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/

What's more the deep divisions and tensions inherent in Starmer's Labour Party are going to become gaping chasms. Authoritarianism is likley to be the order of the day at this years's conference in September.

This is a pretty good overview of the problems with Labour’s position, from within the party. https://labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/labourpolicypositionsexgender/

Neither have the Tories. As demonstrated by Kemi's proposal yesterday 😂

And yet, I am not angry.

Did you say the same to the poster yesterday who kept saying 'stick to the facts', 'stop lying'? I didn't see you do that.

Can you tell me what is the reasonable perspective on KB that I am wrongly interpreting please? Yours? Because if you think your perspective on Kemi Badenoch was reasonable, then I am rather surprised by that. Particularly, since you continued to mischaracterise what she said repeatedly and would not clarify where she said or even intimated what you said she thought?

Or fireplace? Who posted a letter that actually had little relevance to this discussion to be considered as evidence of something to detract from what Kemi Badenoch said yesterday?

I don't consider any poster who uses the language around Kemi Badenoch on this thread to be posting 'reasonable opinions' when those posters clearly cannot even discuss rationally what she has said. But you obviously have a different opinion.

Incorrect. Kemi Badenoch, Miriam Cates, Victoria Atkins, and numerous others have demonstrated that they do have a grasp of the issues - which you'd know if you ever watched or listened to any sessions in parliament.

You are still hiding behind your hatred for the Tories. You won't be able to do that soon, and I suggest your use of emojis is disrespectful, contemptuous but fairly typical, though, of a certain brand of politics.

Who posted a letter that actually had little relevance to this discussion to be considered as evidence of something to detract from what Kemi Badenoch said yesterday?

That letter couldn’t have been more relevant. You’d have been all over it like a tramp on chips if it had helped your argument.

Will Labour loyal hang around? Was this ever actually about women

I can see loads of laughing and carry on over much else

You keep saying 'both parties are seeking to achieve the same outcome', but it clearly false when you look at what was said yesterday. Which you refuse to consider that you have misunderstood, for whatever reason. And yet, the interpretation that I and others have made is what is also being presented by feminist groups and groups such as Sex Matters? Do you honestly believe that they have misinterpreted what Kemi has written and said?

So where we stand is this. The conservatives have opened the discussion about redefining the Equality Act to ensure that no one can misinterpret it and that it is clear that all males, even with the GRC, can be excluded from female single sex services etc. That anything that means sex needs to mean sex - and this, by reading the interviews and Kemi's words, includes the FWS court case.

This is something that Sex Matters petitioned for, I even helped them collect signatures for that petition. Kemi is now in the media discussing this issue .

Sure, you can say she allowed herself to get tangled and distracted by Ed Balls. But what she said was clear when you took the effort to listen.

Labour has allowed ambiguity to continue because of imprecise language. They have not clarified that they consider that all male people with a GRC can be excluded. The statements today from multiple trans lobby groups say that they support the current EA wording, yet, these lobby groups have also been responsible for the pressure to organisations to not provide those 'single sex services'. In effect, these groups and Labour are saying something that a current court case under appeal has raised doubts on.

So, again, which is it? What does Labour know that judges and legal experts don't know.

Do you understand what 'GC women' want? Or have you labelled everybody and expect people to comply to those labels in what they do or don't want? Or maybe you understand the ultimate outcome, but can't acknowledge that this is a long campaign and will require stages and different strategies to get there?

Do Labour have more female friendly policies? Female friendly, or woman friendly when it actually matters?

Well deliberate misunderstanding is the new tactic of no debate, isn't it?

Great article, thanks for sharing. I liked the section on the GRA and what needs to be changed

Just say stupid things, repeatedly, slapped with a 🤣 and have everyone run around you demonstrating the sky is blue. It's a waste of energy and patience.

Totally!

Yep.

Not much point in us discussing it then is there?

🤣🤣🤣

You do realise that the Labour Women's Declaration was refused a stall twice at the Labour party conference, don't you?

How did Kemi Badenoch selling out GC women with her "this is about stopping businesses being sued, of course they can still offer inclusive services, noone wants to exclude trans people, legal sex exists so TW are legally women" show she understands the issues?
It just showed me a typical politician who is good at saying what you want to hear.

🤣🤣🤣

What are you on about

How can you not understand the basics

Thank you BacktoLurk.

I had missed reading this in depth due to work. It seems the LWD has rather the very same reservations that many of us on this thread do.

I notice here too that LWD discuss the 'GP' sign off quite clearly too.

• The replacement of a panel with a registrar, and two doctors with one, to obtain a GRC has not been backed up by evidence of the need for these changes, nor of evidence that the current process is “onerous” or “dehumanising”.
• Making the granting of a GRC the decision of one doctor could allow for willing GPs happy to sign off on the basis of self-identification alone.

Crikey! This is remarkable.

Discussing what? What you consider reasonable?

When you have just posted this, yet again:
How did Kemi Badenoch selling out GC women with her "this is about stopping businesses being sued, of course they can still offer inclusive services, noone wants to exclude trans people, legal sex exists so TW are legally women" show she understands the issues?

It doesn't have to make sense, does it? It just has to be rude and disparaging.

Yes
You do realise Miriam Cates wanted to vote against male MPs suspected of rape being barred from the HoC, because she worries about false allegations "vexatious complaints", don't you?

You do realise that Kemi Badenoch called the uproar about Liz Truss appearing on a far right platform to be interviewed by a man who made misogynistic rape comments about Jess Phillips "trivial" and "unserious" don't you?

You do realise the Tories allegedly paid for medical treatment for a member of staff assaulted by an MP, but didn't investigate the MP, don't you?

But apparently, Labour is more supportive of women we should believe. And fully open to discussing this issue and hearing all views.

Like the women who were told that if they believed that male people are not really women, they should cancel their membership in the Labour Party because they were not wanted. Something I was rather surprised when it heard it, and something that really does not back up what some posters are trying to tell us.