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/

This thread was indeed dederailed. A great shame that everyone's time was wasted by disengenuous posters with an axe to grind when there was much to discuss yesterday.

I've woken up thinking how depressing it is that the Tories have failed to clarify the EA - the election was called too soon and i dont see how Kemi will get this through. It's clear Labour will airily dismiss it.

Looking at their responses yesterday it looks like once they're in power we'll be going backwards on women's rights. Once again, women's worries and evidenced arguments are swept aside and men's sexual rights given precedent.

Women are dismissed and its 2018 all over again, with a new pop at self ID on the horizon and yet more endless whanging on about the most marginalised.

Thoroughly depressing. Too late from the Tories, and a resounding 'fuck off, we don't care' from Labour.

They could so easily have fixed this, too. Its a mystery why they don't, other than they're operating from entrenched positions and knee jerk responses.

The Tories could have fixed this, but they consciously made the decision to put it in their back pocket for election fodder.

Is the change to the EqA fixing it then?

It seems to be a fix if pre GE but don’t bother post GE

Here is what I was referring to:

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 gov

https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1797707541691957401?s=46&t=HTxp6zCd4GZ2FFv4a-YeQ

So, she has said that she has been working with the team to get this ready for September to allow for the court case. The team has the work already done and they have made it as robust as possible so the devolved governments cannot ignore or change it.

She may not have got it through on votes before the court case results but with the finding in hand, she might have more solid grounds to get it passed.

At the risk of being on repeat again, there is a reason why these issues take time to have permanent changes put in place to protect women and children. While it is frustrating and it may leave vulnerable people exposed while it is being sorted, sometimes poorly formed solutions quickly and reactively put in place becomes an impediment to the final solution. Without seeing what would have finally been (although may still be) presented in September after the court case, it might well be the carefully considered solution that allows no reinterpretation. Ie. Things we would have accepted in desperation to have something in place years ago, may not have been adequate at all after seeing the multitude of court cases, after seeing how different organisations ignore guidance and seeing how different devolved governments will try to create inconsistencies around this issues etc.

Of course, it might not have been a strong solution either.

Will we see it if Kemi is re-elected? Will she present it to the House anyway from the opposition?

One thing this thread has done, has been to give readers some clarity on just what Kemi does and doesn’t support. it is a great benefit of having someone continue to mischaracterise what has been said. It really does present what has been said in startling clarity for others to read for themselves.

At the risk of being on repeat again, there is a reason why these issues take time to have permanent changes put in place to protect women and children. While it is frustrating and it may leave vulnerable people exposed while it is being sorted, sometimes poorly formed solutions quickly and reactively put in place becomes an impediment to the final solution

The Eq act clearly meant Biological sex, KB is saying she wants to put in that clarification.
Why does that take 2 years? and if she was working with Sunak on this, why was such an important change scuppered?

Also, how does it protect vulnerable people?

As a pp poster said, this was kept on the back burner to bring up in any GE campaign.

The Tories have never been interested in vulnerable people.

Good summary Helleofabore, and especially thankyou for the post of the lawyer’s tweet. That post deserves it’s own thread for easy access - I’m sure reference to it will be useful many times in the future!

Yes, it's possible Sunak had this in mind as a GE issue. I'm not sure that's the case for Badenoch.

She's in a safe Tory seat and likely to be an MP post election, but who will be Labour Minister for Equalities, is is it Annaliese Dodds?

I am miles behind on this thread so I’m sorry if this has been covered already or is now out of context but no, we haven’t been asked.

If the plan is for GPs to do it, it will either have to be put in our contract (which gets updated every year), include it as an enhanced service that practices can potentially choose not to provide or it can be a non NHS service in which case practices can say no, they don’t provide that non NHS service or can do it but charge a fee. It will be difficult to argue it as a contractual obligation so I imagine it will be non NHS and practices will charge a nominal fee for the letter in the same way we do for letters about exam mitigation, fit to fly letters etc.

It will potentially put GPs in a difficult position to say “no, I don’t think you should be able to do this” without jeopardising our relationship with patients, which unlike other parts of the NHS needs to be able to be ongoing. So likely to be something most practices will do a short letter for, charge a nominal fee and that’s it.

The review into adult 'gender' services may also impact on this, I imagine? Which is surely likely to take 2/3 years if Cass is anything to go by.

The Eq act clearly meant Biological sex,
Nope. That’s why there is a FURTHER provision within the act to exclude GRC holders.

Because of the Haldane Case. I believe she mentioned it explicitly and it is, I believe and someone will correct me if I am wrong, the very case she has just said she was waiting to see the final outcome of. The FWS case against the Scottish government which is in appeal. I believe in these 30 odd pages, it was mentioned as well.

Kemi has just stated in the tweet and in interviews that they, the government, had guidance that the act referred to biological sex but that over the past two years, they have seen the court cases throw this into doubt. Plus lobby groups have been advising alternative interpretations. She mentioned Stonewall in that interview that kept being posted. She has taken two years to pull it together. I would have thought that would be about right considering we know she was also watching what legal advice said about the education guidance. And because the EA obviously covers children, the Cass final report might have been significant too.

Could they have done more earlier? I am sure they probably could have.

However, in saying that, look at the guidances that have been issued and ignored. Now we know that guidances are good for some but ultimately not strong enough, meaning now we need to change laws.

So, now we are back to the discussion about having the majority to pass a bill. And how do you get that majority if you don’t have it? Discussion. Which takes a long time and requires court cases and studies and reports.

why was an important change scuppered?

Who the fuck knows why Sunak called the election. But would he have been in power then anyway? Who is to say that Penny Mordaunt wasn’t PM in September and would have prevented Kemi putting it to the House then either?

FFS. People keep forgetting that both parties have factions that don’t support the prioritisation of sex over gender where sex matters. Just because the current leader and team support it doesn’t mean that the next one would have and those leaderships can change within a matter of weeks.

FFS. People keep forgetting that both parties have factions that don’t support the prioritisation of sex over gender where sex matters.

And this is why, in a parliamentary democracy, it’s important to ask where individual candidates stand. If I was in Tonia Antoniazzi’s constituency for example, I would be extremely comfortable voting Labour

Yes.

And that democracy means that we have can have a revolving door of PMs between elections. I have seen it happen within a week where the public have had little warning. FFS, Australia is well known for the revolving door of PMs on both major parties.

Hence I have also laughed when people tell me they voted for a ‘PM’, in other words they voted strategically to get in a specific person. Ahhh. No. Just because that person might start the term as PM doesn’t mean they will be there at the end or even by the middle. Always best to vote for the MP that does the best for your electorate. And if that MP’s party wins governing rights, hope that the party’s manifesto is not tweaked throughout the term to drop the issues you felt were important.

I would hope that she has good local policies and then yes, she would be a good option. Sadly, she is not my MP either.

@Helleofabore Hasn't Sunak just passed a law to make ignoring court decisions "legal?" if he can get through the Illegal Migration Act, he can get through anything, that is a far more divisive subject.

Just sounds like excuses to me.

I think the Tories ditching Sunak was never going to happen, summer recess for starters and yet another unelected PM.

Do you honestly think there is a majority against a small change to the Eq Act? and that they would have voted down their own Govt on??? nope.

Ha ha I’d have put money on AdamRyan being CassieMaddox.

The "change not needed" bat signal over at TQ+HQ. From the people who lobbied for it to be changed in order to remove single sex exemptions.

The gaslighting is off the fucking scale.

x.com/stonewalluk/status/1797628375793852496?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/joint-statement-proposals-amend-equality-act-2010

Joint Statement on proposals to amend the Equality Act 2010
SHARESENDSHARE<a class="break-all" href="//mailto:?subject=Joint%20Statement%20on%20proposals%20to%20amend%20the%20Equality%20Act%202010&body=Shared%20from%20Stonewall:%20www.stonewall.org.uk//about-us/news/joint-statement-proposals-amend-equality-act-2010" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">EMAIL

The Equality Act is world-class legislation that took almost a decade to develop, and has been working well for 14 years. Under the Act, trans people can legally access single-sex services based on their gender, and services can exclude trans people, whether or not they hold a Gender Recognition Certificate, if it is a proportionate thing to do to achieve a legitimate aim.
We believe the thresholds that the Equality Act sets are a proportionate bar for services to address if they are to use these single-sex exemptions. Violence affecting women and girls is a significant concern, including for many LGBTQ+ women.
It is vital that there is sustained and meaningful investment to ensure there are services which meet the full diversity of need across the country. However, it is not necessary to re-define sex in the Equality Act for service providers to provide a range of services. This is something they do routinely already.
Joint Statement with:

Stonewall

LGBT Foundation

Mermaids

TransActual

Do you honestly think there is a majority against a small change to the Eq Act? and that they would have voted down their own Govt on???

yes. I do believe this.

Because it is not 'just a small change'. At the moment, there is enough ambiguity around it that means that local authorities and business can get away using Stonewall's 'suggestions'.

To you, it is a small change. I think you have undersold the significance to heavily invested trans lobby groups on this.

I also disagree that Sunak would not have been pushed. He could well have been pushed last week even if he had not called an election. The party could have decided to do that to put in a leader that they thought could increase the likelihood of winning the election later in the year. I have seen this tactic used before.

Just because you don't think it was ever going to happen, doesn't mean a thing.

This is remarkable.

And push me pull you style of fuckwittery. So, Stonewall advises organisations of what they want the law to mean and tie it to their diversity champion scheme. While also saying in court, 'honest gov, it weren't us, we just said the words. It was up to those organisations to get independent advice to check ours....'

Now, they defend the EA. Yet we know that local authorities force gender inclusion before funding is given. Because the LAs were advised by Stonewall.

Just like the hospital ward situation. NHS trusts with diversity teams shaped by Stonewall, making the policies that put female patients at risk and remove their privacy and dignity. Even making female patients the 'abusers' if they mention their discomfort.

And they innocently wonder why the words need further clarification.

For all those saying, 'just a small change': if it was 'just a small change' why has this statement been released in light of what we know Stonewall has advised over the past nearly decade?

If it really was just a small change, they would be fully supporting of that change.

I think you have undersold the significance to heavily invested trans lobby groups on this.

Yes to this

What these threads demonstrate is that, even here where you’d expect a higher level of engagement with the Act, there are different views about what ‘sex’ means. The act maybe many things, but clear isn’t one of them. So clarify it, with an amendment if necessary (I think it is necessary)

And now Liberty. These people are unfuckingbelievable

x.com/libertyhq/status/1797636187408228815?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

And if it is not necessary, apart from time, what is the harm?

If it is not necessary, why dismiss it? Why not release a statement saying 'Stonewall would welcome the additional layer of clarity this will provide'.

So, service providers provide a 'range of services'?

Fuck that is gaslighting, isn't it? If that was the case, then the Brighton centre case would not be happening.

yep.... just a 'small change'....

TBF @Helleofabore Your opinion on sunak etc and the act doesn't mean a thing either, we aren't in power, well, i am not!

The Tory party is fairly right wing, they don't, as a bloc support TWAW, so of course this could have been done years ago.

Its just n parcel of electioneering now and i do believe Badenoch supported Boris Johnsons changes on reduced fees and more GRC clinics....

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/6889/documents/72555/default/

As you know, as part of the same announcement, we committed to making the Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) application process fairer and kinder to those who use it. We have already reduced the fee

Could have been written by A. Dodds...

Could have been written by A. Dodds

No. Because she wants self-ID. And anyway the Labour position - along with Stonewall, Mermaids, LGBT Foundation, Trans Actual and Liberty (Liberty of PIE fame) - is that change is not needed.