Keir Starmer Government urged to clarify definition of sex by the Tories

[IwantToRetire]

Shadow equalities minister Claire Coutinho has pressed the Government to clarify the definition of sex. Equalities minister Bridget Phillipson said it was “important that providers have clarity in this area”.

She added that providers “have the right to restrict access to service on the basis of biological sex” under the Equality Act 2010.

In the Commons on Wednesday, Coutinho said: “In the election the Conservative Party committed to clarifying the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 to protect women’s rights.

“At the end of this month For Women Scotland vs Scottish Ministers will be heard in the UK Supreme Court, this case will have far-reaching consequences for sex-based rights. So can the Government assure the House that it’s clear that the definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex?”

During women and equalities questions, Phillipson replied: “I won’t comment on ongoing cases, but what I can be clear to her about is that the Equality Act 2010 does set out that providers, for example, have the right to restrict access to service on the basis of biological sex.

“This Government is proud of our achievements in legislating for the Equality Act. We will make sure that providers can continue to support single-sex exemptions. And it is important that providers have clarity in this area, and I’ll be happy to work with her to make sure that is the case.”

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-government-urged-clarify-34102096

Sorry made a mess of OP as accidentally posted, and now cant get rid of image and newspaper heading which is not the one the OP is about.

Link for the article about debate in HoC in the OP.

And again here https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-government-urged-clarify-34102096

The problem with this is they could make It a lot worse.

The only plus I can see in this statement ie there is no issue because if you are very good and show how it is proportionate there can be single sex services, is that they did not revert to that terrible phrase "safe spaces"!

I don't see how you can get away from the "proportionate" bit. Otherwise you're saying that women can have single sex spaces just because they want to. But then you run into the problem that the EA2010 protects everyone, not specific groups. So that means that men can have single sex spaces just because they want to as well. Then you're back to blokes clubs settling matters behind closed doors.

And that "can provide single-sex services" is very different from "must provide single-sex services".

Not really if they simply clarify that sex in the equality act does not include sex modified by a grc things would be better. Also if the government would mount a large publicity campaign telling all businesses and public bodies that men who don't have a grc are not entitled to access to women's spaces and making them use the males is not discrimination.
No need to change anything else

This is already covered in EQA2010:

^EqA Sch3 Part7 Para28

Gender reassignment

28(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2)The matters are—

(a)the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;

(b)the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;

(c)the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.^

People with a GRC have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and can be excluded from a single sex space or service where that exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Among the list of legitimate aims are safety, dignity and privacy. So what could be a proportionate means?

Provision of third spaces would be proportionate.

Signposting to an equivalent service that will provide the service would be proportionate.

Exclusion would be proportionate if the building could not be modified to provide third spaces or the cost would be prohibitive.

There are probably other proportionate means.

The problem is that service providers cannot be forced to provide single sex spaces and services so the default is mixed sex and suck it up if you are unhappy.

Don't you just get the feeling that nobody in govt particularly wants 'clarification'? That there's no enthusiasm whatsoever to press for change (to use an unfortunate term 😛) to either the GRA or the Equality Act.

How sweet that the Tories think that Labour will pick up the agenda they failed to implement themselves during 14 years. They must think Starmer fell out of a tree.

I don't imagine the Tories think Labour will act on this. Why would they?

Well if you were really stupid, you choose something to campaign on that your own leader failed to do when she was Minister with the power to do so. If they are that stupid, to imagine this is some kind of “gotcha” then I reckon they will be out of power for a very long time.

@JanesLittleGirl I am aware of that but the appeal crt in Edinburgh has ruled that men with a grc are women under the equal act and women with a grc are men, what this means is that a pregnant woman with a grc has no pregnancy or maternity protection, no lesbian groups can refuse to admit a man with a grc (groups aren't exempt), when a man with a grc claims sex discrimination the comparator is a woman instead of a man without a grc and that's not even an exhaustive list of the issues.
As I said in my last post the government need to start a massive campaign to inform all service providers and employers what the law actually says and that stonewall law is illegal. It would be really helpful if they could also point out that it's not illegal to ask for proof of a grc

And 'services' doesn't necessarily include toilets and changing rooms.

Yes, Starmer has showed he intends to stick with his script - come hell or high water.

I doubt Labour will do anything.

Maybe the next GE will see some progress for women

Even as an obvious Tory hater, you have to hope, though, that Labour will act positively on the matter, surely? And also, you have to admit that we would already have Gender Self Id if it wasn't for the Tory party party blocking it, and there would have been no Cass Review.

Lady Haldane's ruling made it clear that under the EA "where proporationate" same sex ie based on biologe are legitimate.

But for all other purposes someone with a GRC was legally the opposite sex to the one they were born.

But the main propblem is that those who can dont implement the proporationate, because too many people and organisations, for whatever reason, cant be bothered to use the SSE.

All this has been said zillion of times on FWR, so not sure why anyone thinks anything has change.

But again as has been said, none of the other protected characteristics have to accept faux members of their characteristic as being real. ie Black and other communities are not told by the law to accept white people who claim they are Black as being Black, nor do people with disabilities have to accept that someone who says they identify as disabled as being disabled.

It is because those who wrote the rules as to how the GRA should interact with the EA decided that sex, specifically women should accept that their reality should only be seen as being the same as someone who identifies as that sex.

Effectively how the EA is written is discriminatory against the protected characteristic of sex.

ie it isn't about equality it is a about social engineering.

Worth noting it was written by Labour.

Really? Isn’t the consensus on this board that 1) Badenoch would definitely do this sex clarification 2) Starmer was a gutless trans supporter and would make it worse.

i think nothing will happen at all. Starmer is probably more honest that Badenoch in the sense that he never intended to do anything whereas Badenoch claimed she would. What people actually do matters. Not what they claim they will.

No disrespect to Cass, it was an epic and vital report.

I don't think Starmer sees the problem.

He has stated that he is proud that labour introduced the GRA and the EqA. So he is proud that adult men have female birth certificates and there is confusion about when and where these men have legal rights to use womans services.

I think its going to take the courts to highlight to him where the problems are, he isnt going to listen to women, or safeguarding experts.

Badenoch claimed she would.

This is such a boring and dishonest statement that the usual suspects always pump out.

She was in the process of doing something and then Sunak called a snap election, without apparently consulting ministers, etc., as to the impact that would have on their current projects.

I believe she even mentioned this in her web chat with MNHQ and has been referred to on other FWR threads.

So why repeat something that is not only untrue, but has been already pointed out its untrue.

And for those who hadn't realised, but the reason for starting a thread about this story is to show that the Tories, now in opposition, are keeping up their challenge to the Tories re women's sex based rights.

And all it shows is that marginally Labour has shifted by replying about women only services, rather than women's safe spaces. which shows that might just have read the EA and the SSEs, because it isn't clear they had done in the past, as they just parroted replies that are straight out of the TRA playbook.

That's all it is.

It's an ill-informed myth that won't die off - I've heard Badenoch explain in detail on more than one occasion the complexity of trying to get agreement across govt departments, the EHRC, and with Cabinet colleagues for her suggested legislation AND I've heard her explain how it was ready to be go ahead for implementation in the late summer of 2024 but the snap election killed off all progress.

Badenoch put her money where her mouth was and her solution was detail-orientated.

It's an ill-informed myth that won't die off

I think it has died off but the usual suspects keep trying to revive it.

Should have followed by usual advice of dont encourage thread derailers!

I don't think it hurts to reaffirm the facts in response to inaccuracies; it's useful for people who are reading the thread but are perhaps new to the area under discussion.

Clubs and associations are covered by a different part of the EA. Single sex services are only lawful if they are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim but there is no such requirement for associations. Hence there are women only and men only clubs (as well as all sorts of clubs based around other protected characteristics) for no better reason than because the members want them. E.g. the WI or the Freemasons.

The snag is that unlike service provision, there is no clear additional exception to exclude tw with a GRC from a female only club.