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.

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/24054287.oxford-mp-anneliese-dodds-jlm-conference-remark-slammed/
Anneliese Dodds previously stated in an article for the Guardian: "We need to recognise that sex and gender are different – as the Equality Act does."We will make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act."Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access."Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services."

I still have the email from my Labour candidate which states they will continue to support the single sex exemption and 'women only spaces'. It very nearly swayed me to vote for them.

Okay, me edging my bets and fence sitting has resulted in repeat proof labour has lied, and lied repeatedly about this.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14207341/Labour-accused-betraying-women-insisting-no-need-change-law-protect-single-sex-spaces.html

Last night senior Tory MP Claire Coutinho said: ‘This work was started by Kemi Badenoch when she was Minister for Equalities.

It will be a kick in the teeth for all the women who thought Labour would protect single-sex spaces. Another broken promise.’
Maya Forstater from campaign group Sex Matters said that Labour’s equalities ministers Anneliese Dodds and Bridget Phillipson had delivered a ‘lazy kick in the teeth to women’.‘This is an utter betrayal of women. How can you stand against male violence against women while giving away female-only spaces to any man who wants to walk in?’ Ms Forstater asked.Her colleague Helen Joyce added: ‘I’m so angry about this. Sometimes, governments break manifesto promises because they decide they’re too expensive. Sometimes because they realise they can’t be kept. But this time, it’s just outright betrayal.’

I voted Labour because there were no better options in my constituency - the Greens and Lib Dems are batshit crazy - and I believe in voting. However, I don't trust them. I do like Wes Streeting but then I have a sneaking liking for Kemi Badenoch. I know half the things she says are bonkers but compared to most of the dismal, weasel words, focus group-led politicians around she's refreshingly direct. She reminds me of why I liked John Prescott bizarrely.

There is an existing thread, and this stupid comment by Foran the Moran was also discussed.

ie all the Government is saying is what the law currenlty is.

If a service or space has not sought the catergory of single sex under the SSE, then of course men, in whatever identity, can legally access it. But the organiser can not and should not (eg ERCC) claim it is a "women's" service, space.

The problem is that although many more groups, employers etc., could apply the single sex exemptions they cant be bothered or dont care enough to do it.

That is totally different from organisations that have been captured and deliberately lie to users (eg ERCC)

And the Government has told them to stop doing it.

But what they aren't doing even though the research instigated by the Tories shows this is an issue, is to do anything proactive to clarify to the general public what the law is, and how it can be used.

And giving really clear guidance as to how to establish SSE for a service.

As a rule of thumb just ignore Foran.

I cant be bothered to find the link to the original thread, but it is only a couple of days ago but has the link to the Government report that MF as usual got back to front.

The original thread fell down the page before many people had commented. I'm pleased the op raised it again.

I dont care there's another thread, but just pointed out there was one.

But am concerned there's a thread based on a totally back to front misrepresentation.

To summarise, the interaction of the GRA with the EA means there is the concept of legal women.

This means that unless those providing services invoke the right to the Single Sex Exemptions, the word "woman" includes "legal women". (which just indicates the disrespect of the writers of the law - Labour - have towards woman that as a majority they should kowtow to TW.)

The recent report showed that of those who replied to a survey most understood what the SSE meant. Some didn't. Some thought it meant TW were allowed in SSE services (ie like ERCC).

But that many were confused and the suggestion that an effort should be made to clarify it doesn't seem very high on the Government to do list.

But nothing has changed.

Unless and until either the GRA is abolished or the EA has the wording changed to clarify that sex means biology, we are still in the position that women have to get permission to do what has always presiously been the accepted norm that women are biologically female.

Now we have to get permission or prove that it is proportional to ask to be "allowed" to do this.

I presume Labour just not being bothered people are confused is because they are so supremely smug about having created the concept of the SSE and we as women should just STFU and be grateful.

None of this changes the fact that the biggest problem isn't the law (on one level) but the fact that TRAs have been so sucessful they have persuaged nearly every section of society that the obvious norm of single sex (biological) is no longer important, and that gender identity should take precedent.

So all those gender neutral facilites aren't because of the law, but because providers have chosen or been bullied into thinking this is the "right" thing to do.

... we found that the majority seem to correctly interpret the Equality Act’s single-sex spaces provisions. In some cases, guidance reflected the organisation’s own policy to allow those with the ‘gender reassignment’ protected characteristic access to single-sex spaces that correspond with their self-identified gender, but did not incorrectly suggest that this is mandated by the Act. Had organisations suggested that their policy was mandated by the Act, however, this would have been a clear misinterpretation of the law.

Approximately 10% of the guidance submitted had text or examples that seem to have misinterpreted the Act’s single-sex spaces provisions. This was in a number of nuanced ways, including not acknowledging that the Act allows providers to exclude those with the ‘gender reassignment’ protected characteristic where justified, or, acknowledging but misinterpreting these exceptions.

This suggests that there is confusion or a lack of awareness among some service providers and some of the public about the Act’s single-sex exceptions, and how to apply them in practice. Although guidance does exist, the results of this call for input suggest that there is further work to do to ensure everyone has clarity about these exceptions in a range of different contexts. The Minister for Women and Equalities has since written to the EHRC as the independent regulator to share the findings from the call for input and to ask them to review the examples of guidance that seem to have misinterpreted the Equality Act. ...

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

(see that in fact they have asked the EHRC to provide better guidance, which is it turns out to be as convoluted as their advice on advertising SSE jobs, will be as much use as a wet sponge in a thunderstorm)

It's rubbish but I think mixed sex toilets / spaces that lie and call themselves single sex probably break the laws on lying to consumers and taking away the choice to protect themselves / make an informed choice.

Women and men have religions and beliefs that mean they may need to access single sex spaces. If a company lies and calls a space 'womens' most people will assume this is single sex, not gender. It's deception of customers and discrimination against sex realist beliefs, some disabilities, and many religions.

I don't think Kishwer Falkner is impressed.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/ehrc-statement-examples-incorrect-single-sex-spaces-and-gender-self

She's written to AD asking for all responses and pointed out that their draft statutory of Practice is now out for consultation . Closing date 3rd Jan 2025.

Just a theory, Starmer is avoiding at any costs schisms in his party, as per usual.

We are all waiting with bated breath the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling on what “sex” means in the Equality Act. As is Starmer. If it goes our way it will go his way too, not that he cares about women in his public leadership career.

It will solve his problem, he will not have to nail his views to a pole, he can say the law says XYZ, alienates nobody in his party Sorted for him.

Sorted for us, except there will have to be an awful lot of legal challenges by us witches to assert our rights.

I for one loathe him and I am a Labour Party member.

There’s a big difference between optional spaces and compulsory spaces.

If a gym ignores its right to offer single sex spaces in favour of being inclusive, that’s their right. We get to choose not to frequent them.

If an employer doesn’t exercise its right to provide single sex spaces, then employees are disadvantaged. Ditto hospitals and prisons.

Supermarkets, clothes shops, gyms etc can decided what service they offer. Employers, hospitals, sports, prisons need to use the single sex exemption.

I'm not sure about this. Yes single sex provisions are not compulsory, but if someone can prove the gym not having single sex spaces disadvantages female people (protected characteristic of sex) disproportionately, the gym would be guilty of indirect discrimination under the EA.

So, I think...

Having mixed facilities only is ok unless it can be shown to disadvantage one sex disproportionately, in which case indirect discrimination.

Having mixed sex (self ID) "women's" facilities is ok unless it can be shown to disadvantage one sex (1) disproportionately, in which case again, indirect discrimination.

Having single sex "women's" is only ok if it's a proportionate solution to a problem.

The unknown is whether EA "sex" is based on legal sex and therefore includes the opposite sex if they have a GRC, or is based on immutable (albeit in very very rare cases misclassified) biological sex.

(1) presumably any protected characteristic can result in indirect discrimination? If so, does having mixed sex "women's" spaces put an org at risk of indirectly discriminating against people with protected beliefs?

They really do think we're stupid.

Thinking we’re stupid would be a step forward in that it’d at least suggest they were thinking of us. Whereas, I suspect women don’t matter or occur to them to think about at all apart from vaguely existing as support humans for men.

The only vaguely positive thing I can see in this Labour 'clarification' is that companies and employers can no longer say that the Equality Act 2010 compels them to offer only unisex/mixed sex toilets and changing rooms. So if someone takes an organisation to court to challenge their policy, the org can't claim that they were only following the law and had no other option.

Although, again it's the government leaving it to individuals to use the courts to seek remedy in the face of stupid legislation and policy.

It's frustrating but women are used to fighting to get what they need, why should this be any different? I'll contribute to as many bloody crowdjustice cases as I can afford and participate in as many lobbying campaigns as I can.

Labour are going to have to stand over their decisions and reap the public dissatisfaction.

But Labour keep telling us how proud they are of the GRA. I think that's the problem here. AD especially.

The point is we keep listing all the cases of the failure to protect single sex spaces and hold Labour responsible and the institutions doing it too.

So come the elections in May every year Labour has to ask awkward questions.

Labour are SCARED of losing the next election. We have to prove that gender is one way that might happen.

He also made a comment about "litigation is expensive", handwaving away the fact it would be our money asked for, for crowdfunding. And certainly taxpayer money to defend it.

Oh will it, will it be "expensive" to diminish ourselves to some technical indirect discrimination case law?

Women are a sex class, Foran. Men are not in it. Comments and musings from men like him make me sometimes think they should be nowhere near our fights.

I remember a poster on here pre-election assuring us all that Labour would definitely, absolutely protect single sex spaces, services and sports and we really shouldn't worry our little heads about it. Just leave it to the ever so intelligent and well educated left wing women who are working with Labour to sort it all out for us mere plebs.

It was blatantly obvious pre-election when KS and AD stated how very proud they were of the GRA and EqA that they were never going to put women's needs on the agenda anywhere.

Quite, Gail. You don't see those same posters on these threads though do you? Now it's all going to shit as predicated based on Labour's actual words. Nope.

Guidance from Sex Matters for filling in EHRC' s consultation on their proposed guidance. Deadline Jan 3rd.

sex-matters.org/take-action/respond-to-the-ehrc-consultation/

The only vaguely positive thing I can see in this Labour 'clarification' is that companies and employers can no longer say that the Equality Act 2010 compels them to offer only unisex/mixed sex toilets and changing rooms. So if someone takes an organisation to court to challenge their policy, the org can't claim that they were only following the law and had no other option.

Yes.

Yes, exactly - this is merely a reflection of the EA as it currently stands.

Obviously women can still bring a discrimination claim, but the thing that's annoying is that being GC doesn't count as a protected characteristic when it comes to single-sex spaces (as religion and belief are carved out of this bit) so women would have to argue that it discriminates against them purely on the basis of their being female (which obviously it does in reality), but a court might take the view that since lots of females think sex=gender identity nowadays and are fine with mixed-sex spaces, it isn't accurate to say this is a woman-based issue, but more a belief (i.e. GC) based issue.

So because other women have given away our rights because they're apparently fine with mixed-sex everything, it makes it much harder for those of us who still care about sex to prove we care because of sex and not because of our 'belief' in our sex.

What a mess.

I think we are pretty much at the point of having to assume anything they said before the elections is the opposite of their intentions now they are in power.