Latest news with #equalityAct
Times
01-07-2025
- Health
- Times
Keir Starmer says trans ruling must be enacted ‘as soon as possible'
Hospitals and government departments refusing to implement the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman must do it 'as soon as possible', Sir Keir Starmer has said, as public bodies continue to defy the law. The prime minister said guidance on how to interpret the court's decision must be 'consistent with the ruling', after reports civil servants and some public bodies were attempting to ignore the judgment that the definition of a woman was to be based on biological sex. The prime minister told reporters he 'accepted the ruling; welcomed the ruling, and everything else flows from that as far as I'm concerned'. He said: 'All guidance of whatever kind needs to be consistent with the ruling and we need to get to that position as soon as possible.' Every organisation in Britain was told to revisit their equality policies after the country's highest court ruled that transgender women were not legally women in reference to the Equality Act in April. However, The Times revealed last month that Whitehall was refusing to implement single-sex spaces in government departments until the equality regulator intervenes. Human resources and staff networks have advised civil servants that the policies remain in effect while they are under review, despite many advising that transgender people are able to use whichever facilities they feel most comfortable with. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is drawing up new guidance that will help public bodies and organisations implement the ruling. The regulator said the guidelines should only be seen as a tool to implement the law and the Supreme Court's judgment 'is effective immediately'. The Times also reported that hospital managers ignored official guidance and said that policies would not change until NHS England responded to the ruling. Maya Forstater, the chief executive of Sex Matters, said: 'This is an important intervention from the prime minister, given the huge number of public bodies failing to implement the Supreme Court judgment and operating outside the law. Political leadership is essential if women whose rights are being stolen are not to be forced to turn to the courts, where public bodies will end up losing, at great expense to taxpayers. 'It's no coincidence that the private sector has been faster to bring their policies in line with the judgment, recognising what is at stake for the bottom line. Meanwhile most NHS, university and civil service leaders are sitting on their hands. 'The law is clear and there is no need to wait for further guidance from the EHRC or anyone else. Unlike the small businesses and services for which the regulator's guidance is intended, public sector organisations have access to specialist legal advice, as well as extra statutory obligations under the public sector equality duty.'
Times
29-06-2025
- Politics
- Times
Keir Starmer says ‘get on with it' as trans ruling ignored
Hospitals and government departments refusing to implement the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman must 'get on with it', Sir Keir Starmer has said, as public bodies continue to defy the law. The prime minister said guidance on how to interpret the court's decision must be 'consistent with the ruling', after reports civil servants and some public bodies were attempting to ignore the judgment that the definition of a woman was to be based on biological sex. The prime minister told reporters he 'accepted the ruling; welcomed the ruling, and everything else flows from that as far as I'm concerned'. He said: 'All guidance of whatever kind needs to be consistent with the ruling and we need to get to that position as soon as possible.' Every organisation in Britain was told to revisit their equality policies after the country's highest court ruled that transgender women were not legally women in reference to the Equality Act in April. Trans+ Solidarity Alliance led a mass lobby of their MPs over the Equality and Human Rights Commission's 'bathroom ban' guidance ALISHA ABODUNDE/GETTY IMAGES However, The Times revealed last month that Whitehall was refusing to implement single-sex spaces in government departments until the equality regulator intervenes. Human resources and staff networks have advised civil servants that the policies remain in effect while they are under review, despite many advising that transgender people are able to use whichever facilities they feel most comfortable with. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is drawing up new guidance that will help public bodies and organisations implement the ruling. The regulator said the guidelines should only be seen as a tool to implement the law and the Supreme Court's judgment 'is effective immediately'. The Times also reported that hospital managers ignored official guidance and said that policies would not change until NHS England responded to the ruling. Maya Forstater, the chief executive of Sex Matters, said: 'This is an important intervention from the prime minister, given the huge number of public bodies failing to implement the Supreme Court judgment and operating outside the law. Political leadership is essential if women whose rights are being stolen are not to be forced to turn to the courts, where public bodies will end up losing, at great expense to taxpayers. 'It's no coincidence that the private sector has been faster to bring their policies in line with the judgment, recognising what is at stake for the bottom line. Meanwhile most NHS, university and civil service leaders are sitting on their hands. 'The law is clear and there is no need to wait for further guidance from the EHRC or anyone else. Unlike the small businesses and services for which the regulator's guidance is intended, public sector organisations have access to specialist legal advice, as well as extra statutory obligations under the public sector equality duty.'
The Guardian
05-06-2025
- General
- The Guardian
Why is there such a generational divide in views on sex and gender in Britain?
Differing attitudes to women's and transgender rights activism are often said to be generational. One poll, published a month on from the supreme court ruling that the legal definition of 'woman' in the Equality Act is based on biological sex, found 63% supportive of the ruling and 18% opposed. But younger people were far more likely to be in the latter camp, with 53% of 18- to 24-year-olds disagreeing with the judgment. In my age group, 50-64, the figure was just 13%. Such results echo earlier polls. As with any attempt to link a demographic with a point of view, there are plenty of exceptions. Last month Lady Hale, the octogenarian former president of the supreme court, became one of them when she argued that the ruling had been misinterpreted, telling a literary festival she had met doctors 'who said there is no such thing as biological sex'. The progressive explanation for the age gap is in the name: progress. As the arc of history bends towards justice, younger people are ahead of the curve. Social scientists call this a cohort effect, which basically means that when you are born is one of the influences (along with income, education and so on) on your politics. In relation to transgender rights, the reasoning is that people born since the 1980s are more relaxed about sex and sexuality, and more committed to personal freedoms including the right to define one's own identity. The obvious catch to this analysis, at the moment, is the way some young men have swung towards the hard right. If a cohort effect applies when it comes to gender, and assuming that future cohorts are in agreement, gender identity advocates can look forward to winning this argument eventually. Older, conservative voters (and politicians and judges and journalists such as me), who don't think someone's trans identity should take precedence over their biological sex when society decides which sports teams or prisons they belong in, are just causing a delay. This was the view endorsed by David Lammy in 2021 when he said there were 'dinosaurs […] in our own party' who want to 'hoard rights'. The extinction of such people would, he implied, sort things out in the end. Along with other middle-aged, gender-critical women, I have got used to dismissals such as Lammy's. One of us, Victoria Smith, wrote a book about such attitudes and called it Hags. But terminology aside, I think those who characterise this struggle as being between young progressives and ageing reactionaries are mistaken. While I fully support transgender people's right to be protected from discrimination, I don't regard the erosion of sex-based entitlements – including single-sex sports and spaces – in favour of an ethos of 'inclusion' as either liberal or leftwing. On the contrary, I think valuing inclusion over bodily privacy (in changing rooms) or fairness (in sports) is sexist – since women are more disadvantaged by these changes than men. And while gender identity campaigners claim autonomy and choice as progressive, even socialist, values, I see their emphasis on the individual's right to self-definition as congruent with consumer capitalism. Multinational corporations, including banks and retailers, embrace Stonewall's Workplace Equality Index and fly Progress Pride flags from their buildings because the shift away from the class politics of redistribution towards the identity politics of personal expression suits them. In 2023 the 40th British Social Attitudes survey described the widening age gap in UK politics as 'a puzzle', with changing party loyalties only partly mirrored in answers to questions seeking to place people on a left-right spectrum or a liberal-authoritarian one. To anyone looking for answers to the question of why such age differences exist – in relation to the supreme court or other issues – I would suggest that as well as cohorts (gen X versus Z and so on), they should consider the life cycle. Clearly, some things matter more to people as they get older, pensions being an obvious example. What if biological sex is another? This rings true with aspects of my own experience. For example, it wasn't until I had children that I learned about birth injuries, came face to face with pregnancy and maternity discrimination, or understood that the gender pay gap is also a motherhood penalty. It's not that I hadn't been aware of my female body before this. But one of the things about having babies is the way that the biological and social become so enmeshed. More recently, I've become fascinated by female evolutionary thinkers such as Sarah Hrdy, whose life's work has been to explore this tangle. Now, at 53, there is menopause and ageing. Most weeks my yoga teacher has something to say about the importance for women of strength-building exercises to ward off osteoporosis; of keeping our femur bones firmly in our hip sockets and using muscles to hold our reproductive organs in place. That male and female bodies go wrong in different ways is nothing new: the most common cancer for women worldwide is breast cancer, while in England prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed in men. What has only recently become better known, thanks to advances in medical research and campaigners such as Caroline Criado Perez, is that even when we get the same diseases there are differences, with examples including heart disease, Parkinson's and dementia. As with reproduction, later-life physiological divergences have social and economic consequences. Social care is a feminist issue due to women's greater longevity, as well as the sector's predominantly female workforce. Most of the poorest pensioners are single women as many wives outlive their husbands, but also because of lower average lifetime earnings linked to women taking breaks from employment to care for children. And what about men? Like women, the older they are, the less likely they are to tell pollsters that gender identity should replace biological sex as a legal and social category. This makes sense to me, since my argument is that consciousness of sexual difference accumulates across the life-course. The fact that men are far less likely to be actively involved in campaigning on this issue than gender-critical women – even when they agree with us – is also easy to understand. Now, as in the past, men need legal protection against sex-based discrimination, abuse or injustice much less often than women. I don't presume to predict that today's gender identity activists will one day change their minds. But it has never seemed clearer to me than it does now that women and men have some different needs and experiences that the law must recognise. Far from an old fogey's statute, I think the 15-year-old Equality Act, with its staunch protection of sex-based rights, is full of life. Susanna Rustin is a social affairs journalist and the author of Sexed: A History of British Feminism
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Swinney seeks to ‘bring people together' following debate over gender rights
Scotland's First Minister has told how he wants to 'bring people together in unity' in the wake of the 'difficulty and hurt' that has been caused by row over single sex spaces. John Swinney accepted that a 'tremendous amount of difficulty and hurt' had been caused to 'all sides'. But he insisted: 'Part of my role as First Minister is to do something about that and that is to bring people together. 'That's been the hallmark of my leadership of Scotland in the last 12 months.' The SNP leader told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme: 'My purpose and my objective as First Minister is to bring people together in unity and cohesion in Scotland.' Former Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon has raised concerns about the impact the Supreme Court ruling could have on the transgender community (Robert Perry/PA) His comments in the wake of the landmark Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman, in a case brought against the Scottish Government. ADVERTISEMENT Judges there made clear that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act can 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. But that has caused concern amongst the transgender community and their supporters – with former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon saying on Tuesday she feared trans lives could become 'unliveable' as a result. Meanwhile, SNP backbencher Michelle Thomson has called on both Mr Swinney and Ms Sturgeon to apologise to women who had to 'fight tooth and nail' for the right to single-sex spaces. Mr Swinney however said Holyrood had had a 'very, very extensive democratic debate' on such matters when it considered legislation which was ultimately blocked by Westminster which would have allowed transgender Scots to self-identify in their preferred gender, without needing to go through a medical process. The First Minister also stressed: 'On two occasions courts in Scotland supported the interpretation of the law that had been applied by the Scottish Government, which was based on guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.' ADVERTISEMENT But he added: 'I accept the Supreme Court, the ultimate decision maker on the interpretation of the law, has taken a different view.' Mr Swinney also made clear the Scottish Government would 'of course' follow new guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is due this summer. He added: 'We are obviously are engaging in discussion with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to assist and to understand the direction of their thinking in the creation of the guidance, they have got a lot of work to do on that.'
