Tories plan to amend Equality Act to protect single-sex spaces

[IwantToRetire]

Government considers manifesto pledge to overhaul New Labour’s equality laws in effort to protect women-only spaces and female sports

The Conservatives are preparing to revive Rishi Sunak’s leadership pledge to overhaul New Labour’s equality laws, in an effort to protect single-sex spaces and women’s sports.

Senior government figures are considering a manifesto commitment to amend the Equality Act, which the Prime Minister previously said had become a “trojan horse” for “woke nonsense”.

The commitment would include an <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/5ZIFq/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/13/fix-equality-act-restore-sanity-to-trans-debate/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">amendment to the 2010 Equality Act, passed while Gordon Brown was prime minister, “to make it unambiguously clear that sex means biological sex,” said a source familiar with the discussions. Such a move would “remove the current vagueness which is exploited to undermine women’s rights, security and competition in sport”.

It would mean sex being defined by someone’s biological sex rather than their affirmed, or “acquired” gender, making it easier to bar those born as men from women-only spaces and female sporting events.

It could also include <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/5ZIFq/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/04/biological-women-protected-equality-law-change/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">a wider review of the legislation, which Mr Sunak said during his 2022 leadership campaign was used to “engage in social engineering to which no one has given consent.”

Part of a longer article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/16/rishi-sunak-amend-equality-act-single-sex-spaces-sport/

Note: title says plans, sub title says considers!!

Article can also be read at https://archive.ph/5ZIFq

There is no requirement to announce proposed new legislation in the King's Speech or a manifesto. It's conventional to do it for a big policy change, but this would just be an amendment to an existing statute. They could easily do it, if they wanted to, from a legislative point of view.

Three reasons why they may not:

1. They are not sure they have a Parliamentary majority for it. There are some pro-TRA Tory MPs and even whipped votes often have rebels these days.
2. They think it will cause Labour more discomfort by leaving it as a manifesto pledge - I'm not sure about that as a tactic - forcing Labour to vote against it now would probably be more powerful.
3. They don't think it's important enough to expend the political capital.

I think the reasons are more likely (3) with a bit of (1), than (2).

Yes. And tactically, it has to be a case of do it now. Force Labour to state on the actual record - in Hansard - what they think about this and force them to show how they vote.

I see no advantage to the Tories in delaying it. They do have some TRAs but Labour have women who would help get this through.

And then what is the worst case scenario? That both major parties are shown on the record not to give a shit about women and children? If so that is very clearly in the public interest for us all to know before any of them is voted back in.

This government have been ignoring women for years, listening only to the powerful trans lobby. But, if they're finally listening to those seeing trans ideology as the danger it is to women and children, then that's good.

Exactly. It’s been an absolute avoidance so far

All I ask is that we see views on record.

We didn’t ask for the outcomes of the GRA and now we can see what they are let’s decide what to do about it

In the public interest, yes, but not necessarily in the Tories' interest!

At the moment, the Tories are benefitting from appearing to be more pro-woman than Labour. It's not at all in their interests to remove that impression by losing a vote for the amendment.

I'm not defending them at all, btw - it's infuriating that they have done so little to protect women, despite talking a (relatively) good game recently. I'm just speculating as to their tactics.

It would be good to get this debated and voted on in this parliament. We could then see which of our constituency MPs are talking out both sides of their mouths and go into the GE better informed about our local representation and choices. (Edit) Which is probably why it won’t happen in this parliament.

I am not someone who entirely understands politics, but what I see putting it into Manifesto means that the Tories will have forced Labour (and all other parties) into addressing GC arguments in the debates leading up to the election and the BBC, Guardian and most other outlets will have to cover this too. Not simply as a fringe LGBTQ+ issue but as a mainsteam political issue. It feels almost better than having the current government make a change in process/wording without engaging with the public or asking people to vote on this. That sort of back-door stuff is how we got here? If its so simple how can we be sure it won't change back?

Let the Tories explain how they let this all slide on their watch. Let Starmer answer pointed questions on this. And the Greens and LibDems. As part of this thread (Thank you @MrsOvertonsWindow) I picked up the Stonewall statement following the review of Iain Anderson. He trying to be so reasonable on air in that Sky interview last year. The statement that followed to correct that view gives away nothing. Stonewall love the equality act as it stands. They could not be clearer that they would fight against change, so trying to change at the end of this parliament sounds unlikely to happen. It would be rushed, chaotic and engender bad feeling for anyone trying to change this law. Hopefully any new government will make clear whether they agree with Stonewall's views or not. If not we at least know better where we stand.

'The world-leading Equality Act protects many communities – including LGBTQ+ people – it took years to draft and is a finely-honed, balanced, and complex piece of legislation that Stonewall believes works effectively.'

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-affirms-trans-equality-policy-positions

I am not someone who entirely understands politics, but what I see putting it into Manifesto means that the Tories will have forced Labour (and all other parties) into addressing GC arguments in the debates leading up to the election and the BBC, Guardian and most other outlets will have to cover this too.

Not simply as a fringe LGBTQ+ issue but as a mainsteam political issue. It feels almost better than having the current government make a change in process/wording without engaging with the public or asking people to vote on this. That sort of back-door stuff is how we got here? If its so simple how can we be sure it won't change back?

This whole first para is very good

But KB's been saying that for at least a year - there's a Guardian article here about it from April 2023. I remember discussions about it on this board too. And yet she seems no nearer to getting it presented.

I'm not suggesting KB's responsible for that delay - I get the sense she's immensely frustrated - but I don't think I need a tin foil hat to conclude that neither the government nor the opposition are in a hurry to see this debated. And if I was in any doubt about that before, well the response from both parties on Friday to Liz Truss's bill on Friday confirmed it for me.

I wanted the PBM debated but I’d also welcome bigger than that

Either proper parliamentary debate or GE issue

I am not someone who entirely understands politics, but what I see putting it into Manifesto means that the Tories will have forced Labour (and all other parties) into addressing GC arguments in the debates leading up to the election and the BBC, Guardian and most other outlets will have to cover this too

The problem is that Labour are overwhelmingly likely to win the next GE, so the EA will not then be amended to protect single-sex spaces.

It's naive to think that Labour will put their cards on the table, if this is in the Tory manifesto. Starmer will just say something vague, that allows everyone to believe he is on their side.

I would much rather have the statutory protection of an amended EA than a bit of media chat for a few weeks before the election - especially as the broadcast media will continue to trivialise and overlook women's concerns, so the coverage will probably be less than you expect.

Well yes, of course. Their entire reason for being a political party is to be in power. They will say whatever they think will get them votes. That's exactly how it works.

See the same with all the parties. Starmer (and others in his party) has said many many things that he hopes will make people vote for labour. Greens have also said things that they hope will make people vote for them.
This is not some new technique.

I have said to Labour supporters many times on this board that, if Starmer doesn't like the 'What is a woman' questions, he could make them go away any time he chose. And equally, I see no reason to doubt that if Sunak really wanted to amend the Equality Act, he would have backed up KB and set in motion by now.

They're all playing us.

PPs stressing the value of open debate in a GE campaign are so right but this is an emergency. The kids can't wait, the vulnerable women can't wait. I would like to see the substance of Truss's Bill passed in this Parliament.

I don't know how feasible that is - I know next to nothing about parliamentary procedure and Westminster politics generally.

The Tories could also put in a manifesto commitment to reform the EA2010 as they want to do. And the GRA2004 and "conversion therapy" should be part of th General Election debate. The GRA is at the root of this mess, and Labour's proposals for modernisation of it and for a trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban exemplify the problems of language mangling, forced teaming and creation of thought crime. Not to mention that the real aim of the trans conversion therapy ban (IMO) would be to put "gender identity" in the statute book and turn it into a legal concept. Which would be a huge win for the gender zealots.

This is a total non story. Badenoch has been "mulling" on this for a year already. I'm surprised that they think saying they are considering putting it in the manifesto will attract votes. Surely most people will just wonder why they haven't done it already?

And the last thing women need is a Conservative "overhaul" of the EA. The EA gives women a lot of protection from discrimination (as well as other groups) and the Conservatives MO is to prioritise big business over human suffering. The Tories are cynically using GC womens concerns as a trojan horse to get rid of legislation that stops companies exploiting people.

I hope voters don't fall for it. 🦃🌲🎅🌽

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow
'It's naive to think that Labour will put their cards on the table, if this is in the Tory manifesto. Starmer will just say something vague, that allows everyone to believe he is on their side.

I would much rather have the statutory protection of an amended EA than a bit of media chat for a few weeks before the election - especially as the broadcast media will continue to trivialise and overlook women's concerns, so the coverage will probably be less than you expect.'

I too would love to have the statutory protection of an amended EA. But I also think that TWAW and need protection is so embedded in the civil service, politicians (all sides), academic, media, etc. and Stonewall is advising and influencing many of these. I do not expect the Tories to win but if they can get things like the WPATH files and the CASS report and all the stuff coming in just now into the public view then I do think that it will peak not only the public but also at least some of the media. Enough that there will be no (or at least less) rolling over and giving Stonewall what it demands with the next government.

I know that once I woke up to what is going on I became vigilant (and I usually have next to no interest in politics). So I am hopeful (perhaps naively) that others will also become more interested. Let's not at a nation sleepwalk into self-ID, easier GRCs and even more captured education and public services. Sunlight is the remedy.

If - as I am told - there is little difference between the main parties on economics and other major issues coming into this GE, then this is the issue where the fight may take place (there is more wriggle room to choose sides on this because it does not cost anything in terms of £££s).

I understand this point of view too

My preference is for it to be secured as I don’t trust Labour at all. But that is merely my preference and others may want a vote.

I do think the more this is discussed the better. It’s such a weak lie foundation that sunlight works well. This is why TRAs and invested people put SO much effort into reducing conversation

My main thing is it comes up, the alternative this gaslighting nonsense of avoidance is the worst

This will never happen. Its just another false promise to win votes

Completely fed up with the lot of them. I'm down to a choice between total batshit, yayyyy sterilising children many of whom are Autistic and gay, and wrecking healthy child bodies and making life long patients with no ethics of any kind, and sod multi culturalism, religious tolerance, capacity to cope with reality and facts, equality of access and women's rights cos yay happy penises and arrest anyone who resists..... which comes in red, green and yellow,

or all that in blue, with less totalitarianism (so long as someone sits on Gove) and a few sane people dragging their feet and muttering a bit.

Any of them wanting to lecture about 'respect' after the spectacle of them wittering about ferrets to avoid talking about the medical disaster they've enabled on their watch - all of them - are going to get short shrift.

Sadly they have had several years to make the really simple change of in this Act Woman = Adult Human Female etc. I know there are complexities but that clarification plus a manifesto commitment to review GRA and EA2010 would be the ideal situation.

Should we be compiling a list of doorstep questions for those who come knocking for our vote?

Sunlight, sunlight, sunlight
Always worth looking at who wants this silenced - they rarely prioritise the safety of chlldren or women .
FWR is only a small board - take a look at the comments under articles in the Times, Telegraph, Mail etc and people are incandescent. Many of them have children in their families caught up in this and the despair & fury at what's happening is palpable. (Did look at the Guardian /BBC but they don't encourage debate oddly enough).

This is not going to go away - the gig is up. It's up to politicians to make their choices but keeping quiet will no longer work.

@mumda

Yes. Perhaps also sample letters to send to those standing in our ward too (all parties). And if anyone can get onto a current affairs programme and raise questions... (I get that politicians are weasly) but asking them the same thing over and over again and not getting a straight answer seems (to me) to be behaviour they would avoid in run up to an election. As I said I am not exactly politically well educated ...

They’ve had plenty of time to implement this. It comes from the “send them to Rwanda” school of politics - pandering to anti-minority sentiments, to fire them up with acts of performative cruelty.

Framing it as “won’t anyone think of the women and children” is the oldest trick in the book. Labour’s approach is, sadly, to not engage. But the Tories are going to have their arses handed to them, even if they go with “send trans people to Rwanda.”

It’s more about women’s sex based rights

I can see if you’re male focussed you won’t consider women at all but it’s not really about the minority to us

It’s about women