Melanie Field: the former EGRC expert behind Labour's women's rights policy

[LetsTalkTwaddle]

Word has it that Melanie Field, who was one of those behind an attempt to oust Baroness Kishwar Falkner from her position heading the EHRC, is the woman who is telling Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner what to say when asked about women's rights.

Last year Kishwar Falkner came under attack for alleged bullying and transphobia, which she was later cleared of. Melanie Field left the EHRC thereafter and set up as an independent adviser. It's Field, I'm told, who is behind the 'biological women and other, traumatised and vulnerable women who've been born in the wrong body' line that Keir Starmer et al are trotting out.

Field has also written an article on why the Equality Act is just fine and needs no clarification: she was apparently one of the key people who drafted it.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/melanie-field-389901148

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/do-we-need-amend-equality-act-protect-womens-rights-melanie-field-dyewe?trk=publicprofilearticleview

The previous head of the EHRC was David Isaac who also acted as Chair of Stonewall during the time he was in official office. Melanie Field was working in the EHRC during his period in the EHRC.

Elsewhere GC groups have noticed that Stonewall and other trans groups have gone very quiet about the use of the phrase 'biological women', which they would once have protested about, because TWAW. There's speculation that Stonewall and allies have agreed to pipe down in order to enable Labour to pursue the 'Biological and other women' line.

Interesting that Labour have an adviser dedicated to removing women and girl's boundaries. Given that Keir self identifies as central to a removing VAWG you'd think he'd be keen on having someone expert in safeguarding - especially as Labour's adviser will be ensuring that young girls will also be required to share spaces with "traumatised" men when undressing.

Presumably the removal of cross dressers is so that Keir can avoid the "he identifies as a rapist" mess that Nicola Sturgeon ended up in when trying to unravel the Bryson prison debacle. Any of the male sex offenders who claims to be a woman will simply be labelled as a "cross dresser" and therefore not trans?

@SilverElf I'm not sure what you mean? Apparently stonewall have dropped cross dressers from the list of what makes a person transgender. Did you see that?

That's and interesting thought @Ereshkigalangcleg

Thanks. I used to be able to view Linkedin without registering but now I can't.

I'm not sure that was the fundamental conflict on the marriage question, although it was obviously a real conflict itself.

In some ways, I think the more important question was more like the definitional question around who is a woman.

The same sex marriage question to some extent came down to, is it legitimate to have a legal institution which is definitionally predicated on the relative reproductive roles of the individuals within it?

There are basically two ways to answer that and still get to SSM. One is, yes, the state can have such an institution or recognize a contract that has sex as a necessary element, but this particular institution isn't about that: or,

No, it's not legitimate to have reproductive role/sex as a relevant element in the definition of any legal institution or contract.

The latter of those could potentially have all kinds of knock on effects on how the state treats certain categories or ideas related to sex.

Yes, it changed the day before yesterday, 27th June.

Now, how do we tell the difference between crossdressers and transwomen in stereotypically women's clothing?

understanding their fears and examining – impartially and on the basis of evidence – where those concerns come from and how they should be addressed

If this is the approach, then surely there should be far more discussion about how gender non conforming males can be reassured to feel safer in male sex spaces? Given that there is so little evidence that these males are any more at risk in them than other men.

@GreatSave What they continue to misunderstand or deny to themselves, is that the public, and pesky women in particular now understand the problems with self-id of sex and we are not going to go away. Labour may have a majority in the HoC at the end of next week, but there will be an army or people like the wonderful Jane yesterday who will continue to hold their feet to the fire.

Once they've got their majority, they won't give a flying fig because they won't need to. If 1 million people marching against the Iraq invasion did diddly squat during Blair's time, no amount of Radio 5 phone ins is going to divert Starmer from what his actual agenda is in this regard either.

Now, how do we tell the difference between crossdressers and transwomen in stereotypically women's clothing?

I suggest the answer to that is that genuine transwomen need to have beards and dress in traditional male clothing in order to differentiate themselves from male crossdressers in frocks and lipstick.

Yes that did cross my mind!

From her LinkedIn post:
It’s important to recognise that defining “sex” in the Equality Act as “biological sex” would not be a clarification, but a fundamental change. In the Act “sex” means a person’s legal sex under UK law – male or female, as recorded on their birth certificate or, for trans people who have one, on their Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). A trans person without a GRC retains their sex recorded at birth. The fact that a GRC changes a person’s legal sex for the purposes of discrimination law was set out clearlywhen Parliament passed the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and underpinned the drafting of the Equality Act. Nothing has changed. The position was confirmed in December 2022 by the Scottish Court of Session. While it is true that an appeal against that ruling to the UK Supreme Court is pending, in my view seeking to amend the law until the outcome of that appeal is known would be extremely unwise - any new definition would create new uncertainty and provoke fresh legal challenges.
As well as being unwise, amending the law is also unnecessary. The Equality Act explicitly provides for women-only services, spaces, jobs and sports. It already recognises the reality and importance of “biological sex” by providing that trans women (and trans men) can lawfully be included or excluded as is appropriate in the particular circumstances, regardless of their legal sex, where this is a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has produced helpful guidance on how this test applies in single-sex services. So the Act ensures that a trans man with a GRC (legally male) can access breast and cervical cancer screening, and that a women’s sexual violence service can require staff and service users to be female and not trans. It enables trans women to be excluded from women’s competitive sport where necessary to ensure fair competition and safety. The Act does not mandate either a “trans-inclusive” or a “trans-exclusive” approach – it enables common sense to be applied in a range of circumstances to enable appropriate provision to be made for everyone, striking the correct balance between women’s rights to privacy, dignity and safety and the rights of trans people not to be discriminated against or harassed.
On the alleged confusion in the Act between “sex” and “gender”, other than provisions relating to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, the Act uses the word “gender” in only two places. These are in relation to gender pay gap reporting and gender-affected competitive sport and, in both cases, the meaning is defined in terms of (legal) sex. The Act does not mention gender identity or gender expression at all.
What would changing the law achieve?
Changing the definition of sex in the Equality Act is unnecessary and would not achieve stronger protections for women-only services than already exist.

My thoughts:
Surely the actual definition of sex is biological sex. This doesn’t make sense. Are all the science textbooks and dictionaries wrong? Sex doesn’t mean legal sex in the Act otherwise gender reassignment wouldnt be a separate category? I am confused.

Talk about a fundamental change - having to add biological to the word sex!

Have any of the commenters asked her whether she thinks women including lesbians should be able to have their own clubs and associations and whether she thinks a man with a GRC should be eligible to count as a woman for an all women shortlist or a women's sports scholarship? Because there are no exceptions in the Equality Act for those things. (I don't have LinkedIn or I'd ask!)

Can you expand on the potential knock on effects on how the state treats categories please? I’m not sure I understand what you mean by that. It’s not as if the state insisted the man and woman were fertile, so reproductive roles had already gone by the wayside.

As far as I can see, whether marriage was between two people of the same or opposite sex was more of a theoretical question and fundamentally affected nobody other than the couple, hence my previous comment.

Changing the meaning of the word marriage doesn’t have any effect on the effects of getting married, which is a contract.

Changing the meaning of the word women to include some men has huge impacts as those words are used in many laws to protect one of those groups from the other.

If Alison Bailey wins her case against Stonewall then that will have far-reaching consequences 🤞

Labour won't be able to ignore that, no matter who is advising them.

I used to work with Melanie F at the GEO. What went on there around this issue was a fascinating illustration of how good intentions go bad in our political system. Someone should write a book about it.

I suspect the thinking is that any male who displays undesirable behaviour in the presence of women and girls ( and which comes to public attention), whilst in women's spaces, is not "really trans"...just a cross dresser. A sort 'after the horse has bolted' safeguarding measure designed to maintain the structure of the gender identity/trans belief system.

Can you expand?

I wonder if Melanie Field was the "crying friend" at the EHRC that Robin Moira White spoke of in this tweet shortly after Baroness Fawkner's name was cleared?

https://x.com/moira_robin/status/1717129553087197383

In August I'm holding a lesbian-only event involving around 50 women. I've taken the decision only to admit biological females. I regard this as legal, proportionate and acceptable under the terms of the Equality Act and I'm following guidance provided by the LGB Alliance and Naomi Cunningham. Unfortunately word of the event has leaked to some of the local TRAs and we may find ourselves with a protest outside the venue and men attempting to get in. I have already started liaising with the police over this. The owner of the venue is under pressure to ban us and may decide to cancel the booking after pressure from TRAs.

The Equality Act might seem to Melanie Field to be a fine piece of legislation, but in RL it doesn't work — and it's predominantly women who are bearing the burden of the fallout. The police are half-hearted and confused, venue-owners are nervous and sadly, unlike Filia which was able to turn to a team of top-notch lawyers when under threat in Glasgow, we have neither the expertise nor the money to fight this off time after time.

Thanks for posting, OP.

'It’s important to recognise that defining “sex” in the Equality Act as “biological sex” would not be a clarification, but a fundamental change. In the Act “sex” means a person’s legal sex under UK law – male or female, as recorded on their birth certificate or, for trans people who have one, on their Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).'

That's very clear. So when Labour talk about sex, they are including males with a GRC under 'female sex'.

'Changing the definition of sex in the Equality Act is unnecessary and would not achieve stronger protections for women-only services than already exist. '

Right, no need to ensure that a man with a £5 lady ticket can be excluded from women's spaces.

I mean, fucksake. This woman is still talking shite and acting exasperated that people won't buy it.

The reason they've taken cross dressers out is so it cannot be held up as an example of the sort of men who want access to women's spaces.

From now on anyone who says they are trans is not a cross-dresser. Officially.

We've already seen all the transvestites disappear. Eddie Izzaes for one. He's now transgender.

They are all now lumped together as transgender, and you cannot point to stonewall's definition that some of them are merely fetishistic cross-dressers.

They just wrote AGP entirely out of the equation.

According to Stonewall it doesn't exist.