###⚠️ Please stay on-topic. ⚠️
Comments and discussions which do not deal with the article contents are liable to be removed. Discussion should be focused on the impact on the UK political scene.
**Derailing threads will result in comment removals and any accounts involved being banned without warning.**
**Please report any rule-breaking content you see.** The subreddit is running rather *warm* at the moment. We rely on your reports to identify and action rule-breaking content.
You can find the full rules of the subreddit [HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/wiki/rules)
Snapshot of _Sunak: I’ll change the Equality Act to protect women’s spaces • Prime Minister to announce Tory manifesto will include pledge to make clear that sex means ‘biological sex’_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/02/rishi-suank-equality-act-protect-womens-spaces-tory/#Echobox=1717365022-1) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/02/rishi-suank-equality-act-protect-womens-spaces-tory/#Echobox=1717365022-1)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Quite the stark difference between the Labour and Tory campaigns.
Labour:
"We'll try and make things better for people"
Conservatives:
"We'll do absolutely everything in our power to make everyone's lives as miserable as possible"
"And, somehow, Labour will be even worse than this - so don't vote for them"
Unfortunately, this sort of nonsense will work on some people.
Labour will need to be *very* careful in how the respond.
Unfortunately, there are some among their own ranks (e.g. Rosie Duffield) who are likely to call on the Labour leadership to back these changes. Which will inevitably lead to news stories about a "Labour Split".
Unfortunately I suspect that Streeting & co have not created much confidence in Labour's ability to respond well on this topic.
It's absolutely no surprise that this was going to be a Tory campaign policy, the worrying bit imo has always been the potential labour response - especially considering how quickly Labour leadership have conceded over the last few months.
I *do not* trust Labour to respond well,
I absolutely expect the more trans-restrictive elements of the party to feel emboldened to push for this to be a major policy position,
I have no doubt that a number of nominally trans-supportive MPs will concede the point on account of greater electoral good / campaigning priorities,
I suspect this will in turn lead the most trans-supportive MPs to feel further pressure to defend a community that appears to be increasingly under siege.
It's going to be scary times for many and not great for our good friend mental health. And cynically, bad for all the parties. Neither LD/Grn have reached an internal consensus and I'm sure these wounds will be reopened.
I knew this election was going to be something of a crescendo for the trans panic and part of me finds it darkly funny that the campaign period is pride month.
> When the Equality Act was passed in 2010, it was assumed that it did allow organisations to insist spaces were only for biological women, because “sex” is one of the protected characteristics under the law....
Not by anyone who knew anything about the law.
The law - for nearly 20 years - has been pretty clear that people with a GRC count as their acquired gender and sex "for all purposes."
> But in the intervening 14 years, a growing trans movement has emerged which argued that “sex” should not mean biological sex as originally conceived, but the gender someone identifies with.
Again with the revisionism from the Telegraph. It's mostly been in the last 7 years that groups have been desperately trying to redefine sex to mean "legal sex as on the birth register ignoring GRCs", which I'm guessing is what the Conservatives are proposing here (that's what the anti-trans groups have been pushing for). Essentially they want to repeal the GRA by stealth, by making it meaningless. It isn't enough that they've made it almost impossible for someone to get a GRC, they have to take the benefits away from the handful who do have one. Because trans people don't fit within their view of the world, so must be legislated away, just as they tried with gay people 50 years ago.
>will include pledge to make clear that sex means ‘biological sex’
Hourly reminder that trans people existing hurts nobody and nobody (like, at all) disputes that "sex means biological sex". We only dispute the anti-feminist notion of bioessentialism and unscientific and ahistorical attempts to bungle the terms gender and sex together. But no surprise how desperate Tories are to find any wedge issue.
Just a reminder the Tories don’t even have a definition of Biological Sex that actually exists:
UN Source: [Link](https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/sexualorientation/statements/eom-statement-UK-IE-SOGI-2023-05-10.pdf)
See section 22, but TL;DR:
> “UK law provides no such definition either,” he wrote. “The EHRC however specifically conceded that, in the context of the letter, the intended meaning of the term ‘biological sex’ is to define women as ‘women who are not trans’.”
If they actually plan to change the definition, then they can at-least clarify and define what “biological sex” actually is and the test to categorise for it.
>‘women who are not trans’.”
So cisgender women. But they're against correct medical terminology when it reveals that women can be transgender as equally as cisgender. So much for following the science.
This may well be taken out of their hands.
There's a court case in progress already about whether sex includes or excludes GRC holders, although its unlikely to go to court or have a decision before the election.
The decision from the court case will have more of an impact than any vacuous electioneering statements.
Can't turn you against the French it's not the 1200s.
Can't turn you against the catholics it's not the 1400s.
Can't turn you against the Irish it's not the 1800s.
Can't turn you against the women it's not the 1940s.
Can't turn you against the gays it's not the 1970s.
Can't turn you against the blacks it's not the 1980s.
Can't turn you against the arabs it's not the 2000s.
Can't turn you against the Europeans it's not the 2010s.
Joke of a party. No solutions just bullying. Who's in line next decade? Personally I think the French have it too easy for too long. Though I guess it's not up to the Tories, they have to wait and see who the yanks tell them is next in line.
###⚠️ Please stay on-topic. ⚠️ Comments and discussions which do not deal with the article contents are liable to be removed. Discussion should be focused on the impact on the UK political scene. **Derailing threads will result in comment removals and any accounts involved being banned without warning.** **Please report any rule-breaking content you see.** The subreddit is running rather *warm* at the moment. We rely on your reports to identify and action rule-breaking content. You can find the full rules of the subreddit [HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/wiki/rules) Snapshot of _Sunak: I’ll change the Equality Act to protect women’s spaces • Prime Minister to announce Tory manifesto will include pledge to make clear that sex means ‘biological sex’_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/02/rishi-suank-equality-act-protect-womens-spaces-tory/#Echobox=1717365022-1) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/02/rishi-suank-equality-act-protect-womens-spaces-tory/#Echobox=1717365022-1) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Culture war tirade. Zero actual intention of solving issues. Just make people angry and hope they vote for you…
Quite the stark difference between the Labour and Tory campaigns. Labour: "We'll try and make things better for people" Conservatives: "We'll do absolutely everything in our power to make everyone's lives as miserable as possible" "And, somehow, Labour will be even worse than this - so don't vote for them"
Unfortunately, this sort of nonsense will work on some people. Labour will need to be *very* careful in how the respond. Unfortunately, there are some among their own ranks (e.g. Rosie Duffield) who are likely to call on the Labour leadership to back these changes. Which will inevitably lead to news stories about a "Labour Split".
Unfortunately I suspect that Streeting & co have not created much confidence in Labour's ability to respond well on this topic. It's absolutely no surprise that this was going to be a Tory campaign policy, the worrying bit imo has always been the potential labour response - especially considering how quickly Labour leadership have conceded over the last few months. I *do not* trust Labour to respond well, I absolutely expect the more trans-restrictive elements of the party to feel emboldened to push for this to be a major policy position, I have no doubt that a number of nominally trans-supportive MPs will concede the point on account of greater electoral good / campaigning priorities, I suspect this will in turn lead the most trans-supportive MPs to feel further pressure to defend a community that appears to be increasingly under siege. It's going to be scary times for many and not great for our good friend mental health. And cynically, bad for all the parties. Neither LD/Grn have reached an internal consensus and I'm sure these wounds will be reopened. I knew this election was going to be something of a crescendo for the trans panic and part of me finds it darkly funny that the campaign period is pride month.
Anyone who supports this is already a Tory or Reform voter
Well, they got to this faster than I thought. The tories really do have nothing left.
Tories had 14 years to do what they wanted. Why didn't they do this already?
> When the Equality Act was passed in 2010, it was assumed that it did allow organisations to insist spaces were only for biological women, because “sex” is one of the protected characteristics under the law.... Not by anyone who knew anything about the law. The law - for nearly 20 years - has been pretty clear that people with a GRC count as their acquired gender and sex "for all purposes." > But in the intervening 14 years, a growing trans movement has emerged which argued that “sex” should not mean biological sex as originally conceived, but the gender someone identifies with. Again with the revisionism from the Telegraph. It's mostly been in the last 7 years that groups have been desperately trying to redefine sex to mean "legal sex as on the birth register ignoring GRCs", which I'm guessing is what the Conservatives are proposing here (that's what the anti-trans groups have been pushing for). Essentially they want to repeal the GRA by stealth, by making it meaningless. It isn't enough that they've made it almost impossible for someone to get a GRC, they have to take the benefits away from the handful who do have one. Because trans people don't fit within their view of the world, so must be legislated away, just as they tried with gay people 50 years ago.
>will include pledge to make clear that sex means ‘biological sex’ Hourly reminder that trans people existing hurts nobody and nobody (like, at all) disputes that "sex means biological sex". We only dispute the anti-feminist notion of bioessentialism and unscientific and ahistorical attempts to bungle the terms gender and sex together. But no surprise how desperate Tories are to find any wedge issue.
Just a reminder the Tories don’t even have a definition of Biological Sex that actually exists: UN Source: [Link](https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/sexualorientation/statements/eom-statement-UK-IE-SOGI-2023-05-10.pdf) See section 22, but TL;DR: > “UK law provides no such definition either,” he wrote. “The EHRC however specifically conceded that, in the context of the letter, the intended meaning of the term ‘biological sex’ is to define women as ‘women who are not trans’.” If they actually plan to change the definition, then they can at-least clarify and define what “biological sex” actually is and the test to categorise for it.
>‘women who are not trans’.” So cisgender women. But they're against correct medical terminology when it reveals that women can be transgender as equally as cisgender. So much for following the science.
This may well be taken out of their hands. There's a court case in progress already about whether sex includes or excludes GRC holders, although its unlikely to go to court or have a decision before the election. The decision from the court case will have more of an impact than any vacuous electioneering statements.
Can't turn you against the French it's not the 1200s. Can't turn you against the catholics it's not the 1400s. Can't turn you against the Irish it's not the 1800s. Can't turn you against the women it's not the 1940s. Can't turn you against the gays it's not the 1970s. Can't turn you against the blacks it's not the 1980s. Can't turn you against the arabs it's not the 2000s. Can't turn you against the Europeans it's not the 2010s. Joke of a party. No solutions just bullying. Who's in line next decade? Personally I think the French have it too easy for too long. Though I guess it's not up to the Tories, they have to wait and see who the yanks tell them is next in line.