Sunak: I’ll change the Equality Act to protect women’s spaces

[Binglebong]

Sorry to dump and run but this needed sharing.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/02/rishi-suank-equality-act-protect-womens-spaces-tory/

Sodah again:

Labour is wrong on the law here. The Equality Act doesn’t have a clear definition of sex and this is why there are cases in regard to what it means working its way through the courts. Disappointing to see Labour spokespeople getting this critical point wrong.

x.com/soniasodha/status/1797550692556808197?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

She nails it. Thanks Warrior.

Frankly, if this just calls out Starmer’s ‘women’s safe spaces’ whatever the fuck they are, it will be good. Nobody can guarantee single-sex spaces are safe, but they are much safer. ‘Safe spaces’ is just the equivalent of Starmer crossing his fingers!

But focusing on the female emergency single sex spaces and hospital accommodation etc

Very important that in order to get these to be safe for women, they are properly funded.

Hospitals haven't the room staff or equipment to do so in most cases, DV refuges already turn away 50% of women seeking supporting.

No one is talking about funding, can change the law all you like but without money?

I wish Emma was still doing Womans Hour. She definitely would have picked this up

Oooh hang on, they're talking about it now!

I think.....??

Businesses don’t want to be sued that’s a primary concern

This takes that threat away

If women vote with their feet the businesses that cater to their preference will be able to flourish rather than fear litigation

Ok, so they're going to plan a series of interviews about what's most important. Nuala mentioned the proposed amendment to the EA in passing

So we need to get texting and emailing.

To be clear; woman's hour wants to know the most pressing issues for women to set up interviews on the programme with various MPs

JKR again

https://x.com/jkrowling/status/1797551976240083226?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

I don't think Starmer will use the "transwomen have been using these spaces for years" line though.

I definitely think Sunak could have made use of this issue if Labour's position was still what it was. But it's quite difficult to attack a policy for being muddled
(which it is) when it's not a priority issue for most people and the details are quite complicated.

Legal recognition as female except where biological sex is important for safety and dignity?

Woman have the right to organise without the inclusion of men. Under this exclusion, could a womans political party exist?

This is an important step on the ladder though. Businesses that historically have operated on the basis of sex - gyms, spas, swimming pools etc. have been cowed into letting men in female spaces because they fear being sued.

Until staff at these places can be confident in standing their ground saying no to the man who wants to go in the female change room, knowing that there is no repercussions to them doing that, they will keep being cowed by the aggressive men in front of them.

We can't regain our public spaces whilst businesses are afraid of saying no.

Exactly you’ve got it

And what? We shouldn’t make sure that the provisions are protected because ‘no funding’?

How many more times can we point out that at the moment there are women’s emergency services being forced to provide mixed sex provisions (under the guise of ‘women’s’ services to get that funding?

Besides which, we have had posters assure us that all those health services will be fixed quickly under Labour and fully funded. So, which is it?

Don’t make sure provision is place for that funding , or don’t discuss this, let’s discuss funding and then when we have that then maybe, just maybe if nothing else can be used to deflect, parliament can finally get those changes through?

Useful post by Dr Michael Foran:

https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1797558913698582579?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

An overview of the proposal to clarify the meaning of sex in the Equality Act.

Background: In recent years there has been significant uncertainty over the interaction between the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act. Some things are settled law, others are uncertain.

What is settled law:

• The Equality Act protects both sex and gender reassignment. Sex refers to males of any age and females of any age. Gender reassignment refers to those who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing, or have undergone a process of changing attributes of sex.

• Sex in law is, by default, biological sex. Everyone is legally classed as their biological sex except where a GRC changes sex for some purposes.

• Being protected under gender reassignment does not change sex in law for any purpose. It protects against denial of employment, goods & services, or housing as compared to someone of the same biological sex who does not have the GR protected characteristic. So trans women by default men and are compared to non-trans men. (Green v Secretary of State for Justice).

• Single-sex services are lawful. Schedule 3 of the Equality Act allows providers to set up and maintain single-sex services such as rape crisis centres and female-only changing rooms and toilets. It also allows them to exclude anyone on the basis of sex or gender reassignment once proportionate.

• Proportionality does not require a case-by-case analysis. General policies can be proportionate and most policies are general (Reference by AG for NI re Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Bill)

• Being protected under gender reassignment does not entail an entitlement to use single-sex services intended for members of the opposite sex. (Croft v Royal Mail; Green v SoS for Justice; FWS2 [Inner House])

What is currently uncertain:

• Whether sex in the Equality Act means (i) biological sex or (ii) biological sex unless modified by a GRC.

• Whether biological females are protected as a distinct group under the Equality Act.

• How precisely the Schedule 3 exceptions which allow for single-sex services operate. If sex means sex as modified by a GRC these exceptions become more complicated to rely on and that can affect how useful they are in practice, given concerted campaigns to spread misinformation about the law here.

• Whether single-sex associations defined by reference to biology (eg. Lesbian walking group, informal support network for female victims of male violence) are lawful. If sex doesn't mean biological sex, these are unlawful.

• Whether trans men who become pregnant are protected from pregnancy discrimination. If a GRC modifies sex for the Equality Act they likely lose protection.

• Whether sexual orientation is defined in the Act by reference to biological sex or biological sex unless modified by a GRC.

What this proposal will do:

• Clarify that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex, referring to the ordinary common law position from Corbett v Corbett.

• Make it clear that single-sex services and associations are defined by reference to biological sex.

• Make it clear that trans men are protected from pregnancy discrimination regardless of whether they have a GRC.

• Make gender reassignment a reserved matter, preventing devolved parliaments such as in Scotland from legislating to introduce Self-ID, ensuring that the continuing operation of the s35 Order blocking the GRR Bill.

What this proposal will not do:

• Remove the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

• Make it lawful to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment in the provision of goods & services, employment, or housing.

• Prevent services from offering a trans-inclusive service where proportionate.

• Require a new analysis of biological sex. The common law position will be reverted to and there are decades of caselaw on how to define biological sex in law.

I'm away at the moment so won't be responding very frequently. This post was a break from my holiday and I'm getting back to it now!

Starmer doesn't necessarily need to. From memory whoever is moderating the debate can chip in (although I may have blanked from my mind the godawful debates from the last GE).

There is also room to get Starmer to clarify. In that he's said that Labour want to protect single-sex spaces, they've mentioned the importance of biological sex, so surely they would have no problem with also clarifying that sex in EA means biological sex as it makes it easier to do what they say they want to.

I also think it's worth noting that lots of people probably think 'sex' in the EA does mean 'biological sex'. They'll be surprised it doesn't, so will think it's no biggy to just clarify that. Operation Educate Yourself strikes again

At least we won't have to suffer "this doesn't come up on the doorstep" this time eh

Whether trans men who become pregnant are protected from pregnancy discrimination. If a GRC modifies sex for the Equality Act they likely lose protection.

This is really bloody important and clearly how the current system discriminates against trans people

Really helpful Thank you. Enjoy your holiday

Really helpful.. TRAs will hate it because it basically says TWANW etc.

@BackToLurk - Michael is on holiday, I couldn't bold it all I'm afraid!

It's a really useful post.

That is a GIFT to both parties.

Who can argue against it??

I think we can all predict the debate won't stun us with its intellectual quality, that's for sure!

I guess it really depends on what question gets picked to cover the issue? It will make a difference whether it's more general on the lines of "does a woman have a penis" or more specific about the proposed change to the law itself. I would think the latter framing more likely?

Well I hope Michael enjoys his holiday 😁