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

The Global Fund for Women and Womankind are pretty captured by trans ideology I think so not sure I would call them women's charities. Don''t know about Orchid.

By "captured" you mean they are trans-inclusive, like almost every single charity and group supporting women. But you can be sure that almost all their funds are not directed at trans women. If you think a tiny proportion of their funds not going to non-transgender women disqualifies them from being women's charities, then there are close to zero women's charities.

The Orchid Project is devoted to ending FGM, so I guess non of their funds go to trans women.

‘…then there are close to zero women's charities’.

😑

If I remember correctly, a number of women's charities have either lost or been threatened with losing public funding for not including transwomen so hardly a freely taken decision; which to bring us back to the subject of the thread, is another issue the government could turn their attention to while they still can.

To your point. Orchid Project, a couple of years ago. It's possible they have to add "trans and intersex" due to how funding has been captured in many areas. It's possible they may possibly mean girls who think they are trans.

x.com/orchidproject/status/1287703817212043266?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

"Non-transgender women" Is there a way to identify these mysterious creatures, without asking them?

To your point. Orchid Project, a couple of years ago. It's possible they have to add "trans and intersex" due to how funding has been captured in many areas. It's possible they may possibly mean girls who think they are trans.

If they mean the latter then of course it's entirely right and proper they're included. Part of the issue of some women's charities being opened to 'anyone who identifies as a woman' is that they may be inappropriately including males but not being inclusive of trans and NB females who they should be including.

Perhaps they are similar to the mysterious ‘non-men’ creatures identified by John Hopkins University.

All good charities for females are of course male controlled, penis centric and use their much greater male intellect to know of course what is good for women. Having defined them as a mixed sex group with no particular biology, except that peculiarly all the important ones who matter are without exception biologically male in a very binary way, but no one's supposed to mention that.

Biological women's charities operating for biological women and centering biological women and naughtily resisting male control and dominance are so few in number they barely exist, and they're all wicked and stupid anyway, and probably smell. And don't do any good, because the idea that women actually could do anything without revolving around biological men and being directed by them is of course ridiculous.

It's not like they've got a brain or a purpose or any function beyond service humaning for males anyway.

Have not had time to read thread so far today, but from the first page, can see that late night skim reading did lead me to misunderstanding the situation.

I assume they have leaked this to the paper to try and gauge how important this might be to voters (and their own MPs) rather than a real committment.

Hope to have time to come back and read whole thread.

If you think a tiny proportion of their funds not going to non-transgender women disqualifies them from being women's charities, then there are close to zero women's charities

Yes - it's a big fucking problem isn't it? And stop with the 'non-transgender women' shit.

To your point. Orchid Project, a couple of years ago. It's possible they have to add "trans and intersex" due to how funding has been captured in many areas. It's possible they may possibly mean girls who think they are trans.

Well I suppose full surgical ‘transition’ for women is FGM.

Please do the most basic research to find out what these charities do.

It takes a particularly virulent strain of gender critical thought to suggest that they are not led by women, for the benefit of women. And attacking a charity set up to fight FGM as "for biological men" suggests a particularly virulent strain of transphobic brain-rot.

Do name a major trans-exclusive women's charity which isn't set up for the main purpose of attacking trans rights. Say, for VAWG or reproductive rights.

That would be because anything labelled 'women' was intentionally targeted by people who were male, and were either taken over or destroyed for rebelling.

So yes, the only ones left that are women organising for women who are not male controlled and male centrically obedient will obviously be the ones continuing to be rebels and point out the grotty fact.

That male people took over everything in order to demonstrate that they were women and the 'non trans women' as you keep calling the service humans were given the choice of submitting or being called 'attackers of trans rights'.

The truth is front and centre.

Excellent post.

@DadJoke - great that money is going to good causes that benefit women. Especially from a small business. I have no problem with services also benefiting trans women, or trans men or anyone else.

The pressure on many women's-only groups to accept that TWAW as a precondition of retaining their funding is something that is very sad to see. This has resulted in services closing, also in people who work there not now feeling freedom to state their beliefs, or even offer help to users in other than a very convoluted way. In the voluntary sector, where employees give so much of themselves to making things work out for service users, this is particularly sad.

If you have not followed the Employment Tribunal case Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre - the treatment of Adams reveals eye-openingly bad behaviour by staff towards her and also to users, resulting in people who needed this very necessary service not being helped, and even being turned away. This was simply because the user (and Adams in trying to help another user) asked the wrong kind of question. Not an impolite question, but one which was not politically correct according to some very convoluted logic by self-appointed gatekeepers of this service.

It is very hard to understand how we came to this. Women in power within a womens' service, set up to help other ,women refusing to help those women because help was not requested in an approved manner. (There was no suggestion or evidence that trans or non-binary users were denied help, only biological women or women with the wrong beliefs). Very very very sad.

The vast majority of such organisations understand that trans rights don’t conflict with women’s rights.

But there are indisputably situations where trans rights conflict with woman’s rights.

If a trans woman is given one of the finite spaces on an Olympic women’s sports team (yes, this has happened), then a woman will miss out.

If anyone identifying as a woman can compete for a women’s sports scholarship for a US college (these can be worth $100,000), then the chances are, a mediocre male will take the life-changing opportunity intended for an exceptional woman.

If Muslim women can only use a communal changing room if it’s single sex, then admitting trans women to that space will exclude those women.

If female rape victims with PTSD need the option of a female-only support group, but trans women insist they must be admitted to ALL women’s support groups, then the women may be denied a safe space in which to heal.

That's a fact that doesn't exist in his reality, you'll never get him to be able to look at it.

@DadJoke Your comments truly show you don't get it and are deeply misogynistic even for a male with Male Privilege. We can care about reproductive rights and pay AS WELL AS caring about single sex spaces. Women can multitask. The vast majority of women know and understand trans 'rights' (ergo, seeking extra privileges) do conflict with womens rights. Womens sex-based rights means we have and need our safe single sex spaces. Whenever a transwoman (man with penis and testicles) are in our safe single sex spaces, that is a CONFLICT with our sex-based rights and needs. But you genuinely don't seem to care at all.