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/

Absolutely but who has recently issued guidance that only violent men shouldn't be housed in the female estate?

Prisons have had funding slashed, out prison system is in total crisis, that is why the govt cannot say "no man should be in a female prison"

An 80 year old transwoman is likely to find that in those circumstances their trans status protects them against a custodial sentence.

People seem to be arguing that the GRA isnt a really issue because only a few GRC have been issued, and we need to simplify the process because the proces is stopping more people obtaining one.

When first anounced, politicians estimated that only 6,000 would every be issued. Now its over 10 000, and the policians are concerned that people who need one arent getting them.

Whats change since 2004 that 6,000 was the maximum ever, to 10,000 not being enough? What is the new estimated of people legally allowed to conceal their sex?

Because there is generally now no need now for any diagnosis of any condition for a male to access most female single sex spaces because just saying that they intend to get a certificate has been said to extend the protection to them, and you are not allowed to ask for one anyway, this really does come down to it being only a philosophical belief.

And what other philosophical belief does law allow to negatively impact the needs of female people?

What's the difference between an 80 year old man in prison for a tv license offence and an 80 year old transwoman in prison for a tv license offence???

Thefireplace Badenoch has made substantial progress on this issue while she has been in post, while also being responsible for some other small matters eg unwinding the Post Office scandal. The current administration has been in place for less than 2 years, and not all Tory MP’s are gender critical (despite the left’s attempts to make this issue partisan)

I definitely don’t support much of what the government has done, but you are allowing your political affiliations to overcome what politicians are actually saying on this issue (or broadening away from this issue to support them)

Yes, I agree.
I don't think we are ever going to be in a majority though :(

Case Law on biological sex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbett_v_Corbett

The court held that, for the purposes of marriage, sex was to be legally defined by three factors present at birth that the judge referred to as 'biological' – namely chromosomal, gonadal and genital. Any surgery or medical intervention was to be ignored, as were any psychological factors (which were in this case identified with Ashley's 'transsexualism').

Ewan Forbes OTOH won 'his' case using some jiggery pokery with bits of someone's testicle.

Labour created and defend their Act

Do you think they are responsible for this mess, since they brought in the GRA?

"Safe spaces for biological women only" is pretty unequivocal. People who don't want to believe them nit pick the precise words, but this is pretty clear.

You are putting a lot of trust in Starmer to support women’s rights in government when he’s been so determined not to in opposition.
I strongly disagree with this. His is the only party coming up with women-focussed policies like these:

https://www.emilythornberry.com/shadow-attorney-general/2023/10/10/making-the-law-work-for-women-my-labour-conference-speech-2023/

I'm looking forward to seeing their manifesto.

They are not streamlining it. They are changing the process in a way which will widen those able to get a GRC.

A adult relative of mine recently underwent an assessment for autism. This was a full day process undertaken with two doctors who were experts in this area and who both had to agree he meet the diagnostic criteria for autism before he could receive a diagnosis. And that diagnosis affects no one but him. Two doctors agreeing is sensible process for a diagnosis for a condition which relies on the judgement of doctors.

Gender identify disorder is similar. It is a difficult diagnosis to make as it relies on judgement. Its also a decision that affects people other than the person diagnosed, if it opens pathways to the single sex provision of the opposite sex. There absolutely should be a rigorous assessment process involving more than one doctor, for as long as we have GRC.

Do you really think this is a good use of GPs' time?

People already find it hard enough to get to see a GP even when they are actually ill.

Why should GPs waste their time training to have expertise in deciding whether someone really feels like they want to be recognised as the opposite sex or is just pretending? And then waste valuable appointments on assessing these people and signing them off to get a falsified birth certificate?

Which spaces are for biological women only with Labour?

Can you list them?

Thank you theilltemperedclavecinist

but if your birth certificate records a different set of circumstances at birth, than were actually true, then what?

A GRC can change your birth certificate.

In the absence of a witness, the birth certificate is the thing that provides the proof, isn't it?

I'm sure I have misunderstood. That was my point.

If you can't simply and clearly explain what you're changing and why it's a good thing it's useless as an attack line. It might be the right thing to do - but the Tories aren't doing it for that reason.

If Kemi can't do that (and she's been looking at the issue for a long time so presumably understands it) what hope Rishi or, more pertinently, activists on the doorstep?

I also think it needs to go or at least massive reform but neither the tories or labour are planning on this.

The Tories also defend it, there isn't the clear blue water between the parties.

Labour haven't said self ID via GP, you ve made that up.

I never said that you couldn't back some of your points up with research. I said you are using hyperbole. I also pointed out that 'what about the funding' is not a reason that we should not be discussing the potential outcomes of the topic of this thread.

I also have said that you seem to be also taking some sort of abolutist and tribal route in telling me what I 'believe' while then trying to point me out as 'making stuff up.'

I know quite well the statistics for voilence and murders. I don't believe that because of them, we should not be discussing potential law changes. While you clearly do as you brought them up.

I don't disagree that she could say 'we screwed up'. I question whether there was ever a majority in the house to vote any changes through when they started to discuss it. I keep pointing out that there seems to be a rather powerful faction with Nokes, Blunt was there too, and Mordaunt who I don't see has being at all supportive.

I have also said that if they miraculously won the election that they still may not be able to deliver because it would take majority buy in.

Either way, the way to get that majority is to convince them through discussion. And doing it on the election circuit is one way to do this. And if it then starts to force Starmer's team to stop using ambiguous words such as 'safe spaces' and start to be clear they will protect single sex spaces, that is also a good place to start.

It's very difficult not to misunderstand all this. Lady Haldane said in December 2022 that a GRC changes your sex and this, apparently, means that the schedule of the EA2010 which allows exclusion of TW from single sex spaces can no longer be used. Or can it? I don't know. Keir Starmer doesn't know. Who the hell knows? Doies it apply outside Scotland? But Equality is reserved to the union, so....

Yes, there's a lot to clarify.

GP is an option did you miss that?

If it is it’s pretty much Self ID

Changing the EqA is better than now as legal threat is too high. I take it you’d like that to stay?

You shouldn't be able to have legal recognition for something you are not.....in the case of TW, they are not female. Female is a biological signifier,not a social one.

Exactly this.

Can you point out where she has used 'safe spaces for biological women only' in what you have linked?

Tbh it doesn’t really matter. Look at the DM people have all kinds of levels of knowledge and even there you get a good it needs to change.

And no point scoffing at the DM it’s a reflection of views as The Guardian will be for TRAs

Women with prosthetic penises would be very vulnerable in the male estate.

If necessary there could be separate wings in both male and female estates. - for those whose identities don't match their sex.

Major political parties are now discussing the issue of a GRC, the GRA, the EA, womens spaces, the lot.

I genuinely believe that when people understand the criteria to get a GRC, and that it actually changes your birth certificate, and any bloke can get one, they will think the GRA a mad piece of legislation.

And that's before we even mention AGP.

Laws get repealed. It might take time, but hell, look how things speed up once people get it.