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/

The precise same thing that is "unclear" about Labour's stance.
Biological women are protected by the EA.
Some males are legal women, granted by the GRA.
Some males will have access to womens spaces, especially in regard of private sector (shops, gyms, etc). Neither party are stopping it.

I never thought either party would stop males with a GRA accessing womens spaces but the pro- Tory posters on here have repeatedly called me all kinds of disgusting things for saying I thought the Labour position was a reasonable compromise. Now the Tories have said essentially the same (with a different mechanism, admittedly) those same posters are pretending it's all great and the Tories have done a great job.

I find it funny to watch Badenoch squirming as she knows she's been caught out by Hussain, Balls etc. But I don't find it funny that women on here have been manipulated by political campaigns into believing the Tories will protect women's rights.

Can't do pictures but here's a Kemi thread which does contain screen shots to other text:

"The plan I announced today to clarify biological sex in law has attracted a lot of comment. Including, of course, vitriol from the usual suspects who toxify the debate!

My Times piece explains the policy and shows the area is complex -the media interviewing me were by their own admission confused about it all, so I answer key questions below (1/5)"

x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1797707533131411484?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

"1️⃣ Why now?
We’ve been working on this for nearly 2 years. It was part of a package of proposals I discussed with the PM, almost all of which are done.

This legislation was ready for Sept, but we had to wait for a few things first, such as the court case with the SNP govt (2/5)

x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1797707541691957401?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

"2️⃣ Isn’t this just “culture wars” for right-wing voters?
No. It’s the right thing to do. The people most keen on this policy tend to be women’s rights campaigners -largely on the left. This should not be a party-political issue. Just common sense re-stating the law as it was intended (3/5)"

x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1797707546473492642?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

"3️⃣ Will I need to show paperwork?
This morning, @mishalhusain on @Radio4Today seemed to assume people are routinely presenting birth and recognition certificates to gain access to single-sex spaces. This is of course not how the real world works. Many will create hypothetical, bureaucratic scenarios and confuse what is already a complex issue. Guidance will of course be provided but this announcement is about enshrining the principle of biological sex. (4/5)"

x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1797707550776779017?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

"In summary, Legal Sex and Biological Sex are separate concepts. Service providers should for example, be able to decide whether a space is for biological women or not, without fear of legal action. This was the intention of the law until recent rulings and bad guidance from activists changed that.

This is a sensitive area, but @Conservatives believe this is the right outcome to protect women’s spaces (5/5)"

x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1797707553574404566?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Of course you are. Like Richard Largans "Labour for Largan" fan base.

If it's complex it needs to be simplified.

Can people change sex or not, yes or no?

Can men use women's spaces, yes or no?

I suggest people watch her interviews where she gets challenged about it. This is my favourite

Why do people not want to change the EqA?

TRAs won’t want it either

@CassieMaddox my understanding is that under Labour proposals more men will be able to access more female spaces (easier GRC, no tightening of the EA) whereas the Tory proposal will mean fewer men in women's spaces (GRC process remains panel based, EA changes mean single sex service providers have less fear of legal action for excluding males).

What part of this do you see differently? I apologise for asking as I'm sure you've covered this already but the thread is very long now.

You keep repeating this.

Again I will ask. What part of what Kemi Badenoch has said, that she wants to separate 'legal sex' and 'Biological Sex' and make sure that single sex spaces are 'Biological Sex only' is allowing 'some males to have access to women's spaces'.

Or are you now trying the 'but it is not ALL 'women's' spaces' so therefore what she is saying is somehow meaningless?

Can you please post where Starmer has been as clear as Badenoch about this issue? Again, you keep deflecting but it was you who made this statement and you are still trying this tactic of 'they are both the same'.

No, they are not the 'same'. Badenoch has clearly stated that Biological Sex should exclude all male people when sex matters. So, please link us up with where Starmer has been explicitly clear.

Plus, who are the 'Tory voters' on this thread that you refer to? Or are you mistaking people who keep pointing out that you are mistaken as 'Tory voters'. Because that would be deeply tribal of you to make that mistake as well.

Employers are required to provide single-sex toilets for their employees.

My employer provides these.

They think that the EA entitles employees to access these toilets according to their self-identified sex/gender/whatever.

They have been told this by their lawyers.

Of course this bloody mess needs sorting out.

Kemis explanation in here "we just want to clarify the status quo so that people understand what to do and don't have to worry about being sued"

Nothing about protecting women. Nothing about a change. It's just "clarifying the status quo" to protect people from being sued.

Well done Kemi 👏

Honestly, do you actually understand the interview that you keep posting?

Hang on why do you want TRAs to continue to have this hold wrt suing businesses?

Ah yes, because anyone pointing out any flaws with Labour’s pledges must be a bot or a shill, right? Couldn’t possibly be a concerned and disenfranchised voter.

But Angela Rayner says it's always been robust and there's no issues.

My understanding is by "easier" the Labour Party mean quicker and more efficient, not a lower bar to gaining a GRC. They say they will reform the GRA so nothing conflicts or overrides the exeptions that allow biological spaces in the EA. They also say they will provide detailed guidance/training so service providers know how to apply the exemptions correctly to reduce risk of being sued. This is like the approach the Conservatives took to LGBT education in schools.

Given only 5000 people have a GRC I cannot see the "easier" process materially affecting how many males can access female spaces.

And given private orgs like John Lewis/M&S are vocally trans inclusive, I can't see the Government’s announcement stopping them, and other orgs like them, continuing to let males in womens spaces.

It is a nonsense. I'm not a Tory voter so I find it funny but if I'd pinned all my hopes on KB like so many posters on here appear to have done, I'd be fuming.

I wonder? Perhaps the poster is so encultured with the postmodern magic of making things so with the power of language alone that it is no longer possible to distinguish the difference between a legal fiction of playing at a women and the biological reality?

No. I don't. Neither does Susannah Reid. Neither of us are stupid women so I think its probably to do with the fact the Conservatives position is hard to follow unless you are a fan.

Did I say that? Largan is adamant there are lots of disaffected Labour voters in his area too, flocking to vote Tory. Had to set up a whole Facebook group for them and everything.

This is how I understand it. Currently for the purposes of the pc ‘sex’ transpeople with a GRC are treated as their acquired gender. So a transwoman with a GRC is female. Single-sex, female-only spaces are therefore open to them UNLESS the further provision under the act is used that allows exclusion of any male, even those with a GRC.

A change to the definition to mean biological sex means that all males are considered male for the purposes of the act regardless of GRC status. Labours position is to maintain the status quo. That is males with a GRC are considered female for the purposes of the act. There’s a clear difference in position

But I don't find it funny that women on here have been manipulated by political campaigns into believing the Tories will protect women's rights.

Oh, I think if you’re thinking that most of us think the Tories are the dream ticket for women then you’re blinded by tribalism and cognitive bias.

i’ve never voted Tory in my life and have always voted Labour up until 2010 and then Lib Dem after, before I understood what a huge assault was taking place on women’s rights and that Labour and Lib Dem were cheering it on and pushing for it.

To me it’s tragic that Labour are holding the immoral position they are, that puts women and children in danger. And that makes for such a huge dilemma for left of centre voters who actually give a shit about women and are clear-eyed about the risks of gender woo and also hate what the Tories have done to the UK.

If you’d told me 10 years ago we’d be stuck in this absolute bugger’s muddle I wouldn’t have believed you. Yet here we are. It’s a great steaming pile of horseshit and nobody with any political clout in Labour gives a shit. Happy days.

That's my understanding too. To add to it: because of the GRC 'legal sex' confusion, many businesses etc don't want to fall
foul of the law and be sued, even though they've every right to apply the exemption.

Clarifying 'sex' allows everyone to understand that the exemption can be used and men (even those with a GRC) can be excluded.

The Michael Foran TwiX post was really useful in clarifying, IMO.

My understanding is by "easier" the Labour Party mean quicker and more efficient, not a lower bar to gaining a GRC.

Your understanding is wrong. And if safeguarding is "funny" to you, you're the reason it's needed.

Yes this is it

But I don't find it funny that women on here have been manipulated by political campaigns into believing the Tories will protect women's rights.

We aren't dim and we haven't been manipulated, but thank you so much for your faux concern about our intelligence levels.

Many of us are way more astute than you'll ever give us credit for.

True