Did Keir Starmer just say

[Helpuschoose]

To Nick Ferrari on LBC that transwomen with a GRC will not be allowed in female single-sex spaces? It sounded like it. Is this a clear move or does it still leave wriggle-room? I’m not sure.

My Mum has been in hospital for months. She was in a female bay on a mixed sex ward. I had to escort a confused male patient back to his own bay when he wandered into the female bay.

She is now in a side room on 'end of life care'. There are only a couple of side rooms on the ward. Mr Starmer, would she get turfed out of this room if a trans patient was admitted?

Many thanks for answering @theilltemperedclavecinist I appreciate that you bothered. I feel muddled about this law.

Some points to add in light of what you said -

Only relevant for applying law that is affected by sex, like discrimination law. Doesn't actually change the person's sex for other purposes, such as whether their presence disadvantages a woman or member of a religious minority.

Given
Section 9 of the 2004 Act provides that unless exceptions apply, the effect of a full GRC is that “for all purposes” the person’s sex becomes as certified. As a matter of general principle, a full GRC has the effect of changing the sex that a person has as a protected characteristic for the purposes of the 2010 Act
(GOV.UK)

It is very poor English/law writing in my opinion to be saying “sex for all purposes……. but not for all purposes” ( effectively).

You are allowed but they don't have to answer. I expect the NHS to be able to work out people's sex though (transsexuals have been using it for years).

I would agree, though a doctor was on these threads once saying it can be surprising difficult to make assumptions about people’s sex during the general Pell Mel.

Maybe the NHS would not have a problem, but there can be odd thinking about this, that you would not think possible, as in the response to 2021 petition against the police recording of male crimes as being women’s.

I kid you not:
Officials have noted that ‘biological sex’ has not been defined in the petition. If ‘biological sex’ is defined in terms of anatomy, or chromosomes, then there would be both ethical and logistical challenges for the police or the HMPPS in determining this for every arrested suspect or prisoner. For instance, it would not be appropriate for the police or HMPPS to physically examine every suspect/prisoner in order to determine ‘biological sex’ if it had one of these meanings. Accordingly, there are no plans for the police or HMPPS to record the biological sex of prisoners.*
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/590123

I thought people's sex could be determined by some kind of swab, similar to a DNA test, with 'examinations' not being necessary??

Perhaps make it an offence to knowingly lie to an authorised person if asked what your biological sex is.

Used to be done for sports.

I got that impression from my labour candidate. Not got an understanding of what is happening on the ground in reality.

Thinks a bit of guidance will sort out the problem. Thinks its misunderstanding of the law that his the problem, rather than capture of institutions and services by gender ideology.

On Women's Hour this morning, Labour Party Chair and Shadow Secretary for Women and Equalities Anneliese Dodds said: Sex and gender are different, sex is protected under the EA, and exceptions can be made, but this probably could be made clearer/more well known/enforced. There should be appropriate single-sex spaces.

So it sounds to me like they've decided on their position and are following it.

Yes. Or simply an offence to conceal your sex.

It should be spelled out in the GRC process. If people declare they will ilive n their acquired gender they should also sign a declaration declaring that they recognise their sex has not changed and that they cannot access single sex spaces on the basis of having a GRC.

This issue has rumbled on and on for Labour. Could they not have sorted themselves out during the time they were waiting for an election to be called, and state whatever clearly in their manifesto. They KNEW the question would come up and should have had something ready. It’s infuriating.

That seems like a good answer. A small number of people would give anomalous results, but are likely to have a specific diagnosis which they could prove.

This is a good explanation of what 'all purposes' means:

https://sex-matters.org/posts/single-sex-services/what-does-a-grc-do/

What this really is is a rule about rules: it tells us that in those (rare) situations in which the law attaches consequences to whether you are male or female, a GRC requires you to be deemed to have changed sex unless the contrary is stated. In other words, it governs how other laws are to be understood.

I think there is no law to say single sex spaces mustbe single sex. An individual space could decide to allow other sexes.

Is it it more that they can be difficult to enforce? It wouldnt be reasonable to expect a cafe owner to stop all men entering the womans toilet, but it is reasonable to expect them to make signs clear, remove them if someone complains.

Businesses and service providers dont have to offer single sex services. So if they didnt want to provide them, why advertise as such, but redefine sex as something most people wouldnt expect? The business owner isnt allowed to redefine the meaning of anything else they sell.

As mentioned already, the NHS have made it hard for themselves unnecessarily because they have allowed patients to overwrite sex as desired sex on hospital records. Obviously, in the majority of cases, they would know the true sex. But it may be difficult to manage wards if they dont know until they see the patient.

It would be simplier if the GRA process just recognises gender and doesn't alter sex.

If both conservatives and labour agree that gender and sex are different, surely its time to change the gra and not issue a new birth certificate.

Hmmm the only issue is ...

...what is gender?

Define gender without using a bunch of sexist tropes.

And this is where anyone who talks about this really needs to have a hard think.

Sorry dont have time to read whole thread just now but not sure why anyone is surprised by what KS said.

He has been working in the legal services for years.

Under the EA SSE a man with a GRC saying they are a woman can be excluded.

Everybody know that. But we also know that Stonewall etc., have tried to say the opposite.

Also that not as many organisations as could, have bothered to implement the SSE.

How many times does this have to be said??!!

I think more troubling is the comment about hopsital wards.

Irrespective of intention, everyone knows that hospitals do no have the capacity to implement single sex services, let alone side rooms.

What a load of political bullshit.

Um - or indeed in our hospitals - it's actually NHS policy for wards to be single sex and er the only reason that isn't routinely the case now is because the government's lost control of our hospitals but that is the policy and we want to reinforce and protect that"

Does this mean he is committed to getting rid of Annex B I wonder?

And this is why I say that satisfaction ratings for Starmer will start high due to all the anticipation and then drop like a stone...

Steady now. Watch those expectations.

Does he even know about Annex B?

Stonewall's position is that a GRC holder can only be excluded from a single-sex space in order to fulfil a legitimate and proportionate aim (partly true) and that this test sets an insuperably high bar for most situations (not true).

By saying that GRC holders should be excluded from women's wards, KS is effectively rendering an instant legal opinion that this situation passes the LAPA test. Which has implications for other comparable situations.

So this is, I think, new and welcome. They still need to do something about it, but are starting from a logical place at least.

I agree gender is meaningless, but we seem to have to move at the pace of the dimmest politician in the country.

They can't chuckle patronisingly and say gender isnt sex, then give men with gender a certificate saying they are now female and a shiny new female birth certificate. That is confusing sex and gender.

To continue giving out GRC , they need to define gender. I think politicans have always imagined safe (really female) spaces and gendered spaces. Thats why men with gender need id to get them into gendered situations.

I wonder if any politicians would dare to say exactly what a gendered space is, and why women would want to be there with eddie izzard?

I’m surprised because current NHS policy doesn’t make use of the SSE. Current policy is that any man who wishes it should be accommodated on a female ward. To reverse this Starmer will need to actively change the NHS constitution and scrap Annex B which is what allows for men to be accommodated according to their presentation or womanly feelings.

This is what I’m wondering. Annex B wasn’t “a loss of control”. It was a very deliberate policy decision that was written into the NNS constitution.

Someone wasnt paying attention, and an annex appeared.