner etc..

There have been 20 SIs used to amend the EA so far.

Both sections 207 and 208 govern …a power…under this Act’

That means that the powers are contained elsewhere in the Act.

Second, neither section actually specifies the purpose of a power. When a power to make secondary legislation is provided, it is done so for a specific purpose.

So neither section actually confers a power on ministers. The powers are conferred by different sections - I’m just asking which specific power you think could be used for these purposes?

That’d do it!

No one asked women about all this. I’m with you just give us single sex spaces back

Using powers conferred in the Equality Act itself?

The only secondary legislation I’ve found that amends the Equality Act have been enacted under the European Communities Act 1972, which would not be available for these purposes (not least that it is repealed).

You may need to look harder.

And after you’ve encouraged people to start taking photos of others in changing rooms and toilets, how do you plan on proving that they are not the ‘right sec’ for the facility they are in?

Perhaps you could give us an example?

As pp said there isn’t actually legal recourse if someone uses the incorrect loo anyway

But vast majority of us know societal rules and follow them

We need to update the law so everyone is aware females do get single sex spaces and have the right to due to privacy and dignity plus safeguarding

Like you always do?

I mean if I make a specific claim yes I’m happy to be specific about what I’m claiming…

Oh that's easy. The police look at the photo and may decide that the person should be the subject of further investigation. That investigation may involve establishing the natal sex of the person being investigated.

Oh dear. So the person who will manage this project doesn't exist.

Very good. A wilful running down of the clock. Of course this is a massive priority...

Rubbish. Can kicking. And deliberate. It could be December by the time this person even starts, and then there is only six months useful legislative time left assuming that the actual solution is agreed which it won't be since every department has to sign off on this.

Maybe Labour will bother with it.

It would take the same kind of 'education' campaign that has got men into women's spaces in the first place, it's quite doable.

First you make it very clear in the press and all over the place that female only spaces are there for female only people, and it is expected that natal males will use the mixed sex spaces provided for their inclusion, accessibility and respect for their identity as an alternative to the men's provision.

Then there will need to be an education campaign, stickers, leaflets, work in schools, on the need to respect women's inclusion needs, awareness of what those needs are, that these needs are as important as TQ+ male people's needs, the balance of emotive anecdotes and personalisation that was effective in making people sympathetic to and understanding of TQ+ male people's challenges, and building values of respecting women in the same way as respecting TQ+ people.

Women would be empowered once more to challenge TQ+ male people in their spaces, and to speak with staff on site about redirecting them to the mixed sex facilities or asking them to leave if behaving inappropriately/in an intimidating way regarding invading the female only space with the intention of deceiving or forcing the submission of women to meet their own needs. And yes, it may involve the police if those male people are causing distress, exclusion and are intentionally invading and causing disturbance and harm to women in that facility because they wish to.

Yes, there will be a few people who will wish to try and harm and remove this resource for female people on principle, who do not feel women should have this equality or access, who do not want women included or permitted to escape male control and coercion/being used by male people, and just like intimidating women and smashing boundaries. Some, I could name a well known name or two, may genuinely have a belief beyond all reasoning that they are female. However if this was consistently and firmly challenged with this space being for women female at birth, no messing around, no legal sex involved, because there is accessible provision there and women need inclusion and access too? More importantly if the social attitude once more shifted to a general belief that a good person does not exclude and harm women for their own ends and those that do are not nice or good people?

It will shift.

There will be the usual witters about 'but you can't tell' (you're saying male people will inevitably try to deceive their way in) and 'but beyond a certain point of transition they've become female' and 'you'll get bearded transmen in there and then you'll be sorry', but it's all bullshit.

The issue is regarding women as scum and women with access and inclusion needs as a target to take down. That's the part that has to be addressed.

@Froodwithatowel yes it can be done and needs to be

The timing of saying it will not be completed until next July is extremely cynical. That would mean that no legislation is introduced potentially until next September. That is apparently the month of the next election so this is unbelievable either on the part of the Civil Service or the Minister who is making her leadership bid and manifesto writing shortly after.

Like how to interpret the meaning of the Irish Constitution?

Sure.

But you’ve still not explained what specific power under the Equality Act itself allows the act to be amended to define the protected characteristic of sex.

Is that possibly because you can’t? Because even SexMatters don’t claim that there is an Equality Act power to amend the Act.

Statutory Instruments

2010 No. 2132

Equality

Pensions
The Equality Act 2010 (Sex Equality Rule) (Exceptions) Regulations 2010

Made

25th August 2010

Laid before Parliament

31st August 2010

Coming into force

1st October 2010

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 207(1) and 212(1) and paragraphs 4 and 5 of Part 2 of Schedule 7 to the Equality Act 2010(1).

Only section 207(1) confers any powers.

Not that it makes any difference. As I have said up-thread, it doesn't matter whether the change is by Statutory Instrument, Act of Parliament or Act of God because I don't see any workable definition of biological sex that would be passed in the HoC and, even if it was, it wouldn't make a happorth of difference as the single sex exemptions would still be voluntary.

Thanks - so the actual operable powers there is in Schedule 7. That is where the specific purpose of that power is to be found.

Additionally, the SI you posted doesn’t actually amend the Equality Act. Which is helpful because when you said that the Equality Act had been amended by SI twenty times, it is helpful to know that you don’t understand what amending legislation actually is. That explains why you made that (incorrect) claim.

But you still haven’t actually explained what section of the Equality Act sets out a power to amend the definition of a protected characteristic. If there was even the slightest argument that such a power existed I am 100% sure that Sex Matters would be advocating for its use. Instead they are left with the rather ropey s23 GRA power - because no such power exists for these purposes within the Equality Act.

I haven’t seen much mention of the GRA act in the WM debate or letter to ECHR

Is there a link to anywhere explaining the process you mention @PlanetJanette ?

I did look to to the ECHR response

“A change to the Equality Act 2010, so that the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ means biological sex, could bring clarity in a number of areas, but potential ambiguity in others.
“Our response to the Minister’s request for advice suggests that the UK Government carefully identify and consider the potential implications of this change.

“Should they wish to pursue work in this area, we recommend detailed policy and legal analysis be undertaken, in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty and with due regard to any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.

“There is a clear need to move the public debate on issues of sex and gender to a more informed and constructive basis. This would be welcomed by the many who do not take the polarised positions currently driving public debate.
“We look forward to working with the government and others to find a way forward on these important issues, but recognise that these decisions sit with the UK Government and UK Parliament.”

Reading that it will take time. This stuff won’t be fast.

The reference to S23 GRA came from Sex Matters who claim, incorrectly in my view, that it provides a basis for the Equality Act to be amended to define protected characteristic through a statutory instrument rather than primary legislation.

My view is that any change to define sex as pertaining only to biological sex in the Equality Act would have to be done by primary legislation. And that if the consultation phase only completes next summer, there is no chance of that legislation being introduced, much less passed, before the next election.

Don't worry @PlanetJanette

It took 56 years from the foundation of the National Society for Women's Suffrage for all women to get the vote. We have a history of patience but we will get back our single sex spaces and services.

Ok this is clear thanks. You may be right, or other people with legal knowledge might say otherwise but I can’t say

I don’t think understanding the process is a bad thing though

I see a lot of posts saying they could do it now but don’t want to, or if they don’t sort this before the GE I won’t vote for that primary legislation change you mention

This stuff takes ages, there are huge invested interests and changing this is not easy

Like @JanesLittleGirl I’ll wait, and keep pushing, and vote for that primary legislation change if it is there to vote on

Labour will kill this path dead and that’ll be it

For a while anyway. This won’t go away. Women do not consent to males in their single sex spaces and events that show the problems with the whole ideology will keep happening

I agree.

Seems Baroness O’Caithain was an intelligent woman quite depressingly prescient about the state of the UK 20 years later.

I’m feeling that despite the best of efforts otherwise and even despite that the majority of the population are against this, that ultimately there will be the removal of the exceptions in the Equality Act 2010 and employers and service providers will not legally be able to reserve some spaces, services and occupations for members of one sex only.

Too many misogynistic men in powerful positions aided and abetted by women wanting to be kind and progressive.