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.

It seems they ran on a trans-manifesto, with 'trans' meaning, like 'identify as', what follows will mean the opposite of what it actually says.

The Equality Act is not the only legislation at play here - women (sex, not men with a GRC) also have a right not to be discriminated against under the ECHR.

Edit: wrong thread.

Labour don't seem worried about women being discriminated against.

I would say they never meant it except that 'single sex' means women and those who identify as women (ditto men). Labour don't like women who don't agree with them.

My impression was always that "single sex spaces" meant that in some circumstance they would be permitted. Refuges, for example; but this would be the exception rather than the rule. The sorts of spaces that most women use....toilets and changing rooms would remain open to males depending on the discretion or policy of the individual provider.

Personally, It was always clear to me what Labour's position was, and which also remains their position. Just because Wes Streeting has accepted the Cass Review it doesn't mean any of that has changed. They do not want to clarify the meaning of 'Sex' and they want, in principle, to keep single sex spaces open to trans identifying men ( or, at least, most of those spaces)

And that is because "Trans women are aso women".....Just because they've stopped chanting it, doesn't mean they've abandoned it. Kier Starmer is a slippery lawyer. He knows that unless 'Sex' is clarified to mean biological sex, then trans identifying men are also legal women.

It's heartbreaking. I don't want to argue about whether transwomen are "women" or not, not least because it's blinding obvious two groups using one word to mean two different things are both right according to their own definition and therefore are never going to find agreement.

All I want is legal, social and political recognition of the blindingly obvious fact that some people are female, and that this has repercussions for them, some simply physical, some socio-economic, and some an intersection of both, and that the reasons why up til about five minutes ago we accepted female people have good reasons to have spaces and opportunities that are female-only have not disappeared simply because some men feel the word "woman" is a better fit for them than "man".

This.
However, I think transwomen should find some other word. There is only one sort of woman, the people with the reproductive system that can (could/might) make babies.

"Trans women" are not women. They don't have a coherent definition of what they mean by the word woman. Therefore I don't accept their claim. They are male, so they simply fall under the description of men.

These men cannot change reality so have set out to steal woman’s language. It is not a coincidence. It is deliberate violence against women.

Yes.

Can anyone point to a basic template? I'd need to make sure I'd got the working correct.

Oh look. Annelise Dodds has failed to send the EHRC all the examples of illegal policies sent in by the public, instead sending a carefully selected 42 cases, dismissing all the rest. Lady Falkner has had to write to ask to see the remaining cases

"We would find it helpful to see the remaining 362 examples submitted to you. This would enable us to form a better judgment of the overall picture of compliance with the Act and guidance, inform the development of the statutory Code of Practice and our broader regulatory activity, and have confidence that the Act, on the whole, is being applied correctly."

It's going to a tedious 2025 as everyone has to repeatedly unpick the stream of lies that holds this toxic edifice in place.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14226447/Britains-equalities-chief-intervene-Labour-single-sex-spaces.html

Anneliese Dodds has always been truly awful but I suspect this is coming from Starmer.

Falkner was only extended by Labour for a year. So this move enables the government to drag out sending/not sending examples and to run the clock down.

At which point, a TWAW adherent will be installed.

Presumably Stonewall & the other anti women organisations will be expecting some payback for the numerous Lord Ali donations? Presumably this is part of that?
Expect more of this "the dog ate the submissions, nothing to see here" from the government.

Don't forget to fill in this consultation. Reminder from Akua Reindorf.It's really important that @EHRC gets input from as wide a range of stakeholders as possible on the draft updated Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations. NB everybody is a stakeholder.Deadline 3 January 2025.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/

Re the judicial review for Sex Matters, logically, the SSE clause in the EA must mean that the drafters of the law foresaw precisely the kinds of scenarios discussed here. They added the clause because they realised that women would be disadvantaged and upset by TW in their spaces.

It HAS to mean that rights and spaces are defined by actual sex, not claimed sex.

The Government really should, at a minimum, state that organisations ought to be using the SSE in cases where they have women's spaces.

Do Labour want to lose the next election?

If so, this would be a cracking contribution to their campaign with that aim.

The i paper, hardly a "right wing rag", has a front-page feature on voters' shift to Reform.

TWAW is a wildly unpopular stance, I have no idea why Labour are so desperate to support it

With this current government, it feels like the country accidentally elected a particularly po-faced set of officers from a Student Union 🤷‍♀️

@UtopiaPlanitia po faced and incompetent

There's no accident about any of this.

Nothing accidental at all, labour said they would take away woman's rights and that is starting. It's what was voted for.