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/

Shame it's taken Kemi so long really. She should have had it done and dusted in the last year instead of mulling.

Not unless they specify which spaces and how men with GRCs will be excluded

Any list yet?

Did you read the LWD link?

What do you think you know that those women don’t? They have expressed the same reservations that many of us have for months. Only to be told, by you, that you know better.

Where's Kemi's list? What I heard her say yesterday was it would be up to the service provider. I don't think any lists will be forthcoming, from any party.

Yes. They were talking about the GRA not the EA. Which is in line with Labour's policy position. I thought it was a great document and also brilliant that Labour are so open and collegiate about how they make policy so we can see all this stuff.

Do you see why removing their legal threat would be problematic for TRAs?

She really isn't saying the same thing. She is saying that amendment of the Equality Act won't change the fact that some people will still have a legal sex that is different from their biological sex. That is correct. Unless the GRA is repealed and GRCs revoked that will remain the case. However the proposal to amend the act makes their legal sex irrelevant. Starmer doesn't want to amend the act so their legal sex is very relevant indeed.

I suspect that that KB doesn't believe that a man with a GRC is woman, whatever their sex is legally, ie she doesn't think any women have penises. In much the same way as no-one believes that a company that is a 'legal person' is in fact a human being.

LWD's Twitter activity yesterday suggests they very much support amendment of the Equality Act. As does my own personal knowledge of members of LWD

I recall on previous threads pp saying Starmer supported this change to the EqA

I wonder why Labour have now changed

I know lobbying kicked in from TRAs after they said they would support. I suggested it would change their stance

Turns out it did

However the proposal to amend the act makes their legal sex irrelevant. Starmer doesn't want to amend the act so their legal sex is very relevant indeed.

It only makes their legal sex irrelevant in cases where the Eq A exemptions apply. In most of the cases women discuss, either the Eq A exemptions don't apply, or they were incorrectly used.

To me it's fiddling while Rome burns. Both proposals are an improvement on the status quo because they will enable exemptions to be used more (either by guidance or by legal clarification). But both don't go that far in protecting women's spaces because organisations can still choose not to apply the exemptions. It's not enough for me to change this into a voting issue.

Edited to add - Your point about KM (am assuming typo for KB) is exactly the same as the one I repeatedly make about Starmer. He doesn't "believe men can change sex". He is stating the law. That's why I've been laughing so much, because the lefty bashers have been so adamant that him talking about legal sex is him "not knowing what a woman is".

It only makes their legal sex irrelevant in cases where the Eq A exemptions apply. In most of the cases women discuss, either the Eq A exemptions don't apply, or they were incorrectly used.

Could you expand on this, I'm not sure I'm clear what you mean

Ah OK. I didn't see it in the list. I'll go have a look, thanks. I support it too btw. Just don't think that was Kemi's full motivation, given other comments she's made about various "woke" issues.

By the way wims, we are about one week off the 12 month anniversary of the Westminster debate of the Sex Matters Petition.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

The petition closed in April 2023. It opened late 2022. In the December 2022, while the petition was still open, the Scottish Government attempted to bring in Self ID. And Bryson was in the news, then Miller.

So, let's remember that up until June 2023, we felt that there had been no real debate in Parliament about these issues. The petition was about the Equality Act. This is what the Tories have now delivered a year later.

We thought at the time of this debate that maybe this wasn't going far enough, but it was a start. It was a stage that many feminists agreed was a good one. Very few were discussing repeal. It was only in June 2020 that Sarah Phillimore had that zoom session to discuss the merits of repealing. I remember many people thought this was a step too far. Now, 4 years later, it seems that it is more and more likely to be the solution.

How long will it be until we can even get that debated in Parliament? Because a decision like that will take significant effort. And how much support amongst feminists is there?

Ianal but my understanding is there is a clause in the EqA that allows for provision of single sex spaces where necessary and proportionate. This is the bit that's being "clarified". For everything else, the "legal sex" still counts.

Basically, using the Foran tweet:

- 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.

- 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

I think this supports the Labour view that no changes are necessarily directly needed to the EA to protect biological sex based spaces.

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.

I think changing the GRA to make it clear that it doesn't alter biological sex is an equally valid mechanism to clarify the definitions and to be honest that's how I always read the Labour proposal in July, where they said they would reform the GRA and ensure it didn't override single sex spaces. But that's a matter of interpretation.

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.

I think there is quite a lot hiding under "goods and services" which means women aren't going to get the protection we want from the change.

Yesterday Badenoch and various news outlets were saying that outside the EA exemptions (e.g. for marriage) "legal sex" would still take precedence.

Hope that explains it?

yes. I think many of us personally know members of LWD who discuss this with us and discuss the issues in depth.

It’s a thread about the upcoming election and what the different parties say (or avoid saying) what they will do about the Equality Act.

So perfectly reasonable to discuss them all.

It’s rather rude to dismiss the articulate and well-informed posters on here as “fangirls”.

So, at the time when Sex Matters was petitioning, did you join in the conversation then and say 'I think we need to go further'? Or have you recently thought this, but expect that massive changes such as this will be done quickly and that everyone is already convinced?

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 [my emphasis]

Where a lawful single-sex service or space (for women in this example) is currently operating in line with the Equality Act it includes all members of the biological sex female, plus any male with a GRC, as that changes their legal sex to female. Transwomen can be excluded if additional measures are taken (ie they are not routinely). The proposed change would mean that only members of the biological sex female would be admitted in the first instance. The second requirement would then become redundant, i.e. legal sex becomes irrelevant. The reason that Stonewall et al oppose the change is that they know that it would mean no transwomen in women's single-sex spaces.

Starmer's commitment to keep the status quo means that legal sex is highly relevant, as it routinely allows people with a GRC access to single-sex spaces corresponding to their 'acquired gender', that is their 'legal sex'. We know that this by extension includes people without a GRC as they can't be asked for. The only reason for not changing the act is if you (as a general you not you personally) believe that transwomen should be in some single-sex spaces, in which case people should be open about that. Personally I'd argue - as I and others have upthread - that if the service or space meets the threshold for requiring to be single-sex, then that in itself justifies the exclusion of any male regardless of identity or legal status.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment is an entirely different beast, just as race or religion are. Despite TRAs trying to suggest otherwise KB's proposal was nothing to do with allowing people to discriminate against transpeople, any more than it would suddenly allow them to discriminate against people of colour or Catholics.

I fully believe that the ambiguity has been allowed to be maintained to hide the fact that so few organisations feel confident in enacting any exceptions. As we all keep saying, publicly funded provisions are being forced to be inclusive because of previous Stonewall (or similar) advice to the funding body. Labour and the groups responsible don't seem to even welcome discussion about it.

They dismissed it completely. And LWD have not updated yet the last time I checked, so feminists there are still unconvinced by their own party's dismissal that the protections are already there.

And yet.... many posters have been saying the same things that LWD have stated. And we have been saying it for months.

Some posters are incapable of being rational about Kemi and Miriam and incapable of assessing those two women and their parties damage to women's rights. Every time its discussed its all "but Labour". It is fan girling imo.

Incredible

So many pp have calmly and rationally explained to you

Thank you.

I agree about the maintenance of ambiguity.

I'm going to keep repeating myself as I think it is important. I can't think of one reason why anything other than biological sex would be relevant to a single-sex space or service that is operating in accordance with the Equality Act. Therefore I don't see why sex should mean anything other than biological sex. I came up with a lovely analogy last night about toilets & the salad cart at Harvester but I think it was better in my head.

When you attack posters as lefties, jump on them, personally insult them and call them TRAs and child abusers for saying they will vote Labour and perpetuate cliquey in group type behaviours, you can't be surprised if people don't take on board "what you've been telling them for months".

Can you point out once where I have done any of those things?