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

My post wasnt aimed at you! More myself.

But sadly expect to see it churned out on a thread were it is not relevant.

No worries Retire, I understood what you were saying 👍

I agree certain derails can be extremely frustrating when a poster is in broadcast but not receive mode - there's no real discussion possible - but I've found that other types are eventually enlightening because it allows me to encounter differing POVs from my own and/or the derails allow established posters here (who are often very eloquent) to refute claims that are lacking in accuracy.

And to agree with other posters above, Starmer & Co are irritatingly sticking to their election strategy of "Us Labours are very proud of our equality legislation, thank you very much", which I hope they will eventually be made to realise does not address in any substantive way any of the issues created by said legislation they created.

@Hoardasurass @JanesLittleGirl , true. Very true. I hadn't thought of that. Thank you.

Yes well done for countering the dishonesty

I guess it’ll be a next GE issue

You can usual suspects me as much as you like. My point has always been gender criticality is little but a political football. Badenoch failed to get the support she needed, governments make difficult change all the time. She wasn’t backed by her own party. Why? Because she couldn’t influence her colleagues.

Starmer doesn’t see an issue, so no, he won’t do a thing.

Does anyone think that the Tory Party putting the change forward in the way they have done means that they will actually achieve the outcome they want? Really?

My take has always been that people have to influence Labour, they should have held their nose before the election and got on with it if it mattered. Starmer has zero incentive to play with what is seen as Badenoch’s idea. He’s a politician and he won’t give it a hearing. Regrettably for some, the hard work of cultivating lefties must be done. I appreciate that is not as nice as having a high horse to ride on, but politics is about acting and making change.

Or perhaps it suits some to fulminate.

That is not what has been said, but yes, I do think, given more time ( laws can't be changed over-night).....Badenoch would have moved to a clarification of sex. It is far easier to not put something into law in the first instance, than it is to undo it once done.

Starmer is a gutless trans supporter - or that is certainly his record so far. Weasel words whilst still meeting with Stonewall and making promises.

It seems to me that many seem to be caught up in a reflexive rear guard defence of Labour ( after all of the championing of them at the last election) rather than a honest appraisal. So far, he, like most others in the Labour Party, have refused to give clear and unequivocal support to women's sex based rights across the board.

Next year we'll see....as this is when Starmer will introduce his " modernisation" of the GRA.

You mentioned Cass but you also failed to mention that we would definitely have Self Id by now if the Tories had not blocked it; and that they blocked the same in Scotland. Scottish Labour supported what the SNP were doing.

People did try to influence Labour before the last election. They sought to meet with their own MPs ( mine refused to meet on the issue), they wrote letters, they campaigned, and some Labour party members grouped together under the 'Labour Women's Declaration'........ to no avail.

I spoiled my ballot because I'm not voting for a candidate who has made it plain and clear that she believes TWAW and who is a supporter of Mermaids. And I had no faith in starmer......with his continual evasions, or his lack of vocal support for Rosie Duffield. Labour has treated women disgracefully.

That’s a fairer take than usual suspects which I respect. I didn’t believe Badenoch actually because as a person she just wasn’t clubbable enough to persuade all her colleagues. They didn’t think it important enough. Let’s say Johnson had backed this. It would have happened.

Starmer isn’t motivated. I dare say his bill, if it emerges, will be some way of the change that is wanted here. I would guess it will set out a series of statutory exceptions where a single sex service is justified and thus that is much more easily defended in law than the broader change above.

I am always a bit suspicious about politicians who claim to be able to deliver big ticket changes. They must be extremely powerful to do so or very clever. And I don’t think Badenoch is either of those. She’s a headliner who talks big.

That’s a fairer take than usual suspects which I respect.

What are you referring to here? The usual suspects for Labour?

If Reeves continues to have this kind of growth announced today it'll be what damages Labour

They won't progress anything for women but next GE there will be more of an open goal where I can see this coming up

It was obvious Labour were just obfuscating on well pretty much everything so I wouldn't expect anything for women in their term

If Badenoch wins in 2028 then the equality act will be amended she will have power to push it through. That is IF of course and she has to survive as Tory leader till 2028.

It is highly likely though any Tory leader will run on the same pledge because it is clear the wheels are falling off the gender wagon. Reform certainly will saying biology is real and the Tories will not want to be outflanked.

As for Labour the party is divided are still trying to do gender stuff and also say biology is real and Cass is true at the same time. If this long heralded Conversion Therapy bill ever arrives we will see what they actually THINK. Basically Starmer does not want to talk or think about thus stuff and it shows.

He does however want to win and as the election in the states shows genderism is not popular.

The problem is by the next election Labour will have " modernised" the GRA making it easier for men to change their passport, birth certificate etc......thus embedding the concept of 'gender identity' even further. And i'm not sure I have much confidence in Bridget Phillipson, as minister for Education, either...especially with the main teaching union so fully captured.

The US will shift the Overton window on this now, it would have been harder if Harris had not lost

It's a long game to change this but I think it can be done, hopefully

I would guess it will set out a series of statutory exceptions where a single sex service is justified and thus that is much more easily defended in law than the broader change above.

Isnt that the current position?

Single sex services are permitted when proportional, and women having to take service providers to court if they think they are being discriminated against when they àre not provided?

The only people benefiting are lawyers.

Yes it is! That’s the point. Respond to some public pressure by setting it out.

This happens all the time. Take the current law and restate it explicitly.

I think it’s not all that sensible to imagine that hanging to 2028 with the assumption that Badenoch wins. It is pretty unambitious.

Badenoch presumably did do some work on this. Why doesn’t she get a backbencher to present a bill with this change? She’s got the knowledge now. She could draft it.

You do understand that there's a long boring process to change a complicated law such as the equality act and the 1st step was to get the equality department under falkner to admit that it needs changing which Badenoch did and then she got on with writing an amendment and getting the support she needed to make the changes. If Sunak had not called a snap election then it would have been fixed by now.
I'm no fan of the tories but you should atleast be honest when you're attacking them otherwise you come across as just another Labour/tra bot

I am neither of those things. I have just made a suggestion in just those terms.

Badenoch presumably did do some work on this. Why doesn’t she get a backbencher to present a bill with this change? She’s got the knowledge now. She could draft it.

From a position of much lower base, who would vote what she put forward through

Why do that to such a Labour stacked HoC?

I want change, I'm guessing you're not keen?

But doesn’t such a move do the following

a) raise the issue
b) force the Labour Party to respond
c) put pressure on them to refuse it or say why not
d) indicate the force of the argument on gender criticality

Why would you not do this in other words?

I know, wait until 2028. I mean really we could all do with discussing this for four years, put zero pressure on Labour but ask a few questions on it. I mean that really raises the issue well

We already had the farce of Labour at a debate where they stomped all over it. It was Truss' bill iirc

Why wouldn't it be more of the same?

It did jack in terms of getting Labour to respond to anything

I think you're still trying to point a finger at Badenoch for some bizarre reason when it's Labour happy to sit on this. Why don't you pressure your side? Ask them to put forward a good bill which would actually get MP votes as they have the numbers.

But I do! This should cross party issue.

Truss actually do a bill. Her own side didn’t support it enough either. Labour were in opposition

Why is there such a dearth of actual action on this? Can’t Badenoch, who has the knowledge, actually do it?

And if she won’t or can’t, can’t we do it ourselves?

People voted for Labour remember I assume as you did, and gave them a large mandate to not do what Badenoch proposed at the GE

So why are you NOW asking for this but didn't pre GE?

The whole point of voting was to either give mandate or not to that, and you and others didn't.

Why can’t this forum draft a bill! Why all the passivity? If a politician won’t, why can’t we try?

or have we all given up? I don’t get the passivity here

Why did you work so hard against what Badenoch was putting forward at the last GE?