Labour have reneged on promise about single sex spaces - again!

[Grammarnut]

https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Funherd.com%2Fnewsroom%2Flabour-has-broken-its-promises-on-single-sex-spaces%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7Cef393d22361f46be8cdf08dd20eed235%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638702932278035316%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dmprXRzPkV4uqQqML17gwYojVMazkrZSydzRsEButNA%3D&reserved=0

Sorry that's so long. It's an article in Unherd a friend just sent me. Labour have said companies that allow mixed sex changing rooms can do so as long as they do not say it is the law, but just their own policy!
The article quotes Dr Michael Foran ('expert on equality law'): 'Important development on the govs [sic] position on single-sex services, suggesting it is lawful to operate a single-sex service on a mixed-sex basis determined by Self-ID,”
Sorry if there is another thread, I couldn't find one and think this (from the Equality and Women's Minister, Dodds) is all of a piece with the reneging on promises to the Waspi women, and the loss of the Winter Fuel Allowance that massively impacts women pensioners, especially those living alone.

Can’t open the link. Will this include those poor Darlington nurses who I thought the Heath secretary seemed supportive of?

https://unherd.com/newsroom/labour-has-broken-its-promises-on-single-sex-spaces/
Sorry couldn't open the link above.
They are turning out to be quite brazenly worse than I expected.

According to Dodds, the replies indicate that some organisations are operating a policy of allowing men to access single-sex spaces which “correspond with their self-identified gender”. But, she argues that this is not a breach of the law so long as they don’t “incorrectly suggest that this is mandated by the Act”. Companies can allow men into women-only toilets and changing rooms, in other words, as long as they claim it’s their own policy and not based on the act.

The announcement was sneaked out in a dry statement from the Government’s Office for Equality and Opportunity earlier this week, and amounts to nothing less than the acceptance of an informal policy of self-ID in shops, gyms and refuges.
The change is buried in a report on the way organisations interpret the single-sex exception in the 2010 Equality Act.

They really do think we're stupid.

So what else can go by the wayside? No blacks No Irish No Dogs as long as the Landlord says it is is their own policy? No women employees or women not paid the same as men if it is company policy? No disabled access if a building doesn't want pesky wheelchair users cluttering up the place. Not sure Dodds has thought this through. Bring on the court cases.

Thanks op for the thread. I'll be interested to see if this is presented as yet another decision that's the fault of the previous government, or whether this time they'll have to own it themselves, or whether they're just hoping no-one will notice if they slip it out just before Christmas.

Well said.

It would appear that the government believes equality laws are entirely optional.

But wasn't this already the case? The single sex exemptions don't mandate the provision of single sex facilities, they just provide a legal support to those who wish to provide them for proportionate reasons should they be sued under the Equalities act. Companies are still allowed to chose not to provide them (and risk being sued for indirect sex discrimination).

What Labour have done is force companies to own their decision to include men rather than claim they are required to do it.

But wasn't this already the case? The single sex exemptions don't mandate the provision of single sex facilities

In effect, aren't they saying that companies can legally choose to segregate facilities by gender identity if they wish, just as they could theoretically segregate by star sign or eye colour? There's nothing in the EA to prevent any of these.

If anything I'd say it's a step in the right direction as it's stopping companies saying we have to do this - something I've heard too many times. Now does anyone fancy pointing this out to the guides association who stated they legally had no choice but accept trans girls.

I wonder where that leaves their assurance that they would protect single sex spaces, which was in their manifesto if I remember correctly?
(And yes I also remember that they ducked and dived whenever they were asked if women's single sex spaces should include transwomen.)

Sorry op I was repeating your thread title in that post but that, to me, is the crucial point. I remember wrestling with myself as to whether to vote for them on the basis of that assurance.

"Dr Michael Foran, a leading expert on equality law, thinks it may not even be legal. “Important development on the govs [sic] position on single-sex services, suggesting it is lawful to operate a single-sex service on a mixed-sex basis determined by Self-ID,” he wrote online. “I don’t think this is correct,” he added with admirable restraint, pointing out that it might amount to indirect discrimination or harassment."

Perhaps action can be taken against this development, but ever since they named Dodds as the Minister for (Wo)Men, it was only a matter of time before she and her top notch team of TRA's betrayed women. 🤬

I hope Reem Alslam sends her a blistering letter about this.

I wrestled too, and then decided I could not stand the sleazy Tories any longer. Then Labour arrived, all sleazy. Beginning to wish I had not bothered.

Another big fat lie by Labour.
And we were all desperate to get rid of the Tory's.
Are there any decent politicians.

It's worrying that she hasn't waited for the Supreme Court judgement.
FWS sought a further JR of the statutory guidance to the amended GRPBA. The first instance court ruled that the revised definition of “woman” – to include males who hold a female Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) – was lawful and consistent with the Equality Act. This was upheld at appeal in November 2023 and it is this decision which is now under appeal to the UK Supreme Court.

Are they just going to waive it aside if they dont like it as they have with the ombudsman on WASPI women?

I'd like to point out they never made promises in single sex spaces. The words thrown around was "safe spaces", and it was pointed out here at the time meaningless.

They said 'safe spaces' at first but I'm pretty sure they later switched to 'single sex' - but didn't make it clear whether single sex women's spaces included transwomen.

They may have, I can't remember it but it's possible.

They've basically done exactly what they said they would, I can't work out the suprise to be honest.

See also Peter Daly’s comment.

On page 91 of their 2024 manifesto they say about the Equality Act.
'We will continue to support the implementation of its single-sex exceptions'
Italics are mine.

Of course they can still argue they're not reneging on that statement if they so wish, and I've no doubt they will try. But they use the words 'single sex'

labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Change-Labour-Party-Manifesto-2024-large-print.pdf

I think it's disappointment rather than surprise. I think they're hoping they've done enough to appease LGBT Labour while leaving it up to individuals to sue the arse off companies for allowing harassment, providing an unsafe working environment, etc. It's annoying because it means more crowdfunding and individuals or groups having to take their employers to court like the Darlington nurses.

Just because it's not a surprise doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out over it.

I didn't vote for them but I was lucky and had an independent candidate I was happy to endorse, otherwise I don't know what I'd have done.

Why would any firm not use single sex changing rooms? Any firm that presumably requires you as part of your contract to change your clothing in the workplace needs to assure privacy.
I wouldn't even mind a simple divider, like they have in hospitals, if there's both sexes changing just put that in the middle of the room?
How difficult can it be? Those things cost what, a couple hundred quid? If they're struggling for enough space.
Otherwise it should be individual cubicles fully enclosed big enough to change and maybe a toilet etc as well.

I'm finding few reasons to regret not voting Labour. Didn't trust them, still don't.

Well i think we all need to write to our MPs, particularly if they are new Labour MPs.