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/

I 100% agree and the answer to that (to me) is to make the GRA gender identity - legal gender becomes "man", "woman" , "transwoman", "transman" and "nonbinary" and is nothing to do with sex based provision at all.

2 questions on forms: what is your sex (from birth). What is your gender identity (from 18).

Stop all the tinkering

Remember, remaining neutral to some people is seen as positive support. Pointing out mischaracterisations can be viewed as full support to some who have absolutist or tribal outlooks.

I don’t think your opinion is justified at all. If the subject of discussion is one on which posters agree with these women, of course they will say so. That doesn’t make them “fangirls” (juvenile expression). And if the Labour Party stance on this is seen as ambiguous, they will say so. Few people on here seem to be diehard Conservative voters - many have said they are naturally left leaning. What they all want is clarity as to the meaning of the word sex in the Equality Act.

FWIW, I've just listened to yesterday's episode of The News Agents and they're absolutely gleeful about what they see as the hash that the Tories (Badenoch) are making on this issue. Also, it's so very complicated, much love and care is needed, most vulnerable, nobody cares, etc etc.

It's very true. Happens a lot, should someone for example point out that Miriam Cates is not advancing women's rights.

I'll listen to that, thanks. Always good to know how digestible this stuff is to the MSM

Fine. Try posting a thread about an anti-woman thing Kemi has done, suggest it might put you off voting tory, and see what happens to you.

Yes this was annoying. Newscast did better.

Seriously - why is nay still saying this nonsense.

If a service is single as allowed under the SSE of the EA they are only open to those of the same biological sex.

It was Stonewall's "training " that meant so many groups started to think like them.

But as said up thread, because the EA as amended to include the GRA, those with a GRC are the "legal sex" of their GC, but can be excluded on the basis of their biology by the SSE.

In fact the SSE are the clearest indication that those who drafted it were intending that a GRC meant for legal purposes you became the opposite sex.

If they hadn't intended that then they wouldn't have thought it necessary to inclue the SSE.

The problem is that for those outside of the elite group who undertook this, it never occured to us that someone would think sex didn't mean biological sex.

This is why in asking that the EA has the definition of sex changed to be explicityly biological if opposed by TRAs as it means their "legal sex" rights are basicially gone.

Sorry, your post doesn't make sense.

I was daunted to see how long this thread had grown since last night but sat down prepared to read through.

However, as it was made clear last night that the usual suspect is doing their derailing I was able to quickly skim through to the few posts that were relevant.

Still dont understand why some, still take up the bait they are being fed and help pad out these threads that stop them from being productive.

It has been said, and should be said again and again, if this change was such a 'small change', or truly considered not necessary, I expect that there would be enough published from Labour pointing out in details how the Act and Acts work together and give examples that are different from those published in the Act so that women are reassured as to how it works.

But instead, we got a breezy dismissal and a series of statements that seem to be from the same template from the very groups who were responsible for the advice and the schemes that encouraged (or even maybe explicitly told organisations) falsehoods about the act.

The best way to counter this would be these assuring details or to turn around and welcome the changes.

Sorry to be boring but to get back on the issue, how would anyone think they could use the proposals by KB help them challenge the candidates in their area.

Forget about the Stonewall etc., saying what they are saying.

A number of women's groups are also making statements that what KB has proposed is not needed.

If women's groups are briefing prospective MPs there needs to be not change, how would you feel able to persuade those who might be your future MP that this is important.

Was surprised to see this published in the "i" newspaper as they are usually TWAW.

The Tories finally have a policy that could trip up Labour
Gender is ultimately a subject that divides Labour more than the Tories
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/tories-policy-trip-labour-3089624

Last night this was behind a paywall so just in case you cant acess it, it is also available at https://archive.ph/v8rBJ

If a candidate says that these changes are not required my next question would be to ask them if they agree that trans identified men should be allowed in female single sex spaces If they say yes then I would ask them to explain why when the Equality Act specifically says they can be excluded. If they can't explain then I would ask again why they don't think the act needs to be clarified. If they say no I would ask why they believe so many people think that trans identified men can't be excluded from female single sex spaces and why they don't believe that clarifying the law would not be of benefit when it's being misinterpreted by so many people

Yes - can see that making them think their way through it could make them understand!

I haven’t given it a lot of thought but just to answer I’d ask

‘How can a business be reassured that they can provide single sex services without the threat of legal action from say a trans rights activist’

I find that the following responses that I have just read, quite enlightening and perhaps all those who are determined to declare that Labour has already confirmed that they are supportive might like to read some of these as well.

https://x.com/lnmackenzie1/status/1797995364731293991

Lisa Mackenzie from MBM.

Tremendous! And quite why UK Labour are fixated on the idea it can all be sorted with ‘guidance’ beats me. Why on earth would the Supreme Court have allocated time to discuss this? For the shits and giggles?

Indeed. This is a great question. Why WOULD the Supreme Court be interested in this case that is pending if there was absolutely no need for it? Surely the Supreme Court would have rejected this case if there was no case.

https://forwomen.scot/16/02/2024/appeal-to-the-uk-supreme-court/

This was the notice:
The applicant seeks permission to appeal to the UKSC against this court's decision of 1 November 2023. Eight grounds of appeal are stated in some detail. We need not address these individually since we are satisfied that, as the respondent concedes, the issue of the correct interpretation of, and interplay between, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, in particular in relation to the use of the term "woman" and as to the consequence of the grant of a GRC under the 2004 Act, raise issues which involve arguable points of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the UKSC at this time. On that basis we are satisfied that leave should be granted.

And then there is this from Jane Clare Jones:https://janeclarejones.com/2024/06/04/dear-men-on-the-left-reprise-sigh/

And the women's rights network
https://x.com/WomensRightsNet/status/1797380854810919299

If they didn't support amending the act so sex referred to biological sex, I'd probably ask them to give an example of a service or space that should be single-sex but not on the basis of biological sex, if that makes sense. I'd be very clear I was talking about provision under the act, not 'people just want it to be all women', which although might be something I'd agree should be possible wouldn't necessarily be legal.

That is interesting, thanks for posting. They've been v TWAW!

Can you direct me to which women's groups are saying that the clarification is not needed please? I am interested to see which groups are saying what.

Can you direct me to which women's groups are saying that the clarification is not needed please? I am interested to see which groups are saying what.

Funny you saying that, I remember thinking what I started to see them appearing on FB I should keep a list.

So will try and start doing this.

Although to be honest the better know groups such as Fawcett are I think avoiding commenting. As we know many of these more established groups have carefully avoided making statements one way or the other.

You would have thought that any women's group would be able to make a simple statement about women needing single sex services and facilities. A really sad indiciation of just how much current feminism has been Stonewalled along with large parts of the public.

Fawcett are very busy insisting that the Garrick needs to be made mixed sex so this can be a vehicle for more of the same under Labour

Hey. No worries. It was a passing fancy. If I find some too on Twitter I will post them so we can see . But it was curiosity rather than something of importance. Thanks.

More about that Supreme Court case that Kemi Badenoch has referred to as to why she has waited to propose her findings. Which I would have thought the waiting would make sense.

https://x.com/forwomenscot/status/1797266347400855611?s=46&t=HTxp6zC_d4GZ2FFv4a-YeQ

This tweet was correcting misinformation in an article.

Hi Emmalouisehendy any chance you could correct the really serious errors in your article. In future, you are welcome to contact us to save yourself future egregious mistakes. Thanks! Text below:

There are 3 factual errors in this article on which we (For Women Scotland) would appreciate prompt correction:

1. The article makes the statement: "For Women Scotland is seeking to remove the term “trans women” from the legal definition of the word “woman”." This is not correct. The legal definition of "woman" in the Equality Act 2010 is "a female of any age". It does not include the term "trans women". We cannot seek to remove something that does not exist in the legal definition.

The following is from the For Women Scotland application to the UK Supreme Court and is an accurate description of what we are seeking:

This appeal raises at least the following three issues for determination by this court:
(1) The proper scope and application of the GRA 2004 and its effect on the interpretation
of other legislation governing the rights and obligations ordinarily referable to men or
women;

(2) The correct interpretation of “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 and whether the GRA
2004 deems a person with a gender recognition certificate to have the “protected
characteristic” of their acquired gender for the purposes of Part Two, Chapter 1, EA
2010;

(3) Whether, on a proper interpretation of both the EA 2010 and GRA 2004, the guidance
issued by the Scottish Minister is an unlawful encroachment on matters reserved to the
UK Parliament in breach of the limitations imposed on the Scottish Ministers devolved
competence by the SA 1998.

1. The article also makes the statement: "If the activist group wins, she said, “sex” would refer to biological sex at birth rather than whatever is recorded on gender recognition certificates – effectively reversing the GRC process for some 9,000 trans people". This is incorrect. As you can see from above we are seeking the court's determination on the proper scope and application of the GRA. Regardless of whether we win or lose this case the GRA will be unaffected. Nothing about this case can possibly reverse the GRC process for anyone.

1. The article stated: "She also spoke about her involvement in the forthcoming landmark court case". This is also not correct. Victoria McCloud has no involvement in the court case. An intention may exist to submit an application seeking the court's permission to intervene, but as of today's date, that has not happened.

This Supreme Court case has attracted a high level of public interest and it is important that it is reported accurately and does not mislead the public about the facts of the case or possible outcomes. We would appreciate if corrections to the three inaccurate statements could be made as soon as possible.

Trina Budge
Director, For Women Scotland