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/

That's not what I understood Kemi as saying earlier. She said the GRC legally changed sex, unless an organisation chose to apply one of the EA sex based exemptions. Then a male with a GRC would be excluded. I think Labour are also saying that's the case.

Both parties are saying the EA allows exclusion of males with a GRC and some orgs are interpreting the law wrongly. The Conservatives say this is because the EA is confusing and they will update it to clarify. Labour say the law is fine but its being interpreted wrongly so their answer is to keep the law but provide better guidance so organisations are clear on how to apply it.

Honestly I feel like it's dancing on the head of a pin and I don't think that's to do with being a Labour supporter, I think its because its a complex subject with many possible interpretations and solutions.

It's confusing but the upshot is neither party are guaranteeing single sex spaces, and (in my opinion) it's impossible to be confident which approach will result in the fewest males in womens spaces.

Of course it's a lower bar. GPs are 'general' practitioners (the clue is in the name!). Regardless of any specialisms they may have.

They should not have the responsibility of saying yay or nay (how many would really say nay if pushed?) to a GRC.

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

Pretty sure it will mean a lower bar. If a serial killer goes to his GP and says he's upset about being male, and can cite the symptoms of gender dysphoria, then who's to say he hasn't got it? And if the first doctor says no, he can easily shop around for one who'll say yes. Currently very few applicants are rejected for GRCs, I expect that number will drop to zero.

And whether or not there is a large uptake of GRC applications, it's not just the number that is worrying but the fact that the very worst men might find it easier.

You're interpreting it wrong. Read the Michael Foran TwiX post to assist your understanding.

Please can you provide evidence to show that the Labour approach is a lower bar? Otherwise you ate just asserting your opinion as fact in rather an insulting way.

Angela Rayner actually worries me more than Starmer.

She's either a bit dim and dangerous with it. Or she knows exactly what she's doing and is dangerous with it.

What happens if you apply

Gender Recognition Panel will look at your application. This panel is made up of people with legal or medical qualifications.

^The panel will decide whether the application meets all the legal requirements.
The panel will usually look at your application within 22 weeks of applying. They may ask you for more information before they can make a decision.^

It would seem that currently a GRC may be obtained with no clinical involvement.

If a law is written in such a way that it is widely misinterpreted then the sensible course of action would be to amend that law to make it clearer

Both parties are saying the EA allows exclusion of males with a GRC and some orgs are interpreting the law wrongly.

Has Starmer or someone else in Labour explicitly said this? That they don't count men with a GRC as part of the female cohort for the purpose of single sex spaces?

Same. The irony is that I end up using the single occupant loo that has a super hero non-binary symbol on it to avoid any risk if coming across a male in the ladies', meaning that any who did consider themselves non-binary might have to wait because I'm in there.

If the women's loos were for actual women only, the tiny number of people whom that single occupant loo is for wouldn't have to wait for me.

I have thanks. Here's a reminder - bold are the bits I think most relevant:

What is settled law:

• The Equality Act protects both sex and gender reassignment. Sex refers to males of any age and females of any age. Gender reassignment refers to those who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing, or have undergone a process of changing attributes of sex.

• Sex in law is, by default, biological sex. Everyone is legally classed as their biological sex except where a GRC changes sex for some purposes.

• Being protected under gender reassignment does not change sex in law for any purpose. It protects against denial of employment, goods & services, or housing as compared to someone of the same biological sex who does not have the GR protected characteristic. So trans women by default men and are compared to non-trans men. (Green v Secretary of State for Justice).

• Single-sex services are lawful. Schedule 3 of the Equality Act allows providers to set up and maintain single-sex services such as rape crisis centres and female-only changing rooms and toilets. It also allows them to exclude anyone on the basis of sex or gender reassignment once proportionate

What is currently uncertain:

• Whether sex in the Equality Act means (i) biological sex or (ii) biological sex unless modified by a GRC.

• Whether biological females are protected as a distinct group under the Equality Act.

• How precisely the Schedule 3 exceptions which allow for single-sex services operate. If sex means sex as modified by a GRC these exceptions become more complicated to rely on and that can affect how useful they are in practice, given concerted campaigns to spread misinformation about the law here.

• Whether single-sex associations defined by reference to biology (eg. Lesbian walking group, informal support network for female victims of male violence) are lawful. If sex doesn't mean biological sex, these are unlawful.

• Whether trans men who become pregnant are protected from pregnancy discrimination. If a GRC modifies sex for the Equality Act they likely lose protection.

• Whether sexual orientation is defined in the Act by reference to biological sex or biological sex unless modified by a GRC.

What this proposal will not do:

• Remove the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

• Make it lawful to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment in the provision of goods & services, employment, or housing.

• Prevent services from offering a trans-inclusive service where proportionate.

• Require a new analysis of biological sex. The common law position will be reverted to and there are decades of caselaw on how to define biological sex in law.

Of course she does. A northern, working class, red headed woman. She's terrifying. Especially to feminists

Honestly listen to her "Leading" interview on the Rest is Politics. She is an amazing woman, regardless of what you think of her politics.

I think it’s also probably worth adding (and I know most posters understand this) that the purpose of the act is to prevent discrimination. In general men and women should be treated the same. The exceptions under the act outline where separate provision is allowed. IMO only biological sex can be the basis for separate provision. I can’t think of a reason why ‘gender’ would ever be relevant.

If you look at the requirements, you either need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, plus have been living as your preferred gender for two years. Or you don't have a diagnosis, but have lived as your preferred gender for 6 years and have had gender reassignment surgery.

At some point, both of those cohorts will have had medical contact (the first to get diagnosis, the second to have had surgery). So it can't be true that no medical / clinical involvement has been had.

I imagine access to medical records would allow a legal panel to assess whether you meet the diagnosis / living as or living as / surgery requirements.

Northern? Whit?! What the fuck does her hair colour have to do with the price of cheese?

All I know about her is she calls other human beings 'scum'.

I think so. Until last year this was also the Conservative government position.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243
Update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic “sex” is biological sex
Under the Equality Act 2010, providers are already able to restrict the use of spaces/services on the basis of sex and/or gender reassignment where justified. Further clarification is not necessary.

Ha at hair colour wtf

The only reason it's become relevant is Stonewall's relentless pursuit in training their version of the law throughout the country.

To my shame, some of the most enthusiastic adopters are fucking law firms, the Law Society and the SRA (our regulatory body). People who really should know better. I turned down an interview at an enthusiastic Stonewall law firm, as I wouldn't have felt at all comfortable working there.

A northern, working class, red headed woman. She's terrifying. Especially to feminists

Isn't this revealing? Stereotyping a woman as being "terrifying" because she is "northern, working class, red headed". Furthermore, that because of these features, feminists are scared of her. Meaning Rayner isn't a feminist.

I do agree on that latter point though. She is not. Nor is any woman who so happily betrays her own sex.

IMO only biological sex can be the basis for separate provision. I can’t think of a reason why ‘gender’ would ever be relevant.

Upthread, someone suggested a book group as the type of scenario where 'gender' would maybe be relevant.

Personally I agree that if sexes are separated by sex, it's sex that matters.

One of those 'assigned Northern at birth' types, I suppose.

Changing the pc of sex in the Equality Act to mean biological sex would make legal sex (where it has been changed by a a GRC) no longer relevant in relation to anyone’s relationship to the pc. That is, a transwoman with a GRC may be ‘legally female’ but not when talking about the EA.

Hmmm. She called Boris Johnson "scum". Can't say I blame her.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58697307.amp

What do you think about Kemi Badenoch writing off the Jess Phillips rape comments as "trivial" and "unserious"?

It wasn't just Johnson she called scum (both articles actually say that though).