Single Sex Spaces and the Labour Party

[Justme56]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/response-to-call-for-input-on-single-sex-spaces-guidance/response-to-call-for-input-on-single-sex-spaces-guidance

This is the response to last year’s survey. Better guidance on using the exceptions is about as far as it goes.

https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1869362907244597462?s=46&t=ZX_bLozRqm8etdGICMcAvA

If the drafters of the EA2010 had cared about women the exeptions would be about the rare occasions when a transwoman can join a woman only group, not where transwomen can be excluded. The GRA needs to be repealed and the EA2010 needs to specify biological sex and state that single sex spaces are just that and exemptions are to be rare.

Just adding this in too.

I would agree with you. But i don't trust this government with the EqA. If they have the opportunity to fanny about with it, they will reduced the meaning of sex to include gender identity.

I have to defend the EA - 1) the exceptions are to the general rule that you cannot discriminate on the grounds of sex, not to a rule that males with a GRC are female.

Also - and here this is just my understanding , IANAL - the EA has the same test for inclusion of males in women's spaces, whether or not they have a GRC. Everyone who claims a trans identity is covered by the PC of GR. The proportionate means to a legitimate aim test applies to all males and in the explanatory notes it is made clear that single sex communal toilets, RCCs etc meet the test. Remember even Keir Starmer admitted that MCW with a GRC did not have a right to be in women's facilities. It's TA misinformation/Stonewall law/EHRC advice from when it was captured that has muddied the waters. The question of whether MCW with a GRC count as women in the EA is being considered in the Supreme Court.

Foran is a moron.

Just ignore him!

I think what the Government has written is in fact quite clear and explains the basis that when proportionate, single sex means having a GRC does NOT give you the right to access a service designed for on biological sex.

The EA in the section of Protected Characteristics is in the instance of Sex corrupted by the GRA.

ie no other protected characteristic has to on occassions pretent that someone who identifies, and / or has had surgery is the same as someone born that sex.

No other protected characteristic is expect to bow down in this way.

And important to remember that the EA could have been written to say that in all instances sex would mean biology, and that on rare occassion those who identify could be included.

But instead that chose to make the majority, take second place to a tiny minority. ie telling women if you are really good, every now and again you can have actual same sex spaces, services.

But then it was written by Labour.

As written it is social engineering.

It is sacrificing the rights of one protected characteristic to ingratiate itself with a smal minority.

But then as we now all know Labour hates women.

What is probably more significant in the statement is that even though acknowledging confusion in understanding, they have just pushed it off the agenda.

I wonder if Kemi Badenoch was still the Minister for Women that she would have just fudged it.

I am fairly sure she would have made it a priority.

Labour know that there are entire counties in England where local authorities have ended all SS services, from leisure centre changing rooms to rape and domestic abuse support, just as trans groups told them to.
https://womansplaceuk.org/2018/06/25/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

On X, the Cots group have posted:
'in many areas councils require abuse support providers to make EVERYTHING mixed sex/ gender based. So men who say they are women can access 100% of services and women who need SS support due to rape/ sexual/ domestic abuse can't access any! '

https://childrenoftransitioners.org/2024/04/13/the-trans-lobby-has-destroyed-provision-for-female-abuse-victims-in-bristol-and-elsewhere-and-will-do-the-same-for-the-victims-bill/

The cruelty and targetted exclusion of women who can't lie men are women, or need SS spaces their abuser cannot also access, is shocking, and will only end when SS spaces without males in them are required, not just permitted.

They may well. Look what else they have done to women: the Waspi women and winter fuel payments (which disproportionately affect women as we tend to live longer and have lower pensions). Starmer is happy to throw women under the bus.

I feel so so sad disappointed and angry with myself for voting labour at the last election.
K.S has turned into a monster.

There's an article about it in the Telegraph

https://archive.ph/7zjU9

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/12/18/labour-will-let-trans-people-use-some-single-sex-spaces/

Men can use women's spaces as long as the service provider doesn't claim that it's letting them in because it's the law?

Nah, he was always unpleasant to women who stood up to him - during the election campaign you could always tell when he was angry with women phoning into a radio/telly show to try and get a clear answer on woman’s spaces etc, or with a journalist asking him about women’s rights. He’d pull the big deep sigh, his face would glower and he’d get insta-tetchy.

You won’t be fooled by him again 👍 and (apart from policies that would have prevented the erasure of women’t rights) he was pretty much promising stuff he wasn’t able to deliver to an electorate desperate and angry because of the Tories.

Labour know that there are entire counties in England where local authorities have ended all SS services, from leisure centre changing rooms to rape and domestic abuse support, just as trans groups told them to.

And Labour knows because they were part of it that long before TRAs started voicing anti woman sentiments, MRAs were attacking women's services.

Almost from the moment it was accepted that women would need refuges because of DV, or rape crisis support, male councillors up and down the country were all going WATM.

Its really important to realise that the anti woman sentiments that TRAs can voice out loud, are built on a much older misogyny that women dont deserve rights. They deserve only what men think they should have.

There have been far more loses of women's services because of this male disrespect for women, than the more recent manifesation of this by TRAs.

Many councils are saying women escaping DV dont need specialised safe refuges. They are just (intentionally) homeless people, who should be grateful if a council puts them in a shared hostel.

All TRAs have done is given some councils (but most dont care about this) a change to virtue signal over trans rights.

How do you think it was possible that the sex based rights of women were legally undermined by the EA.

Not because anyone thought TW are better, but because women are so insignificant, so lacking in worth, that it was automatically assumed that they should give up their rights to men.

In a way focusing on TW makes it easier for the MRAs to then counter argue that women are all terfs and bigots.

What we should be arguing that deeply entrenched patriachal values means that whatever government system it is, it is expected that women's rights will always come second.

Stop asking men to define what a woman is.

Start asking men why they hate and despise women so much.