Liz Truss to propose law banning biological males from single-sex spaces

[IwantToRetire]

Liz Truss is to introduce a draft law that will seek to ban biological males from entering single-sex spaces and prevent children from attempting to change their gender.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/liz-truss-mps-conservative-government-mail-on-sunday-b1124423.html

Oh dear! I suspect association with Liz Truss will in fact mean loss of support for these proposals.

Not seen anything but then I use a 'black hole' address for that kind of thing. But I'll cheerfully eat my words if they're about to act.

There was a fair bit of other stuff but this was the last part that I noticed

’On 21 February 2023, the Minister for Women and Equalities (MfWE) sought advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on the benefits or otherwise of an amendment to the Equality Act 2010 on the current definition of 'sex', as she was concerned that the Equality Act may not be sufficiently clear in the balance it strikes between the interests of people with different protected characteristics, particularly in the case of the protected characteristics of ‘sex’ and ‘gender reassignment’.

Having received that advice, the Minister for Women and Equalities has asked officials to undertake detailed policy and legal analysis, as per the EHRC’s request, to understand the impact of its advice on various protected groups and related issues arising.’

Where there's a bandwagon there's a Liz.

Regardless if the rights or wrongs.. this is simply a political manoeuvre.

Nothing more.

The woman believes in absolutely zero, apart from her own self interest.

Again, why don’t labour jump on this particular band wagon

If Labour - or indeed any party - declines to take this seriously because 'Oh it's Liz Truss' then I will in turn refuse to take them seriously come the next election.

Part of her campaign to be Tory leader after the GE?

Who’d have thought that women’s rights are a vote winner. Clearly not labour or the Lib Dem’s

Having received that advice, the Minister for Women and Equalities has asked officials to undertake detailed policy and legal analysis, as per the EHRC’s request, to understand the impact of its advice on various protected groups and related issues arising

Thanks for that. But I notice it is earlier than the debate date, when they wandered off at the end of the meeting saying something about this will have to be discussed further.

My understanding, though happy to be wrong, was that the proposals were not included in the King’s speech which outlines legislative priorities for the next parliamentary session. Ie, Rishi et al, are in favour, but not enough in favour as to give it priority for parliamentary time.

It’s a Kemi thing isn’t it, I think she’s very committed. She had to save Falkner from being taken out first

It’s incredible how invested TRAs and others are when it comes to challenging any change from the status quo

Real McCarthyism stuff. None of it is easy. But I hope the women going for it keep going

The Speech had a bit on the end about "other legislation/legislative proposals as my government sees fit". Something like that.

I wasn't sure if it needed to be included in The Kings Speech as it's not fresh legislation but a clarification of an existing law?

The email I quoted was sent 22/11/23 so pretty recently

Time may be the issue. Or maybe Liz is flying a kite and if it looks as it has support and that getting something through in this Parliamentary term won’t be too problematic, and the EHRC come up with sensible proposals, the Government will move forward on an amendment to the Act.

Fingers crossed, but I suspect there won’t be enough time. And assume Keir, under pressure from backbenchers possibly including Izzard, will not want to take the same approach.

The email I quoted was sent 22/11/23 so pretty recently

Thanks - I just say the date they referenced in their reply.

Although on rereading it it implies they are still working on the implications of the reply from th EHRC back in February.

If only more people who felt competent to draft the EA hadn't thought about how each part of the act impacts on each protected characteristics.

Yet schools still have unisex toilets... how does that work?

Often much better than same sex toilets, since they are single cubicles with handbasins that open onto a corridor and so avoid many of the problems otherwise associated with school toilets.

School unisex toilets aren't usually like that, are they?

They are usually cubicle, and the basins in a communal area.

Many problems in my child's school. Filming, doors being kicked. (Other things happening in the toilets 😬.) Children not going to the toilet through fear. MP's have been contacted and obviously school contacted. I have read similar issues on here. The cubicles are in a line yes.

I'm so bored with all of these posts saying because it's Liz Truss it's somehow not worthy.

As others have said why won't Labour act to protect women? If they were unequivocal that they would protect women's single sex spaces then posters might have a point.

Until then I'm grateful to any woman who will put her head above the parapet on this issue. It doesn't matter who they are. They are putting themselves at personal risk to help women and I am grateful.

A broken clock is right twice a day

The new build toilets that ive seen are a row of cubicles with a row of basins on the other wall, or a two rows of cubicles and basins in the middle.

Both designs having no door to the block, so everyone walking passed can see children queuing up for cubicles and washing their hands.

The design is supposedly to reduce bullying that can occur in closed rooms, but it limits the privacy of children.

Same. Women speaking up often to personal cost

Plenty telling us to stop, no one cares, it won’t work. What do they bring to this?

..or worse threats and violence

I’ll take the former and thank all those that do the same

Both labour and the conservatives are saying that SSE should be maintained.

If both main parties want single sex spaces, i dont see why its controversial who brings up the opportunity for both parties to clarify what they want?