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 gender recognition certificate, not a sex change certificate. You can't change sex and this is provable fact, whatever TRAs say. So the solution I'd go for is to make clear that sex matters and people are allowed to define themselves by sex, and single sex toilets, changing rooms, prisons, and sports are justifiable.

The GRC should then be clearly defined as a "gender" only change, gender meaning a person's idea of themselves as transgender or wanting to simulate the opposite sex, without that having anything to do with sex itself. Sex remains the same.

Being "transgender" should, and in effect does, mean doing an impression of the opposite sex or being drawn to the stereotypes associated with the opposite sex. (Or if we're including NB, the stereotypes of neither or as it often seems, both.) You shouldn't need a label for deciding not to be a walking stereotype of your own sex - I'm not and I don't. It's very sexist to see things that way at all IMO. But people could choose a GRC so that they can be officially transgender. Not officially the opposite sex.

It's not just that trans ideology is harmful - what's also insane is that it's a huge exception to our standard approach to reality. You can't do this with ethnicity, age, height, disability, your job and qualifications. You can't identify as me and have access to my house. You can't be white and identify as black, or be able-bodied and identify as having CP, however convincing an impression you do. Because that would be madness and anyone can understand why these things would not work out well if they were made into laws.

People can do an impression of someone they're not for whatever reason - for fetish reasons, to gain access to somewhere, or even because they genuinely believe they are something they're not. But everyone knows that doesn't make them that thing. Just because it can happen, and it might be difficult to stop it, doesn't mean it should be made legal.

I can't stop someone declaring they're me, breaking into my house and sitting on my sofa, if they really want to. But it's pretty rare because everyone knows that person would get arrested and people would find the self-identification as someone else outrageous and ridiculous, so there's a stigma attached that stops most people from even going there. It's not about paperwork and inspections to see if they're really me. It's about a total breach of our shared understanding of reality and what people can be, that needs to be mended.

Nah. I'm just enjoying the focus being on the Tories "anti womens-sex based rights" stance for once. Despite the desperate attempts to flip it onto Labour.

Must be gutting to have thought "I'll vote Conservative- at least they know what a woman is!", and then be confronted with the "legal sex is different to biological sex, legally you can change sex" Badenoch wittering. Basically the same as Labour.

Today is my favourite GE day so far. An open goal for Kemi, and she spoons it over the crossbar 😂

How do people override women and children with this gender stuff so they can cheer their party?

It’s bizarre

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

A mistaken birth registration (eg of a baby with a DSD) can be corrected later, by notifying the Registrar (there's no standard form: I believe it requires evidence from a clinician). The change is applied manually to the register and therefore presumably not concealed from posterity, but it does take effect ex tunc. New certificates issued henceforth show only the correct sex.

A GRC can change your birth certificate.

A GRC entitles you to an entry in the Gender Recognition Register, from which a birth certificate can be issued showing the acquired gender. The Registrar is not permitted to reveal that this is from the GRR and that there is also an entry on the main register for the same person.

I actually thought the clip was really clear in that Kemi hadn't budged at all and was pointing out the language needed to change in that clip, just as the language needs to be tighter in the act for the same reason. But apparently, we haven't understood the clip at all.

Rather than a car crash interview, I saw it as Kemi making a clear point that the language needs to change and that Ed Balls seemed to be missing it.

Are you jettisoned out of the Labour party like a common heretic if you don't agree with all their policies wholesale?

Aside from you erupting emojis over this it is a good way to lower legal threat from TRAs

In fact I recall many saying as much plus stating they’d never do it, until it was proposed

It was never going to happen because the Tories hate women and I've known that from the start. Partly why I post on here so much. All this "we know what a woman is" has been hot air for the gullible. And now it's been shown for the emperor's new clothes it always was.

Labour consulting on the GRA is the next big opportunity for women. The Tories are an irrelevance now.

So you are not actually here to support the discussion that may progress the needs of female people to ensure that when needed, sex can be prioritised over gender. You are here to score tribalistic points. You have prioritised making those points rather than trying to gain an understanding of what this might do and what it might enable for the future and what the point of it is better protection for female people of all ages.

Thank you for being clear about it.

I think you need to cry laugh for your allotted time to show your solid allegiance

Right.

So if you were to designate a space for women only, and relied on documentation, you would only be able to that by accessing the main register to see the original entry?

Thank you btw. V informative.

Changing any birth certificate on the basis of philosophical belief is not something that I would have believed could happen even ten years ago.

Oh, like a modern two minute hate?

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

And then the clock strikes 13?

I don't want to vote for any of these people. 😭

Bloody hell.

As a matter of interest, do you think Kemi hates women?

Is that why she's doing all this?

Ha an offering up to the Labour gods lest you be smote

Proposing it isn't the same as doing it!
She proposed it over a year ago! With a stonking majority! She's said nothing new at all.
I'll stop cry laughing as its obviously annoying. But really. When I've written "Starmer is clear there is legal sex and biological sex" posters like you have seized on that as evidence he's lying, not protecting women's sex based rights yadda yadda.

Badenoch says the exact same thing and it's suddenly not a problem.

Thats tribalism, right there.

Have you watched Kemi talking about this? Taking on TRA's?

She's absolutely bloody furious.

I doubt she personally hates women but the way she wrote off the rape comments about JP suggests she's not a friend of women.

We all have a party of choice, yours is the Conservatives, i ve never yet heard you criticise the tories, which is fair enough but don't then have a go at Labour or LD supporters.

For me, its about improving female only services and so far there isn't a single penny of extra funding and no its not a derail, its fundamental.

Quite, disgraceful from Badenoch.

Please can you link up the evidence that all the Conservative MPs in the House of Commons could be forced to vote for this? Or that there was enough MPs in general that agreed that would get this passed?

Because at this moment you are making points that don't seem to add up.

Sorry, did you also post where that link you posted of Thornberry stating apparently about 'biological sex'? And while you are at it, can you post where Starmer has also stated that female people should have same sex spaces to the full exclusion of those with the 'legal sex' of female?

I must of missed that and I would love to see that evidence please.

KB gets it as does Victoria Atkins

RD likely too

Others but it’s like clanging a chime for certain topics so I’ll leave those

They all care about this issue

As for why now? look around you, look at where England in particular is against other countries. Who has the Cass Review? Who is even starting to get single sex spaces back?

This is due to the women here and irl speaking up. Those same women some posters have derided and tried every tactic on to silence

Thank those women instead, it’s due to those women politicians are changing

So you are saying the reason it can't pass is because the Conservatives don't have the party discipline to whip it through?
How will that be different after the election? If they can't do it now with a huge majority, why propose it?

Has someone please got a link to Starmer declaring that female people can have single sex spaces to the full exclusion of male people with a legal sex of female?

I seem to have missed this and it would be huge!