Mick Hartley

Thread on why Labour’s existing position on gender and sex (“the Equality Act is clear on protections for single-sex spaces” – it isn’t – and “we’re going to make it easier for men to qualify for protections normally reserved for women”) waters down those protections for women.

— Sonia Sodha (@soniasodha) June 24, 2024

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Full thread:

The Equality Act contains exceptions that allow for provision of single-sex spaces, services and sports. But it doesn’t define sex. The Gender Recognition Act allows males to be treated as tho they were female for most legal purposes.

We simply don’t know if GRA provisions mean a man should be treated as though he were female for Equality Act purposes. It’s unclear & Labour are misleading us when they say the Equality Act doesn’t need clarification on this point. The Supreme Court will eventually rule on this.

But so far the courts have indicated that a gender recognition certificate (GRC) means a male must be treated as tho female for Equality Act purposes. That’s a huge deal that makes it harder to lawfully provide single-sex services, spaces & sports.

In that context of a lack of clarity Labour are proposing to make it easier for a man to be treated as though he were female – ie to opt in to the protected characteristic of female. It’s unclear exactly how their proposals would work but it sounds like the following.

1. The judicial panel of lawyers/doctors that grant a GRC on the basis of an application that includes diagnosis of gender dysphoria from two clinical specialists would be scrapped. You’d only need a diagnosis from one specialist doctor then a GRC would be automatically issued.

That removes any safeguard that could eg root out male sex offenders or male abusers from getting legal documentation that obliges providers to treat them as though they were legally female. Gender dysphoria is a pretty subjective diagnosis that abusive men can likely game.

2. A requirement to show proof you’ve lived in acquired gender for 2 yrs replaced with 2 yr “cooling off” period. If it’s you have to wait 2 yrs before getting a GRC, that’s a weird thing to call it. If it’s you get it straight away but can reverse it starts to look like self id.

3. Labour want to reverse the spousal exit provision in the GRA. This is NOT a “spousal veto”- Labour have adopted misleading activist language on this. If a spouse doesn’t consent to being in a same-sex as opposed to opposite sex marriage then an interim GRC is granted…

That is grounds for automatic annulment. Then a full GRC granted post annulment/divorce. It means dissolution papers will show the dissolution of an opposite not same sex marriage. A wife CANNOT prevent her husband from getting a GRC though. To call it a “veto” is wrong.

It’s deliberately obfuscating- why it’s so disappointing to see Labour adopt activist language. See also use of “conversion therapy” by activists to mean exploratory therapy for children who are gender questioning- why Cass review raised concerns about impact of criminal ban.

It’s crazy to propose reforms to the gender recognition process while it’s unclear what the implications for women’s Equality Act protections are. We urgently need clarity through amending Equality Act to be clear a GRC doesn’t change someone’s sex for these purposes.

So in summary: Labour are claiming to be robustly defending Equality Act protections for single-sex spaces, services & sports while adopting policy positions that would water them down. That’s dishonest. They’re only getting away with it because it’s a technical policy area.