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/

“The Equality Act, which Labour brought in in 2010 and the Tories opposed, already protects single sex spaces for biological women. It already defines what a woman is. What’s certainly needed is clearer guidance and for service providers about how to safeguard those women."

What's your guidance, then, pal?

This. And I used to like Rishi. He can fuck off now. As if he thinks our safety is some kind of pawn to play. It’s not a fucking game. Slimy bastard.

Not at all. We need to take down the legal threat from TRAs

It’s why women and service providers are struggling. The threat of a law suit

The law needs to change to remove that threat

What is frustrating is that Kemi Badenoch published a card on her Twitter from a woman who had been raped in a toilet, thanking Badenoch and saying she would vote Conservative for the first time.

In the card the poor woman said she was attacked by a man dressed as a woman and another incident where the man tried to bash the door down of her cubicle. She said ‘they will not hesitate to take advantage of any situation that gives them access to women’.

The new toilet designs make it easier for those men. No one needs to bash down doors as they all can all be opened from the outside. No gaps for pesky witnesses. No gaps for the occupant to see if anyone is lying in wait.

So why is it a win?

So you’re voting for Labour’s pledge to use GPs / medics for Self ID?

But that is how the Equality Act works. If I run a business and I designate the toilets as single-sex then I want to be sure that some big hairy arsed bloke called Doris isn’t going to come along and Sue me if they aren’t allowed in. At the moment not enough businesses are sure of that, so in goes Doris. There needs to be a shift that says ‘Doris has no recourse in law’.
AFAIK the act in itself doesn’t say ‘women’s toilets are for women only’. It doesn’t specify anything. It just gives examples that could be. It may be that businesses will need additional signage that says “these toilets are single sex as defined by <insert amendment to EA>”. It seems overblown bollocks, but here we are.

“The Equality Act, which Labour brought in in 2010 and the Tories opposed, already protects single sex spaces for biological women. It already defines what a woman is. What’s certainly needed is clearer guidance and for service providers about how to safeguard those women."

If they opposed, why didn't they repeal? they, after all, came into office that year.

Under the Equality Act 2010, there are 9 protected characteristics which are; age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation

Lets fund public services, not have a situation where 50% of biological women contacting DV refuge's are turned away.

Right. What's with the wobbling face, Cassie, we're discussing stuff here?

All I want is clarity and I'm not seeing it from Labour or the Tories.

Has Starmer changed his position about 1% of women having a penis?

But what, then, would be its purpose? To what would it entitle its holder?

JKR:

"Badenoch is also Minister for Women and Equalities. Thanks once again for highlighting Labour’s complacency and indifference towards the rights of half the electorate."

https://x.com/jkrowling/status/1797542942007328991?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

She is responding to this:

"I’m sure the world of trade and business will take note that the actual Secretary of State for trade and business has decided that the biggest issue on her agenda on her first big election outing is the weaponisation of trans rights. Anyone might be tempted to think @KemiBadenoch has less interest in the general election than the internal ideological shitshow likely to follow it."

x.com/campbellclaret/status/1797528321435021756?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

There is no clarity from Labour

They have not said which spaces will exclude men with a GRC or how they will do that

Neither have the Tories, its a shambles, GE time i guess, which is why Kemi made such a screw up of an interview, she wants to appease allsides.

Underfunding of public services is a huge cause of the mess we are all in, its not just EQ or GRA.

Yes, I know.
My point is equally the businesses can go "this is the Ladies, including trans ladies" and women can't do anything other than not use that business. Same as today.

It means confused - type in [ confused ] without the spaces.

I'm confused because you said Labour won't do anything when effectively they have said the same as the Tories.

I think that's probably correct, but then I guess it's and women can vote with their feet.

No they’ll need to specify where and how

Legally how

The EqA change is one way

What will they do via legal change?

Labour haven't said they'll clarify the EA to ensure that 'biological sex' is the meaning of 'sex', though?

They are claiming that that is what it means.

As far as I'm aware, Lady Haldane's judgement said both that sex meant biological sex AND that it meant biological sex plus legal sex. Haldane's judgement contradicted itself because the law is not clear.

As I understand it, Badenoch's move here is to clarify that so that in the EA, 'sex' will ONLY mean biological sex, and a GRC will not change sex for 'legal' or any other purposes.

Protection from discrimination on the basis of being transgender?
Legal recognition as female except where biological sex is important for safety and dignity?

It's a way to have a step between self-ID and trans-is-not-valid.

No it’s not appeasing all sides it’s not appeasing TRAs who use legal challenge to exploit the current awful legal framework created by Labour

Legal recognition as female except where biological sex is important for safety and dignity?

The only instances where sex matters, it's sex that matters, not 'gender'.

Badenoch made it clear the Eq A change will not compel businesses to provide single sex services or spaces. Businesses can already use the exemptions in the EA, apart from when people have a GRC. There are 5000 of those people.

So it doesn't achieve much at all.

In what situation would a man need or want 'legal recognition as female' that is not a single sex space that women need to be single sex for privacy, dignity, and safety?

There are none that I can think of. Not one.

This is the key point isn't it. Separation only really needs to happen on the grounds of sex. I can't think of any situation where gender would be relevant.

So, Labour has said that the exceptions in the EA are clearly and without any risk that males with GRC can be excluded from provisions meeting the standard for exceptions then?

Interesting.

So does this mean that all the Labour candidates will repeat this when asked? And this will mean that if any court cases show this to be not the correct interpretation that a Labour government would then move to clear up the language that is making this debatable now?

If that is the case, bring on the interview questions. The more that gets on record the better. In the meantime, I find it remarkable that Labour has such clarity where others don’t . What do they know that others don’t? Or is that confidence performative because they really haven’t interrogated it as robustly as others because they haven’t needed to. It is all a thought exercise to them, rather than the reality of attempting to get guidances through that comply.