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/

Did you delete

‘What this proposal will do’

From this list?

Why?

😂
A bit of a reach.
My opinion is lots of people hate Angela Rayner because she has smashed so many preconceptions of what a successful politician should be. It is rooted in misogyny a lot of the time.

This was deleted from the X thread. Why?

Are we at the stage where positive facts need to be deleted?

What this proposal will do:

• Clarify that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex, referring to the ordinary common law position from Corbett v Corbett.

• Make it clear that single-sex services and associations are defined by reference to biological sex.

• Make it clear that trans men are protected from pregnancy discrimination regardless of whether they have a GRC.

• Make gender reassignment a reserved matter, preventing devolved parliaments such as in Scotland from legislating to introduce Self-ID, ensuring that the continuing operation of the s35 Order blocking the GRR Bill.

Just a bad c&p - I'm on my phone and didn't notice

What this proposal will do:

• Clarify that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex, referring to the ordinary common law position from Corbett v Corbett.

- Make it clear that single-sex services and associations are defined by reference to biological sex.

• Make it clear that trans men are protected from pregnancy discrimination regardless of whether they have a GRC.

- Make gender reassignment a reserved matter, preventing devolved parliaments such as in Scotland from legislating to introduce Self-ID, ensuring that the continuing operation of the s35 Order blocking the GRR Bill.

It is rooted in misogyny a lot of the time.

As is claiming that those of us women who don't agree with you in relation to Labour's / the Tories' position have been manipulated in some way. Might as well pat us on the head and say 'there, there'.

Cassie it's not "a reach". It's you stereotyping a female politician.

I think the root of the argument is the "Make it clear...." line. Labour (and the Tories in January last year) say it already clear enough. The Tories now disagree.

Well, I've had my fill of emoji based bullshit for one day.

Isn’t it strange that I can admire both Angela Rayner and Kemi Badenoch as intelligent, articulate, successful women, and agree with both of them on some things while disagreeing vehemently with them on others? And that I can agree with some things political parties stand for and disagree with others, on both left and right? It’s almost as though I have a mind of my own.
Redefining sex as biological sex at birth will clear up many people’s misconceptions. It will startle those who thought it was obvious and didn’t need clarifying, and enlighten those who hadn’t realised that, in fact, men’s and women’s physiology is entirely different and incapable of magical transformation from one to the other.

It was sarcasm! Obviously, in response to the bog standard "I don't like Angela Rayner, she calls people scum".

Listen to the podcast. She is awesome, we need more women like her in politics.

This is to ensure that he gets the vote of people who want this. He hopes you'll forget all the other shitty things he's done.
Don't be fooled.

Another head pat, 'there there', comment!

My quote describes the decision making process - which does not necessarily involve anyone with medical training. It says or lawyers, not and.

It’s a parody of someone stereotyping a female politician.

But they will either already have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a medical professional OR they've undergone gender reassignment surgery (hopefully!) from a medical professional.

Given that both of those can be checked via medical records, a legal panel is perfectly able to then assess the 'living as' requirement, as that's a fact / legal-based decision.

So of course both cohorts have had clinical input along the way.

Here I have lifted it from the transcript of the interview that you, yourself, keep posting.

She says:

"if you as an organization say this is the service we provide it is only for biological women, you can't be sued by someone with a gender recognition certificate"

She then goes on to discuss 'legal sex' and how legal sex has not changed Biological Sex. She then says:

”I said we clarifying the law to say that the equality act where it refers to sex is talking about biological sex”

Sure, she is confusing. But once you understand that she also seems to be attempting to escape the flak from activists in repeating that in some instances that male people will be still allowed into spaces designated for 'Biological Sex and those with gender of woman', you cut through some of the confusion.

It also helps to not go into listening to this interview viewing it as something to mock and denigrate, and to actually listen to what she is and isn't saying.

She is quite clear in the part of the interview that you keep posting and pointing to as if it is saying something that it isnt. She keeps repeating that biological sex and 'legal' sex are different and should be separate if an organisation states that they are saying they are biological sex only . She is very clear that legal sex should refer to gender and that 'within the equality act, 'sex' means Biological Sex'.

That she mentions preventing organisations being sued, well, she says that she is hoping to prevent people with GRC from suing organisations that exclude them. It is right there in the longer interview. So, even when she is discussing organisations being sued, she used 'by those with a GRC' when they are excluded.

If it helps, I will post the timings where she says these things so you can see it. What makes it confusing is that Ed Balls is trying to mischaracterise what she is saying and she is not giving in to that mischaracterisation.

He is saying 'I read the newspapers and I assumed you were saying the opposite I thought you were going to to legislate to say that people cannot change their sex at Birth where you're actually telling us you're going to clarify the law to say that somebody can change their legal sex which is very different.'

She then is clear and says:
“I’m sorry Ed, that's not that's not what I said we clarifying the law to say that the equality act where it refers to sex is talking about biological sex . You can change your gender, uh of course, you can that is why we have uh transgender people. But we want transgender to mean transgender. Sex is immutable. Biological sex is immutable, it doesn't matter what a piece of paper says. You cannot change your sex”

The full interview is here, and there is a transcript which I have copied and pasted so that I hope that you can see that you have indeed misunderstood.

Can you please post the sections that you believe she is saying that a male person with a GRC will still be able to access a space designated as being for biological women only - in other words, where a male person with a GRC will be able to access a single sex female space designated as such using an exception under the EA2010?

Maybe post the time stamp so we can all see what you have been laughing at all day.

Along the way is not the same as the decision maker. You’re being disingenuous because the current reality doesn’t suit your argument.

I don’t think it is tbh. It’s much more likely to be a cat among the pigeons policy. The Tories know they’re going to lose badly, this is about disrupting Labour rather than winning votes.

Thanks for this

Calling other human beings 'scum' is highly suspect in my opinion.

No I'm not. You not understanding the criteria doesn't make me disingenuous.

You either need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria by a medical professional or have had gender reassignment surgery by a medical professional. Plus the 'living as' requirement.

What part of this are you finding confusing to understand? You'll have one (or both!) of those before you can go before the panel on the 'living as' part of the criteria alongside.

To continue: the 'decision maker' doesn't have to be the one diagnosing or performing the surgery. But you do have to have had one or both, plus the 'living as' requirement to get the GRC.

So why the consternation about a GP being the decision maker? The requirements wouldn’t change.

And Kemi says in the very interview that you keep posting:

“the problem is that people have been wrongly interpreting it since is that right . So the equality the the equality act has sex as a protected characteristic and it also provides exemptions for single sex services. But we've seen lots of employment tribunals, lots of court cases where the the word is being used ambiguously. Being used to be synonymous with gender. So we are providing clarification about what it means so that public authorities, private institutions know what the law states.”

“There's been much confusion because organizations like Stonewall have put out guidance. People have been measuring themselves against other people's guidance. Other people's interpretation of the law. We are emphasizing what the law is to make sure that we can protect women and children”

So, because of the court cases and the misrepresentation, the government now felt it had to act. In other words, they responded to what was happening and the confusion to try to ensure that they could make it very clear.

She has also stated that she was due to put something to parliament later this year but the election was called. Meaning, she has all the work done, and she is ready to go with this.

Here you go: Here is the link to that interview you keep posting just so that you can see what she is saying.

My first problem with this is that the act always did mean biological women. It doesn't need changing. Instead those claiming they turned into women by magic need slapping down. If a burglar claimed a new interpretation of "ownership" that wouldn't fly would it.

But even if it passed it only allows employers, councils, companies etc to keep men out of women's spaces if they want to and they don't want to. Remember we don't even have a self ID law so it should only be GRC holders now, but they are all so eager to abuse women they acted as though it was a law and held the door open for all the men and punished women who spoke up.