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 appeal raises at least the following three issues for determination by this court:

Isn't the problem with this court case that even if it found in favour of For Women Scotland, it could not be applied because the EA is UK wide, and cant have different interpreations in different parts of the UK.

This is the basis on which the UK government won its case against Scotland bringing in their own GRR.

So if a Scottish Government cant do it, cant see how a Scottish court could.

Gosh, all the time I should have just been posting the feminists reactions to the Tory announcements. They seem to have in common that Labour is ambiguous in their language leaving risk of interpretation. What so many of have said for months. I hadn’t followed these discussions before on Twitter, I didn’t realise so many were saying it.

Here FairPlayforWomen is commenting on Labour’s language.

https://x.com/fairplaywomen/status/1797496217687253156?s=12

Listen out for a cynical sleight of hand from Labour politicians when asked about the Conservatives manifesto pledge to make the Equality Act clear that sex means biological sex /1

Labour never says ‘single-sex spaces’. Instead they refer to protecting ‘women’s SAFE spaces’. This sets up the false narrative that we just want a safe space away from unsafe men and that wanting to exclude ‘transwomen’ is because we think they are all dangerous. /2

While safety can of course be one of the legitimate aims of a single-sex space it’s not the only one. Privacy and dignity matter to women and girls. And so does fairness in the context of sport and opportunities for women. /3

It depends on how you frame women's rights, or from which perspective, doesn't it? If you simply think women's rights is just about access to abortion, and women being the same as men then you might well reject versions of women's rights which value motherhood and the family or which consider the dignity and privacy of the female sex as important.

But as with everything, in the real world people are complex, women are complex, and not everything is black and white

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.

Have done a quick scan through various web sites and Sex Matters is the only group that has put out an official statement.

Comments on facebook pages looks like groups not wanting publicly to be seen to be "taking a side" and have a horrible feeling they are just making anti Tory remarks, and probably haven't even thought through what the implications are.

So I am now going to keep the Sex Matters link handy and paste it in as a response to anyone who dismisses it.

Could I take you up on that kind offer for the Sex Matters link, thanks

The way the threads go I missed it

This is their briefing document https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Making-the-EqA-clear_-PPC-briefing-3rd-June-2024.pdf

And statement https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/its-time-to-make-the-equality-act-clear-2/

I've asked 5 of our 6 candidates (the Greens candidate didn't publish an email address) the Sex Matters questions. Two have responded (Labour - nothing needs changing, women and transpeople deserve protection from discrimination; and Reform - agrees with single sex spaces and women / children needing protection,but doesn't like the Equality Act), three to go!

More from the left, with added credit to KB for tackling this

I posted a link to JCJ yesterday here a not one poster accused her of fangirling Kemi Badenoch for saying the same things that many of us have said on this thread before Jane published that article. I look forward to posters doing so though. I would then imagine a rainbow pen going through that post.

It’s such an irritating baseless attack plus juvenile

Sorry, I missed that

Thanks. Excellent piece by Jane Clare Jones.

But it was on par for the course.

I do find it interesting though when I started reading Twitter last night to see the reactions, that what many of us have said in this thread is mirrored by groups and respected feminists on Twitter. Yet, the reaction on this thread was as if we were saying things that put us in the far right and adjacent pile. The tribalism is unreal when you see it unroll.

I will wait though, to see what the relevance Kemi Badenoch’s support of the previous change to the GRC process is to the changes in language of the EA she is proposing. I would like to know what the relevance was because it doesn’t seem to be clear to me. But we were assured by at least two posters that it was, so I am hoping to have that explained.

But Badenoch has consistently done an extremely well-briefed and diligent job of addressing the issue of the conflict between the trans rights movement and women’s sex-based rights, and whatever ‘progressive’ men who don’t GAF about women think, the question of the clarification of sex in law is not just a culture war nothingburger whipped up by a dying government in its last desperate days.

There’s a lot we can say about why, after nearly ten years, leftish and liberal men can’t seem to get their heads around the idea of why women’s protected characteristic and definition in law might actually matter to women.

Women are not just the walk-on parts and support humans in the drama of men’s lives. You don’t get to just decide that ‘womanhood’ (whatever the hell that means) is a country you can give away to male people to reward them at the end of their heroic quests. Women are whole human people with our own needs and interests, and in order to protect our own needs and interests we need to have our own definition in law.

Yes, the Tories want to use this issue as a culture war football, and the best thing to do with that is to confidently walk out and take the frickin ball off the pitch.

Everyone can see the hopeless sexism behind labour's attitude. Everyone.

It so stymies them they can't even see that the obvious fucking winning tactic is to trump the tories over the issue!

As JCJ says, just go and take the bloody ball.

It is well worth posting it on every page, I reckon.

My comment was that it hasn’t brought forth any discrediting accusations towards JCJ when she has made same or similar points. It is almost like some
posters understanding that the doubts we have been expressing for months haven’t made us Tory lovers, or far right adjacent or any fucked up bizarre accusation.

It makes us women with concerns joining other women, both in and out of the Labour Party, asking for clarification. Who just got told early in the week that those concerns were nonsense by senior members of the Labour Party.

“It so stymies them they can't even see that the obvious fucking winning tactic is to trump the tories over the issue!”

Too me, this is an indication of the power of the hold that the lobby groups have. Those who have campaigned successfully for full inclusion to prioritise gender above sex.

I suspect that the Tory Party has a powerful group too, it is just not the priority of the team in power at the moment. But I suspect it is there. How else could that committee be so poorly chaired by Nokes?

Too me, this is an indication of the power of the hold that the lobby groups have. Those who have campaigned successfully for full inclusion to prioritise gender above sex.

yes, I agree. But they must be reading the writing on the wall.

It's not a vote winner. And trying to smear the Tories who have realised that, is also not a vote winner.

I know they're going win anyway, but just the very fact that it's not popular should be giving them pause.

I guess they get locked into it?

You'd think watching the downfall of the SNP might prompt reflection.

For sure, there were other issues that helped bring down Sturgeon, and the party is currently limping on on borrowed time. But 'gender' certainly was an issue that the SNP thought was an easy win - no downsides to self ID! no man has ever needed to self ID, no evidence, etc - and continued to maintain that arrogant, blinkered stance, condemn women with concerns as bigots, dismiss it as a non issue, right up until Sturgeon fell.

And the Scottish Greens have of course fully left the planet, with their stance on 'gender' leading them to condemn the Cass Report and leaving their reputation in tatters.

I got the Tory response to the Sex Matters' questions:

'I believe that the answer to questions on gender identity are very straightforward. I will always stand up for women's rights and single-sex spaces. If I am fortunate enough to be re-elected as the local MP I would be more than happy to arrange to meet with you so that I can hear more about your thoughts in this area. '

Just LD and indie to go.

One thing that has always angered me as a Lefty is the unthinking sexism of men in the Labour party: all my life they’ve held the attitude of 'Pipe down love, we’ll have a wee look at women’s rights when the revolution is won. Stop making so much noise'.

Men on the Right are sexist in their own different ways but sexism from men who are supposedly on my side politically and who are supposedly aware of (and accepting of) class-based analysis of discrimination wounds more deeply. To know that they don’t see women’s rights as being equally important as employment rights or nationalising key industries upsets me because it shows that, at heart, they don’t view women as being as equally valuable as men.

The reason I’m so angry with Labour is because I want them to do better for women and I think that they could be capable of it but they’re choosing not to bother.

Totally agree Utopia Ive had cognitive dissonance all my life over this. But... you're supposed to be the party of fairness and redistribution of wealth? You're supposed to care about inequality? For so many lefty men, the misogyny is intact and fairness and rights for women don't really enter their heads, even if they spout the right mantras about it. On a personal level, they will generally put their career before a woman's and not pull their weight and not get why women are resentful about the extra load they carry, as much so as men generally.

Tory men are easier to deal with IMO because they know they are old-fashioned or have a sexist attitude. You can challenge it and have a debate, even make them think or change their minds. Lefty men want to think of themselves as Mr nice guy so they gaslight you and ignore you as well as being sexist. Drives me nuts.

You described it perfectly there: cognitive dissonance is exactly what I feel and I don’t think I can tolerate it any more.

I do actually find it somehow easier to deal with old-fashioned sexism cos I’ve been dealing with that all my life. It’s the horror of hearing men on the Left, who are politically sound on so many other issues affecting society, coming out with casual sexism and realising that they won’t admit to it because they consider themselves as politically virtuous.

This sums it up for me. It’s enraging that men on the left can see injustice when it comes to class, race, sexuality but not sex. ‘Ok, love, it’s not that bad is it, we’ve got bigger issues here. Now go make us a cup of tea, good girl’.

It’s not new. Look at the way the unions in the 70s were against equal pay for women - after all, women only worked for pin money, while men were breadwinners and deserved more. And of course it goes way back before that. But you’d think that a quarter of the way into the 21st century that it would no longer be tolerated.

Labour, men on the left - including Starmer - should be better than this. They all think they’re virtuous. They’re not if they don’t see the deep injustices women face.

Can anyone post a link to the Sex Matters questions for candidates? Sorry if it's already been posted.

Corker of a Lib Dem response:

'Thank you for your email. I appreciate that this is an issue which is very complex and sensitive and I want to be honest up front that there are aspects of this issue I am still becoming informed about and I don’t have all the answers by far.
However, I am firmly in the belief that both women’s rights and trans rights can co-exist and one groups rights can progress without eroding the rights of another group. Women have fought for a long time for their rights, but so have trans and LGBTQ and all deserve to have their rights protected equally.

I understand these questions come from the sex matters movement and whilst I agree that we should be able to talk about these issues sensibly and openly to find solutions, there are parts of the sex matters approach which I don’t agree with, particularly regarding conversion therapy. Although we probably won’t see eye-to-eye on all the points, I will always have an open door to meet with you and hear your views and concerns.

There are clearly issues that females (assigned at birth) go through which trans women don’t and vice versa. I’m sure most people would agree that for medical research into often overlooked aspects of women’s health i.e. birth, fertility, endometriosis etc there needs to be a distinction about sex assigned at birth in data collection. However, I think this can be managed through providing suitable options in data collection etc. With regard to single sex spaces, I do understand the concerns some people have on this issue, and it has often been a heated and contentious one. I think there are ways to ensure services and sports for women (assigned at birth) are protected whilst not excluding transwomen. I appreciate that for some women, i.e. domestic abuse and rape survivors this issue can be worrying. Getting the response right will take time, there are a myriad of complexities on this issue and strong feelings that can be stoked by media and organisations with an agenda.

I can’t imagine the difficulties and distress young people go through when struggling with gender and identity. We need to ensure that young people have access to therapists and services to allow them to explore options available whilst being protected from making potentially irreversible decisions at too young an age. However, there is a clear distinction between conversion therapy/practices and other conversations and legitimate therapies. Conversion practices are one-directional with an intention to get a person to change or their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is the opposite of the kind of support an individual who is exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity whatever the outcome may be. For many children and adults, understanding their sexual orientation or gender identity can be a scary and confusing time, what they need is a supportive and non-judgemental environment to figure this out, without the person they are speaking to having an end goal of their own. Banning conversion practices does not criminalise legitimate therapists, parents and teachers having discussions with children.

I’m sorry if I haven’t been able to give you the clear and succinct answers on this you have asked for, but it is not a clear and concise issue, and certainly not one I can pretend I have the answers to. I look forward to continuing to expand my understanding and as a feminist and women’s rights activist and an LGBTQ+ ally.'

Does anyone know if this is a standard LD response to the questions?