TUC motion erases women from their own rights.

[Justme56]

As reported in several media.

https://heartlandstribune.com/tuc-motion-17-erases-women-from-their-own-rights/

https://congress.tuc.org.uk/motion-07-supreme-court-ruling-active-support-for-trans-and-non-binary-workers/

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16130791/Take-hammer-Equality-Act-protect-trans-people-says-Labour-MP.html

Reported in the telegraph too.

Because so few ordinary members vote. It is the most motivated that tend to vote and that is because they are activists too. Also lots of members are susceptible to being 'whipped' when it comes to voting. For example lots of teachers vote to strike who really don't want to.

👆👆💯

Thread re Whittome and others plotting https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5578674-nadia-whittome-calls-for-a-change-to-the-equality-act?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

In a bold intervention, Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, called on Monday for a ‘change in the law’ to enable trans people to use single-sex spaces.

what really gets me is this deceitful way of talking.

It's not trans people and single sex spaces, it's men in women's spaces.

And obviously, vice versa.

How would it go down if she sat there and demanded a change in law so that women could use men's spaces. I realise the danger is not there, but men would be as fucked off as they have every right to be to hear an MP call for it.

Speaking at the annual meeting of trade unions, the hard-Left Labour MP said: ‘What we need is a change in the law so that the law properly protects the rights, privacy, and inclusion of trans people.

"what we need is a change in the law so that men and boys can enter into women's private spaces, and women and girls can also go into men's private spaces".

It's no surprise that there are so many people pushing for this. The men's sexual rights movement can be pretty powerful.

However, I think they're on hiding to nothing. Legally erasing the entire category of sex is absolutely massive and I'm pretty certain there are enough non-addled idealogues to make sure it doesn't happen.

I think at this stage it’s probably more about sending a message. To encourage civil disobedience and give misogynists hope that women won’t be listened to.

How can a 'TUC motion erases women from their own rights'?

If it's treating women more unfavorably than men then it's discriminating against women doing this.

It can't erase women from their rights, because it doesn't create law.

All it can do is behave unlawfully whilst criticising the existing law it is still required to uphold.

I think there are some cases coming up soon against various unions.

Whittless is openly campaigning to removed sex based rights and replace them with rights that favour men and she thinks this is going to get anywhere near a parliamentary vote?

We are mostly pro-women on MN FWR. We are framed as anti-trans, because the reality is the opposite to pro-women is anti-women and there's no way we will be allowed to point out this obvious problem with campaigning against sex-based rights and protections.

For instance Sandie Peggie v RCN starting next week https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/5555624/nhs-fife-sandie-peggie-case-trade-union/

Just knew Whittome would be up there spouting her usual 'poor trans' blethering. She is persistent, I'll give her that.
Transpeople can have privacy in their own sex-based spaces.

Advocating for a change in law to allow men into womens' spaces would at least be more honest, Ms Whittome

I agree, I used to share an office with a union rep, her views were so far out of line with everyone else's it would have been funny if it wasn't so important.

I've just left my union because of all this bollocks.
Stupid.

I miss him already and he’s only been in the US for 5 minutes.

Burnham must rewrite Equality Act to support trans rights, union activists say
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/eb24414e20d0ab51

TUC Congress backs motion opposing EHRC guidance and calls for gender self-ID
https://labourlist.org/2026/09/tuc-congress-2026-trans-guidance/

wrong quote!

You do realise do you that this forum on MN is specifically for those who believe in women's sex based rights. To have a shared space of mutual agreement.

Why are you posting here if you dont believe or understand the concept of sex based rights?

It is as stupid as going on a forum for Marxists and saying I think Marx is wrong, or on a forum for Christians and saying I dont believe in Christ.

Why dont you ask MNHQ to set up a forum for trans ideology? Then you and others like you can stop being so irrelevant and irritating and chat to each other.

I am only bothering to reply, rather than just sighing heavily at the waste of time, to suggest that to save FWR from stupid derails, we all agree to say something like, wrong forum or something.

Last time I looked FWR was for discussion of what women’s rights are and how to promote and fight for them. A large number of people who believe they are working for women’s rights also define women via beliefs and behaviour, or at least believe that defining women as female damages the fight. I think that’s batshit but pretending nobody believes this means that things like this happen - activists make headlines through masturbatory motions like this. FWR should be a battleground, not an echo chamber.

If that's a response to me, as has been posted over and over again, some time ago MNHQ decided that because there is a huge difference between arguing for and organising around women's rights based on the belief that the basis of women's oppression is their sex that what had been the Feminism and Women's Rights Forum (see the URL for this forum) that they set up Feminism "chat".

ie so that those who believed in sex based rights could just get on with discussing from a shared mutual position (and for those who felt this was "unkind" and they didn't want to see anything about it).

ie chat was also designed as a "safe space" for those who do believe you can change sex, and/or the obligation on women is to be kind.

This allows groups with mutually unreconcilable positions can discuss in a pro-active way. Not to get bogged down in the same old arguments.

It is no different from having the overall concept of Christianity, but in practice have very separate and in some instances, antagonistic differences.

When I was in a far left group we spent a lot of time trying to get motions about various things passed in union branches and conferences.

Occasionally, if the meeting was quite poorly attended, we managed to win the vote and the motion would be passed. We thought at the time that this meant the working masses were coming over to our point of view. In reality it just meant that the machinery of the union was so disconnected from the working masses that not many people actually cared what motions got passed.

Were you there when the Act was drafted? I seriously doubt it. In any case what matters is not any assumed intention of the drafters but the actual legislation as passed by Parliament.

You’re making it up as you go along! The Supreme Court said that the original intent of the drafters of the 2010 EA is that woman is defined as female biological sex. It’s literally the law. If the intent was otherwise the SCJ would have found it to be so.

Some of the original drafters have indeed said that they intended to eliminate sex from the law in favour of gender. To which I can only say that they completely failed to do so, thankfully.

Spot on from Akua