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'm more likely to trust Labour than the Tories, yes. Given the Tories are proven liars and law breakers.
Starmer has said nothing of the sort. He said the same as Badenoch, that they have legally changed sex and are legally women.

Lammy has been an MP since 2000. The GRA debates took place in 2003 when he was an Under Secretary.

I seem recall him being one of the people quoted in Hansard during the debates but I'd have to look that up to be sure.

Yes - that's what the SSEs are which is why Labour says there isn't an issue.

Exactly wtf would anyone back that

If you give mandate don’t moan when TRAs rejoice

But I think the Haldane judgement is the sticking point and until the wording in the EA and GRA is made legally watertight, it's still going to be up for interpretation ...

No - that Haldane judgement confirmed the existing law in practice.

If you have a GRC then you are "legally" the "sex" on the certificate, ie your legal sex, but where proportionate a GRC can be ignored because (even Labour) recognises that women are only safely supported where services are by and for biological females.

Oh, I stand corrected! I had no idea he'd been around that long! Don't remember him featuring last time at all

'The Bill has a long history. It has emerged from about 20 hours of scrutiny in another place and is the product of much prior thought and consultation with stakeholders—we were determined to get it right. The Government have been working on issues affecting transsexual people since 1999. The interdepartmental working group on transsexual people published its report in April 2000 and was reconvened in 2002 to resolve finally the many difficult technical issues involved in changing a person's legal status. That work led to our announcement on 13 December 2002 that legislation would he introduced, and to the publication of a draft Bill on 11 July 2003."

Thanks. I knew I'd read something about his involvement in the GRA.

The Bill has a long history. It has emerged from about 20 hours of scrutiny in another place and is the product of much prior thought and consultation with stakeholders

It's quite something reading this in 2024 and knowing now that none of those stakeholders were the women who would be affected.

Very interesting reading those debates with hindsight. Trans widows, pensions, prisons, all raised and for the most part, hand waved away.

I do wonder if this is true about how 184,000 postcards objecting to the GRA were counted as one response.

x.com/sarahstuartxx/status/1307400102118592512?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

x.com/sarahstuartxx/status/1307400285854273536?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

And the pro-GRA 1000 were counted as 1000

x.com/sarahstuartxx/status/1307400503459016704?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Maybe someone knows.

What is unclear about her stance?

Are you honestly attempting to say that her statement that legal sex needs to be separated from biological sex and going forward suggesting ‘gender’ be used and that she supports biological sex single sex spaces is somehow ambiguous? Please explain how you have interpreted this in this way.

Also how you can interpret Sunak’s statement about single sex spaces?

Discussion of labour’s policy and what it means is absolutely relevant.

Why on earth would you not think it is relevant?

🤦‍♀️You’re completely failing to realise that many of us are not Tory voters, don’t want to vote for them and are desperate to vote Labour. Yet Labour are desperate to stop us doing so.

You seem to be very enamoured of the idea that you are the only person on the thread with the superior intellect to see through the Tories’ moves. You are not.

Both parties are saying whatever to get elected. The Tories, however, have at least listened to women and changed their policies in accordance with women’s concerns. Whatever their motives, they’ve pledged to restore the rights of women. Labour have not. Quite the opposite, in fact. That may be a cynical move on the Tories part, but nothing’s stopping Labour listening and changing their own policies. Nothing’s stopping them realising the fact that policies that reduce the rights and safety of women are morally wrong. So why are they persisting with them?

Because it’s not just women there’s a TRA lobby and Labour are more inclined to listen to them

It’s a nonsense

They’ve also linked to Labour policy a few times

I have no idea why they are so inconsistent

I have no idea why they are so inconsistent

Oh, I think we do know! 🤔

I'd actually like to vote Libdem, so if someone could go and get them down off Planet Genderwhang, that'd be great.

Okay, I have read through all 25 pages since I posted late last night, and quite honestly want to say what I said then about how we as women who are concerned, committed, whatever to having sex recognised as biological can capitalise on this.

I dont think this is Badenoch "stoking" the woke wars. She has (in addition to being Business Minster and I think something else) been working her way through issues around women's rights.

If anyone remember there was a HoC debate about changing the EA when 2 petitions saying the opposite were discussed, and it was left that it would be followed up.

Well here we are, this is how the Government has followed up.

We all know the Tories aren't going to win, even more so now that Farage has taken over Reform and will be standing as an MP.

The only usefulness of this statement is how we can use it to question anyone electioneering.

But taking into account points made about the proposal and ignoring the party politiking, if you were trying to persuade a Parliamentary candidate that they too should support amending the EA so that the word sex is clarified to mean biological fact, how would you say this will benefit women.

Earlier on in the thread it was pointed out that if if isn't compulsory to provide women only services, businesses and services providers could just start using the word female gender (or something).

And we would still have to rely on the SSE to argue that in some circumstances it is proportional to have services that are only for biological women.

Both publicly funded services and businesses will no doubt use lack of finances to justify not providing an exclusively single sex service or provision.

Not trying to be negative and not interesting in this Party vs that Party, but reading this thread has left me feeling quite negative.

As it seems most are saying that unless we repeal the GRA nothing is going to make a difference. Which sort of suggests 14 years of campaigning by a range of women's groups have been a waste of time.

So how would changing the word Sex in the Equality Act to ONLY mean biological sex help women?

Thanks

I am not or lawyer so take a big pinch of salt now, but to me the plan to amend the EA seems a much bigger departure from the staus quo than people are giving credit for. As well as meaning that providers are less likely to be sued for keeping a service single sex, doesn't it also make providers more open to be sued for not doing so? As I recall the EA says services should be universal unless there's a good reason to provide separately by sex. Right now that is usually interpreted as being legal sex, but if that were actual sex, wouldn't that leave a lot of stonewalled service providers on very shaky legal ground. They can provide a universal service/space or 2 biological sex based service/spaces, but not 2 spaces based on legal sex?

Apologies if this is either already obvious or utterly incorrect.

I think we’ve been saying for a while Stonewall has exploited the legal weakness of GRA and EqA to create fear and threat over litigation around this

The main point seems to be take away this threat. IMO the law has enabled gender ideology over women’s safety and dignity

We need to deflate TRAs power

Of course Labour have declined so we’ll have their version soon and that’s much more TRA friendly

I recall a poster on here who is well known for opposing position rejoicing that it would not be done before Labour got in

The TRA lobby really do not want this legal power removed

Well LGB Alliance thinks its a good idea!

LGB Alliance support a clarification of the Equality Act 2010 because our rights as same-sex attracted people are contingent upon the understanding that ‘sex’ means ‘biological sex’ and not upon an individual’s self-declared gender identity.

Clearly, this was precisely what the authors of the Act intended.
But in 2010, no one imagined that heterosexual men would declare themselves female, and lesbian, and insist that they be allowed to attend a lesbian social event or be permitted to upload their profile to our dating apps. Much less that actual lesbians would be punished for daring to object.

In 2010, no one dreamed that heterosexual girls would fetishise our culture to such an extent that they would declare themselves to be gay men and attempt to shame and bully actual gay men who refused to validate their delusion.

Today, those who argue that sex and gender are interchangeable deliberately seek to pervert the original meaning and intention of the Equality Act, which included clear protections for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, discriminated against by reason of our same-sex sexual orientation.

We would urge all of the parties to consider how a clarification of the Equality Act 2010 would restore much-needed rights to same-sex attracted people and would begin to limit the absurd overreach of the gender lobbyists whose fanatical and destructive influence harms us all.

https://lgballiance.org.uk/government-pledge-to-clarify-equality-act/

Thanks @IwantToRetire It's really useful to see the benefits mapped out so clearly that it immediately reveals the duplicity of those who insist the move represents business as usual.

Well at least it has made some news web sites do a bit of research on this! (Even if not very in depth)

Where do the UK's political parties stand on the gender debate? (yahoo.com)