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/

It's a political fudge, basically.

Logically it would have been easier to explain reasoning behind ditching the GRA altogether.

I guess they didn't go for that so that social media wasn't flooded with pictures of Brianna Ghey with "Rishi says she's not a woman".

But the result, as we've seen, is that it's impossible to describe the change properly within the limits of a broadcast interview or Tweet.

What would posters like to have seem from Labour in response? Their response was that this is "not needed". But in an ideal world, what would they have come out with?

"Labour has dismissed Conservative plans to define “sex” as biological in the eyes of the law to protect female-only spaces like changing rooms and lavatories (writes Oliver Wright).

John Healey, the shadow defence secretary, said the proposals were “not needed”.

His comments put clear a dividing line between Labour and the Tories on the contentious issue and will be seized on by the Conservatives to suggest that the opposition is not committed to women’s rights.

Speaking on BBC Five Live Healey said: “This is an election distraction from the really core issues that matter to people like the cost of living and the defence of the country,” he said.

“The Equality Act, which Labour brought in in 2010 and the Tories opposed, already protects single sex spaces for biological women. It already defines what a woman is. What’s certainly needed is clearer guidance and for service providers about how to safeguard those women."

General election latest: Kemi Badenoch defends gender laws pledge

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a49ea613-cb3c-4742-982e-9087ff5e8489?shareToken=d09f435185dcb0cdf447f125147d2acf

No you’re being too superficial here

You need to look into the legal reality of scrapping the GRA, taking note of international law

I agree. We just recently went through a similar process. And it ended up involving one doctor and two psychologists trained in that particular area.

Which is effectively a panel. For ASD which will have no impact for safeguarding others.

No they have not - you are getting muddled up with the Equalities Act. They have said they are proud of that and will defend it.

Are you / they not proud of the GRA?

I can see why. It’s caused all this harm.

What a terrible piece of legislation that has harmed women and girls.

Lammy must still be, he was there, I doubt he’s changed with his rights hoarding dinosaur line

I love this desperate attempt by the "current administration" to distance themselves from the Conservatives of the last 14 years. It's not particularly compelling, especially given all of them were elected under Johnson.

Badenoch handled the PO scandal with her normal competence by picking a fight with Henry Staunton. Not sure we have seen the end of that one.

She's awful and her GMB performance today shows she'd be appalling if she was party leader.

Is Healey wrong? he is saying we need clearer guidance etc.

i'm at a loss as to how KBs proposed changes will make matters safer for women without huge increases in funding, which no one is proposing.

Unless the prisons/hospitals are built & staffed, then all the law changes in the world will make no difference.

Patients are supposed to be treated on wards, yet they are dying, untreated in corridors.

So no answer then

I think that each time these things are discussed, it moves the window and people start to think about it more and more.

So that when we next have a male in sports discussion event, I see people who have not thought about it more starting to think about it. Then when women's rights activists link those unchanging physical attributes to why women need to have their own spaces, a little more understanding develops. And more people discuss it openly.

I have events with women only sitting around a table having chats after the event is finished, and more and more of them are having these open discussions. Two years ago, there was little discussion. But lately, it is getting there.

I think we are still getting to a point where we can openly discuss ditching the GRA. But I suspect it is another election term atleast away. Meanwhile, the discussions have to continue because there is so much resistance to even the language around the discussion, let alone having the discussion itself. But it is getting better. Frustratingly, not as fast as needed.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned (haven't read through the thread in detail) but Labour's John Healey said in response to Badenoch: "We will not want to amend the Act, it’s not needed. It already provides a definition of a woman, and sex and gender are different."

But that's not true, is it? It doesn't provide a definition of woman. People assumed that the Act referred to biological women, but Lady Haldane in her ruling said that it included trans women with a GRC. That's why Badenoch wants to clarify it.

I thought you wanted men to have GRCs

Have you changed to repeal the GRA?

Labour are the furthest away from this btw, with ease and access

Yes. 'No debate' has been set on fire.

Let's all look at these issues and discuss them.

Let's hear the reasons men should have access to women's spaces.

Starmer has said he is proud that both the GRA and the EqA are labour policies.

If a man with a GRC is to be treated as a woman for some, but not all situations, it makes more sense to provide the GRC when it counts, and not change his birth certificate and passport at all.

The way to go on this is to chip at it. No party will go straight to repeal.

Putting aside for a sec that no man is a woman whether he has a piece of paper or not, one of the problems the GRA has caused is the privacy clause.

The privacy clause aspect of the GRA has had the real life effect of enabling any man to take advantage of it. This needs to stop and businesses/orgs etc. should be able to ask for proof of this legal sex/gender certificate.

Obviously women and girls will still have to contend with the problem of some men in their spaces and it will be even more of an issue if Labour make getting one simpler.

However if we view it as building case for repeal step by step then the first stage as above is removing the chancers and opportunists. We all know this won't totally resolve the issues because out of the men with a GRC there will still be those that pose a danger and cause issues for women and girls.

So then we go back again to the politicians and make our case, with evidence (and there will be evidence!) that these men with GRCs are no safer, no more appropriate to be in spaces with women and girls than the other men that were excluded.

Eventually we will box them in so there's no recourse other than repeal. It will be a bloody long slog though and we are probably still years away from this.

Why would I be proud of it? Its nothing to do with me. You brought up people being proud of it. You'd have to ask Labour.

They are the only party proposing to review it so that suggests they can see some issues with it.

You seem to push Labour policies so why not that

Have you changed your mind about men getting GRCs?

I thought that wasn’t the issue for you, now you’d like no one to get a GRC?

I agree.

And I think these things snowball. I know I've thought it would snowball at least half a dozen times before!

But since the cass report, we've had unlikely people agreeing with it, puberty blockers being banned, private prescriptions being addressed, the mumsnet manifesto, and now Kemi.

The GRA is now the issue on the table.

These things only go in one direction, too.

And fact that GRCs have gone up rapidly from 5000 to 10,000 is shocking.

It was meant to be just a bit of admin, not important, not worth having. But I suspect TRA's are seeing the writing on the wall that would possibly make a GRC the distinction between those allowed to access women and those not.

All this has ever needed is debate.

And it's happening.

Yep. I will be lobbying heavily for Labour to remove that clause in the consultation. It is the one that causes most confusion.

If they got rid of that clause and updated the GRA to make it clear the EA had primacy there is no need to update the EA. I think its a better approach because there is lots of protection for other disadvantaged groups in the EA that need to be kept.

This was always a flimsy house of cards

It’s why men / TRAs protect it so vehemently with violence, threats and dismissal

If you actually allow discussion it falls apart.

Hence all the tactics used by Labour / some on here and half the media to deflect

This is a thread about the Conservatives. Nice try to derail to Labour but the fact is the two parties are essentially the same in policy terms.

That really isn't how politics works. Think about it. Suppose, for instance, that Labour came out to condemn cannibalism, do you seriously believe that the Tories would feel duty-bound to say they think it's great and would make it compulsory?

It wasn't a derail. Immediately people wondered what Labour would say. But all we've had when trying to discuss the Tories' policy idea is "what about funding". That's a derail, no?

I think also though, that each time we revisit this, the solution that will be most robust and not contested becomes clearer. I remember when discussing the GRA was considered extreme among the feminists who were campaigning. They were after guidance. Then it became clear that even guidance was to be ignored, it had to be law changes.

Then came the contradictory advice about the EA2010. Each time we get a clearer understanding and we get resolution on what needs to be done. I don't think there was any other way it could have happened.

As I said, if Labour want to dismiss the need for these changes, they need to be very clear that when they mean biological sex, they fully exclude all male people regardless of GRC status. Them just saying 'it is not needed' should not be accepted. The confusion is there. Experts in law have said there is confusion.

What is it that Labour knows that those experts in law don't?

Gosh. You seem to know my position better than I do!

I think GRCs to define someone's status are better than self-ID. But I actually would prefer single sex spaces where needed for safety/dignity, protected by the EA. "Gender" as protected characteristic in other settings e.g. social.

However some would prefer a centrally maintained list. And some would prefer no recognition of trans identities at all.

As I'm not in power it's kinda irrelevant.