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/

Mishal Husain was very successful in obscuring what Badenoch was trying to explain. Neat trick, but it hardly serves the audience.

Mishal's questioning highlighted the conflict between a GRC and the EA and that this proposal by the Conservatives is not going to resolve the fact that if you have a legal document that asserts your legal sex then any decisions to exclude can be challenged based on that GRC.
At least, that's what came across to me.

Yes that's what came across to me.

It's square that's impossible to circle

Badenoch all over the place.

She did. That was one of the worst interviews - or rather pseudo interviews - I have heard for ages. She continually talked over Badenoch. Aggressive, agenda ridden journalism. Hussain should be ashamed of herself. A clear attempt to shut down the issue whil;e seeming to be addressing it.

I thought Kemi did get bogged down by the paperwork question. If a male who identifies as female has a GRC can they legally be excluded from a single sex space ? I don't know the answer to this.

I think Labour weren't going to say anything till they've heard these radio interviews on it

ok. And how long has Rishi been in? Knowing that an election was this year.

I agree more could have been done. It is disappointing . But I am a realist in believing that there wasn’t the support even 2 years ago in the Conservatives to get this through swiftly. Otherwise it would have been done.

Let’s not forget who led the committees. Plus who also was running for leader, too. And before Johnson was May who, I don’t believe would have backed the things we are asking for.

This is great news. Obviously the tories are not expected to win but this raises the profile of women’s rights and makes it an issue in debates etc.

Badenoch was absolutely dreadful talking about this this morning refusing to answer very simple questions about how it would work on practice.
And she refused to criticise Liz Truss for appearing with the fat right wing misogynist who said there isn't enough beer to make him want to rape Jess Phillips.
Anyone who think the Tories are a party for women is fooling themselves.

If a male who identifies as female has a GRC can they legally be excluded from a single sex space ?

Yes, if it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. And it doesn't need to involve the paperwork. The paperwork is a red herring.

Where it's deemed proportionate.

That's the issue.

What kemi is trying to do is shift the idea across society of when it's appropriate and proportionate as the idea had evolved that 'twaw get over it.'

I suppose it does expose the males who are forcefully protesting this - why does it matter so much you're urinating and changing next to girls?

So is the counter argument to Kemi that there is absolutely no way at all to keep males out if women's spaces?

Yes, it's about enabling people to realise that sometimes sex matters and the relevant parts of the Equality Act can be applied no matter how angry a person might get about it.

Return to the normal way of applying the law: What do the words say? Rather than "who is shouting the loudest?"

Wasn't the legal sex/paperwork point being pressed by Mishal because of the Haldane judgement? Which would make anyone with a GRC legally that sex....? So presumably the Tories have to change the definition of sex and gender crystal clear.

I think she should have said (in that interview) that we are changing the EA wording to make sex mean biological sex, but gender reassignment is protected, so, if you hold a GRC or an amended birth certificate, then by definition your birth sex now reflects your acquired gender, not your sex - and you can be excluded legally from SS service providers and sports.

But I think the Haldane judgement is the sticking point and until the wording in the EA and GRA is made legally watertight, it's still going to be up for interpretation ...

Adversarial politics being what it is, now the Tories have seemingly come out in favour of women, Labour will be duty bound to rubbish this and take the other point of view.

These questions are important to bash out in the media and also important to be heard by Labour. The tories are unlikely to win.

But Labour can't disagree with this as the law is there already. it's the general approach driven by stonewall that's been the issue.

And if that is the case being highlighted to listeners, what is the reaction going to be?

That if clarifying the EA is not going to work, then what? A complete new set of legislation? Is that what people listening are going to be thinking now? Or that it is just too hard?

Not necessarily, as within debates tories can trump the argument that Labour aren't protecting women and girls or upholding the current law.

Kemi should have replied with that if that's the law, I don't think she was clear enough. I get and agree with what she's trying to do but she should have framed it in legal terms as well as the obvious reasons.

I’ve just watched Kemi on GMB with Ed Balls asking questions. Kemi really was not at her best. Ed Balls and Suzanna Reid were both very confused about what this is all about and Kemi did not clearly explain the issues. She confused things even more in my opinion!!

Wasn't the legal sex/paperwork point being pressed by Mishal because of the Haldane judgement? Which would make anyone with a GRC legally that sex....?

The Haldane judgment doesn't remove the Schedule 9 Work: exceptions of the Equality Act 2010. Which the suggested change is to uphold.

Mishal doesn’t really understand the issues and is still finding her own way, that’s the problem. Hence the getting bogged down in paperwork.

Her suggestion that having one’s penis removed makes one legally and medically female must have made some people think “eh?”.

Just listened again on catch up, seems to me that Kemi doesn't want to upset the trans activists on her side of the house.

Also, she was very clear that changes apply to state sector, not private charities etc.

Thats quite disturbing.

Over to woman's hour now, surely.

Shall throw a tantrum and write angry letters if they don't.