Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

What would be the implications for feminism if the Equality Act, Human Rights Act & EHCR go, as Reform apparently want to get rid of them? if

60 replies

AliasGrace47 · 27/08/2025 12:58

Found this out very recently, I'm just thinking now about potential implications.

OP posts:
Grammarnut · 28/08/2025 15:16

AliasGrace47 · 27/08/2025 13:22

That's worrying.. I've noticed a lot of people on MN generally seem to support Reform, or at least feel that they might have a positive influence. Obviously they're not the devil incarnate or anything, but it did suprise me to find out their stance on the Equality Act, etc when many people here seemed to be positive about them.

Reform are Tories on speed and believe in unfettered free-enterprise which means no unions and no employment protection, no protection for marginalised or disadvantaged groups, nothing but emergency healthcare etc because 'rights' interfere in the operation of the market. Neo-liberalism, which we already have and has ruined many of our institutions, on roller skates.
Don't vote for Farage and co. They are not the friends of ordinary people esp women.

PuceGreen · 29/08/2025 13:26

AnSolas · 28/08/2025 07:42

Without the UK citizenship an employee can be only be employed within a legal framework which allows them to be employed in the UK.

Interesting thought process if a business decided to only keep employing UK citizens (of any race/ethnic) and "lawfully" reorganised dismissing all of its non-citizens no matter the race or ethnic have they been discriminated against under EA?

Do you know of any case law where non-citizen was sacked only on the basis of passport holding?

I'm not sure what your point is here. There are lots of EU citizens in the UK who have the right to remain and to work here for the rest of their lives. So that's a legal framework, yes, but so what? If you have a team consisting of 5 people with UK passports and 5 with French, German and Italian passports (who have all gained the right to work in the UK), and those 5 are all dismissed because they don't have UK passports, they are being dismissed because of their nationalities and could claim race discrimination. Those dismissals would be unlawfully discriminatory and would almost certainly be unfair dismissals under unfair dismissal law too.

TheJoyOfWriting · 13/09/2025 15:14

Although this isn't so linked to feminism, it's worrying imo that Reform chairman wants to bring back death penalty.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reform-david-bull-death-penalty-burqa-ban-farage-b2767946.html

I know that w so many truly evil people, some might be tempted, but I firmly believe that it would be wrong and dangerous to bring it back.

New Reform chair David Bull calls for return of death penalty

Dr David Bull also called for burqas to be banned in the UK

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reform-david-bull-death-penalty-burqa-ban-farage-b2767946.html

logiccalls · 13/09/2025 16:56

Hmm... there is a misunderstanding about U.K. equality law: It Is Not Equal.

Ageism is never protested about, universally accepted and practiced,and institutionalised to the point it is virtually an official government policy.

Disablism was covered by the brilliant, beautiful, Disability Discrimination Act, which was never enforced, and then was theoretically absorbed within the single Equalities Act, but in fact, reversed.

It is normal to find over-entitled aggressive breeders refusing to allow wheelchair users onto public transport. Sir Trevor Phillips wrote that discrimination against disabled people "is universally practiced... socially accepted... normalised... institutionalised.... and in it's effect on people's lives, is, in many ways, far worse than racism" He was at the time Chair of EHRC.

Sharmi Chakrabati (sp?) was far too effective, in making racism the single equality anyone knew or cared about. (The bitter irony is that what started her interest in equality was observing a fellow law student whose studies, and participation in student life, was made virtually impossible, merely because of being a wheelchair user)

Equalities from then on meant only one; Racism, much "more equal than others", and the only one enforced by police.

In recent years, and without Parliamentary approval, the Stonewall ideology has achieved the same status, of eager enforcement for a non-law, i.e. that males can transform themselves into women, and are entitled to enter anywhere they can access naked women and children.

'Rights' are only enforced if there is money and will to do so. Unions, having always been shockingly sexist, will at least fund some legal advice on any case, even sex discrimination, as an affordable exercise in power. But only in relation to employment law.

Signalbox · 13/09/2025 17:10

Can I ask where or when did Farage say he wants to scrap the Equality Act? I was unaware of this but can’t find anything online that backs this up. I’ve read about the idea of replacing HRA with a UK Bill of rights but nothing about the EA.

TempestTost · 13/09/2025 17:21

logiccalls · 13/09/2025 16:56

Hmm... there is a misunderstanding about U.K. equality law: It Is Not Equal.

Ageism is never protested about, universally accepted and practiced,and institutionalised to the point it is virtually an official government policy.

Disablism was covered by the brilliant, beautiful, Disability Discrimination Act, which was never enforced, and then was theoretically absorbed within the single Equalities Act, but in fact, reversed.

It is normal to find over-entitled aggressive breeders refusing to allow wheelchair users onto public transport. Sir Trevor Phillips wrote that discrimination against disabled people "is universally practiced... socially accepted... normalised... institutionalised.... and in it's effect on people's lives, is, in many ways, far worse than racism" He was at the time Chair of EHRC.

Sharmi Chakrabati (sp?) was far too effective, in making racism the single equality anyone knew or cared about. (The bitter irony is that what started her interest in equality was observing a fellow law student whose studies, and participation in student life, was made virtually impossible, merely because of being a wheelchair user)

Equalities from then on meant only one; Racism, much "more equal than others", and the only one enforced by police.

In recent years, and without Parliamentary approval, the Stonewall ideology has achieved the same status, of eager enforcement for a non-law, i.e. that males can transform themselves into women, and are entitled to enter anywhere they can access naked women and children.

'Rights' are only enforced if there is money and will to do so. Unions, having always been shockingly sexist, will at least fund some legal advice on any case, even sex discrimination, as an affordable exercise in power. But only in relation to employment law.

Edited

I've come to think there are some fundamental differernces between things like disability, and things like racism. In the latter case, there are actually no real functional reasons reasons that prevent people working in the same kinds of roles. It is entirely possible to conceive of a world where race in the way we think of it doesn't exist, because there have been societies like that, it's an abstract concept.

In disability there absolutely can be functional differernces, differernt needs, and effects on others as well which need to be balanced. We see this in classrooms for example where the needs of the students who need a quiet orderly classroom seem to be pitted against the needs of students who can't be quiet or orderly.

Disability, sex, age, "gender (whatever that is,) sexuality, religion - all of these things are really quite differernt and I wonder if they are in fact too differernt to treat as a group. I'm not convinced that the same kinds of principles work with these different areas.

AnSolas · 15/09/2025 08:07

PuceGreen · 29/08/2025 13:26

I'm not sure what your point is here. There are lots of EU citizens in the UK who have the right to remain and to work here for the rest of their lives. So that's a legal framework, yes, but so what? If you have a team consisting of 5 people with UK passports and 5 with French, German and Italian passports (who have all gained the right to work in the UK), and those 5 are all dismissed because they don't have UK passports, they are being dismissed because of their nationalities and could claim race discrimination. Those dismissals would be unlawfully discriminatory and would almost certainly be unfair dismissals under unfair dismissal law too.

Brain blip
They would be an ethnic minority in the UK

EasternStandard · 15/09/2025 08:50

PermanentTemporary · 27/08/2025 14:24

Polls this morning show 30% intending to vote for Reform in a general election. It’s therefore not surprising though unpleasant that MN is showing an uptick in Reform style rhetoric, as well as the fact that it’s relatively cheap for all political parties to try and build a social media presence, as well as allowing them to evade legal spending limits.

The average Reformish poster on here finds or pretends to find the fact that there is some pushback on those views here a terrible shock and proves the ‘lefty dominance’ of MN. I guess it’s not like that on the average FB group.

The other way round surely, many Labour posters now surprised they’re seeing pushback on mn.

HidingmyTrueIdentity2025 · 15/09/2025 09:35

I work under the Equality Act 2010 every day in a small LA. Generally, my colleagues forget about Equalities and it's an afterthought, to tick the legal box. We do Equality Impact Assessments but generally they're useless. Either there were never any negative impacts on people with Protected Characteristics or mitigations are wishy-washy and potentially never implemented. To say we are driven by "EDI" is laughable in my experience.

However, as people have said, it is the only anti-discriminatoon legislation we have. I would not like to see it repealed of even amended, other than strengthened.

For your reference, the 9 Protected Characteristics are:
Age
Disability
Sex (often confused with gender)
Race
Religion or Belief
Sexual Orientation
Gender Reassignment
Pregnancy and Maternity
Marriage and Civil Partnership

Court cases have confirmed that the Protected Characteristic of Race also covers Roma and Travellers.

PencilsInSpace · 15/09/2025 10:37

logiccalls · 13/09/2025 16:56

Hmm... there is a misunderstanding about U.K. equality law: It Is Not Equal.

Ageism is never protested about, universally accepted and practiced,and institutionalised to the point it is virtually an official government policy.

Disablism was covered by the brilliant, beautiful, Disability Discrimination Act, which was never enforced, and then was theoretically absorbed within the single Equalities Act, but in fact, reversed.

It is normal to find over-entitled aggressive breeders refusing to allow wheelchair users onto public transport. Sir Trevor Phillips wrote that discrimination against disabled people "is universally practiced... socially accepted... normalised... institutionalised.... and in it's effect on people's lives, is, in many ways, far worse than racism" He was at the time Chair of EHRC.

Sharmi Chakrabati (sp?) was far too effective, in making racism the single equality anyone knew or cared about. (The bitter irony is that what started her interest in equality was observing a fellow law student whose studies, and participation in student life, was made virtually impossible, merely because of being a wheelchair user)

Equalities from then on meant only one; Racism, much "more equal than others", and the only one enforced by police.

In recent years, and without Parliamentary approval, the Stonewall ideology has achieved the same status, of eager enforcement for a non-law, i.e. that males can transform themselves into women, and are entitled to enter anywhere they can access naked women and children.

'Rights' are only enforced if there is money and will to do so. Unions, having always been shockingly sexist, will at least fund some legal advice on any case, even sex discrimination, as an affordable exercise in power. But only in relation to employment law.

Edited

Most of what you are talking about is interpretation and enforcement rather than the law itself. As the SC judgment has shown, however far interpretation veers away from the law, it can be dragged sharply back.

What is written in the Act matters. The nine protected characteristics are not treated exactly the same (because they obviously are not the same) but there is no hierarchy in the law itself.

The police do not enforce the Equality Act. It's civil law and so it will always be mostly up to individuals to bring cases to enforce their rights.

Separately there is hate crime law, which adds an aggravating factor to other offences, as well as specific laws around inciting hatred. These are criminal laws and are not based on the nine protected characteristics in the EA. Hate crimes apply to race, religion, disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity. The law against inciting hatred applies to race, religion and sexual orientation.

How did the Equality Act reverse the Disability Discrimination Act?

'breeders'

While I agree with you about the behaviour of some parents with pushchairs in wheelchair spaces do you have to use such dehumanising language? Pregnancy and maternity is also a protected characteristic.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page