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/

I'd tip my cap to Rosie Duffield any day of the week. The amount of stoicism required to stand amidst the crowd and be branded a heretic, cast out from general meetings, ignored by the front bench when odious turds like Russell-Moyle were free to take pot shots to affirm their own misogyny. That woman is a legend. She's the Labour Party I'd vote for.

I think you’re in the habit of laughing alone on these threads idk why

If you wanted the EqA to change and you thought it should have earlier you are now against it then don’t complain when the option is gone entirely due to Labour.

I don’t even get what you find funny. Women are better off taking the legal threat away from TRAs via this legislative amendment

Or do you prefer them to retain that power?

Can you post those links supporting Emily Thornberry and Starmer saying what you have said they have said please? I am reposting this because you may have missed it. It is a very fast moving thread.

This is really big news that Starmer has said clearly that he will protect biological women's single sex spaces. I am looking forward to reading it.

Just to clarify:
"You are the only person here saying 'we should be doing more about funding and x'. Many of us could well be working on all issues locally while acknowledging that this move by the Tories opens up discussion that is much needed."

should be

"You are the only person here saying 'we should be doing more about funding and x' first and not discussing this issue on this thread. Many of us could well be working on all issues locally while acknowledging that this move by the Tories opens up discussion that is much needed."

JKR again:

"Hush your pretty little mouth, the men will decide what's important. And put the kettle on. The heroes of the revolution can't pontificate with dry throats, you know."

https://x.com/jkrowling/status/1797610678355915057?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

And Rosie in reply:

"Women's rights? Nah, a 'niche, minority issue', as decided by the men and lads, who make up the actual minority of voters. Funny that."

https://x.com/rosieduffield1/status/1797613482394976405?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

JKR is replying to this:

"Social care? Economy? NHS? Borders?

Nah, @KemiBadenoch wants to whip up hatred against the trans minority.

No wonder they’re losing this election."

https://x.com/kevinmaguire/status/1797538037993447583?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

So, just to be clear. You are saying clearly here that Starmer has said without any ambiguity in words such as 'I will protect female people's single sex spaces to the full exclusion of all male people' (obvs not including male children under about 8 here)?

Please post the link.

Otherwise you seem to be mistaken about Labour and the Tories were the same on this.

Jk Rowling is out swinging today. Another legend.

Yep. Grown-up women supporting pro women legislation. And not going up in a puff of resentful smoke because a Tory said it.

👍

No. But I would like to know too.

I think it is interesting to read Michael Foran's thread (they are usually thought provoking) about what can and cannot be changed with the proposals.

The Tories haven't said that - at least that's not what I saw.

The vote on here asks: "should the Equality Act be amended to define sex as biological?" 90% of respondents are saying yes.

The top comment has 596 likes and says: "Kemi Badenoch showing once again that she is the adult in the room on the gender issue"

Tory vow to end abuse of gender laws by predators

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/62eb3ffc-f9db-4d92-a14c-c5c8cea1fa11?shareToken=d384b6ce6b79cf80bc52b17df0cc7774

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-conservatives-say-they-will-define-sex-biological-end-confusion-2024-06-03/

"The 2010 Equality Act already allows service providers to operate single-sex and separate sex services such as toilets, domestic abuse refuges and changing rooms where they have a good reason to do so and it is proportionate."
"Where justified, they may also be able to exclude transgender people with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRC), the government has previously said. A GRC changes a transgender person's sex for most legal purposes."
"The Conservatives said the change to the law would not remove existing protections against discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment."
"The sex of those with a GRC would still align with their acquired gender in law outside the Equality Act, for example marriage law, as is the status quo, they said."

Totally cleared up any confusion I had over what a woman is 🤣

Before the Equality Act it was legal to sack people for being lesbian and gay, to deny housing and access to services. This act gave legal rights many people did not previously have.

Otherwise you seem to be mistaken about Labour and the Tories were the same on this.

I disagree with @CassieMaddox that Labour and the Conservatives hold exactly the same position on this. They both have the same current framework to contend with and there's no way around that but I do think their understanding and knowledge of the issues largely come from different places.

It is going to be interesting though, for want of a better word... if Labour form the next government. Fairly quickly I hope we will get the answer to the two core questions that run through this thread and many others.

a) Do Labour really have any commitment to protecting women's rights on this matter? Will we be thrown under the bus once in government?

b) Do the Conservatives just see this as a wedge issue and vote winner to be gamed for election purposes? Will they drop it like a hot rock once out of government for at least a term?

We all need clear answers to both these questions because without them we're in a limbo. An incoming Labour government is going to be a line in the sand. Round 2 and we'll need a different battle plan.

On the off chance there's a shock Tory win then I guess that's a whole other matter although question b still applies to some extent.

Before the Equality Act it was legal to sack people for being lesbian and gay, to deny housing and access to services. This act gave legal rights many people did not previously have.

The employment equality regulation of 2003 covered sexual orientation.

The EqA main purpose was the consolidating and updating existing laws.

JKR 🔥

"When exactly in the 1997 devolution campaign was it mentioned that we were also voting to reclassify 'woman' as a nebulous collection of stereotypes that men can identify in and out of?"

https://x.com/jkrowling/status/1797617790524047494?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

She has retweeted this with Swinney. Who objects to the part of the proposal which would make S53 in another Isla Bryson case impossible, as it would form a reserved matter meaning we could never face the threat of self-ID by the back door in Scotland again:

x.com/ginadavidsonlbc/status/1797603787567407454?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

https://archive.ph/WENEe#selection-2783.2-2783.116

“It is the behaviour of people who are choosing to exploit rights given to transgender people - because the definition is very loose - that we are now having to look at what we can do in order to protect women and children who are the most vulnerable in those single-sex spaces.

https://archive.ph/nNfB2#selection-3059.0-3067.175

Mrs Badenoch wrote: “Every week, I get cards and letters like this, reminding me why we must defend single-sex spaces from those who seek to de-legitimise or redefine them.

Combined with that interview that you keep posting as if it was somehow problematics where Kemi states very clearly that she wants the law to refer to ‘biological sex’ and exclude those with ‘legal sex’. Or didn’t you understand what she was saying quite clearly on that interview you keep posting and laughing at?

https://x.com/GMB/status/1797536066917765428

So, Kemi is very clear that when she is talking about ‘sex’ she means biological sex. And therefore when she states ‘single sex spaces’ she means ‘single sex spaces’.

Now please post the level of clarity from Starmer and Thornberry that supports you keep saying ‘the two parties have the exact same view’.

And here you are, this is quite clear from Sunak.

https://www.politico.eu/article/tories-put-trans-rights-access-row-at-heart-of-uk-election-campaign/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1906457/Rishi-Sunak-trans-general-election-women-Nicola-Strugeon

He said the Conservatives want to ensure single-sex spaces are maintained for women and girls’ dignity, privacy and safety, and that single-sex groups can freely associate without others of the opposite biological sex.

This paragraph appears on multiple news outlets, so while I cannot find the statement itself, it appears to have been correlated with multiple sources.

Now, please can you show this level of clarity from Starmer and Thornberry because you have said that both parties believe exactly the same thing.

Ah sorry you are right. It was 2003 act that gave those rights.

He said the Conservatives want to ensure single-sex spaces are maintained for women and girls’ dignity, privacy and safety, and that single-sex groups can freely associate without others of the opposite biological sex.

Can you tell us how this paragraph which is also being reported allows male people even with a GRC to access single sex spaces?

Even what you have posted says 'outside the Equality Act'. ie. that there are exceptions.

Please can you post where Starmer and Thornberry have stated very clearly with out using 'safe spaces' that single sex will exclude all males even those 'legally' female?

yep. Either way, I expect that come 5th July there will need to be a shift in what we are campaigning for.

Could you not see it because you admitted you were laughing so hard, rather than, you know considering what she was saying and how it can be used to progress the needs of female people to prioritise sex over gender where sex matters? I guess you didn't 'see' it.

It's not exactly the same method but it is the same outcome: businesses are confident in applying the EA exemptions so women can have access to single sex spaces, people can still legally change sex (but not get access to EA exempt spaces).

I prefer changing the GRA to changing the EA because I think the Tories can't be trusted not to take the opportunity to mess around with things like disability as well. Similar to what we have seen (some) of them try to do with the abortion decriminalisation legislation.

Focusing on "the method" over "the outcome" is a deflection tactic from the Tories but won't stand up to scrutiny - as we've seen.

Apologies if this has been discussed - not read all 500 odd posts

I have some issues with the announcement on this. In one interview Kemi is suggesting that real trans are those who have had surgery and they can be protected. This is problematic on several levels. Including the idea that there is something men can do to be considered women, and the undesirability of a law that will only give you recognition if you undertake drastic surgery - I can see that backfiring.

Isn't the real issue the GRA rather than the EA?If we move (further) to a position where it is clearly enshrined that there are two types of sex - legal and biological - then any relaxation of the criteria for getting a GRC will see innumerable men qualifying as women.

I cannot see this whole mess being fixed until the strategy moves from messing around with the EA to repealing the GRA. And I wish that was where the focus of Sex Matters et al was.

The EqA amendment is the best way to deal with this short of repealing the GRA

In fact many posts demanding it happen pre GE and now it’s not wanted

TRAs are the ones actually laughing. Not that emoji eruption on thread. They can thank those who will vote against for the help