To think the gender and sex Ed wars are created by tories

Nonbinary identities and trans people have existed for a very, very long time though - this is just the modern form of it which you could argue is somewhat backed up by postmodernist/gender studies thought, at a push?

Anyways OP I agree... people make a massive deal out of it based on what they think woke/libs/trans people are saying rather than what we actually do say lol. People honestly getting their knicks in a twist because of a sensationalist DM article. Touch grass pls

@AdamRyan - I agree to a degree and as a member I would have to leave to vote for any other party (and it wouldn’t be the Tories).

However I think the real challenge (and my fear) is that unless there is a very clear manifesto commitment Starmer will do what he pleases once in power and we will not be able to stop it. I think the manifesto will be as vague as possible to facilitate that.

This is’t directed at you, but I am also sick of the left assuming it is entitled to women’s votes, or saying it’s the only safe option for feminists when it plainly for a long time wasn’t, or saying oh yes dear you must vote for the Bigger Picture and the Common Good and we’ll get around to your issues later when we have time.

Spot on @FOJN

The answer as feminists is not voting conservative. That's like turkeys voting for Christmas.

I think that very much depends on your definition of what a feminist is.

My definition is that women and men are equal and both have the right to make their own choices in life (such as who to vote for without being made to feel they are making the 'wrong' choice.

The answer as feminists is not voting conservative. That's like turkeys voting for Christmas.

You demand that this isn't treated as left vs right issue and then make feminism a left vs right issue and follow it up by expressing your contempt for anyone woman who would consider voting Tory because of this issue. It's this kind of attitude that alienates old school lefties like me. It's the same kind of purity spiral which creates identity politics and you're either with us or against us narrative. You are part of the problem.

Perhaps reserve your contempt for the political parties who have let women down and leave people alone to vote according to their conscience.

Yes I agree
I just really hate they are now forcing the "left v right" culture war when they are as complicit in the capture as anyone else. That's what I mean about being adults. Labour as much as the Tories. The "I'm voting conservative because they know what a woman is!!!!" only encourages the culture war approach.

By making it a "left v right", "with us or against us" issue, I worry we will end up with a Conservative government who can claim a mandate to treat women differently to men. And then use that to fuck us over. Similar to what's happened with Brexit.

The political pressure and reporting has forced Labour to say they will protect women's rights. So let's keep that up prior to the election, on them and other parties.

The answer as feminists is not voting conservative. That's like turkeys voting for Christmas.

That diagnosis of gender dysphoria also stuck out to me

We don’t typically reorder society to validate a dysphoria

Men seem to have convinced institutions that we should

What a shame Dodds didn’t feel she had to clarify the press release by turning up to answer questions

I’d also like to know which new law will protect single sex spaces

They’re against re writing EqA to biological sex so how will it be done

I am willing to bet one of the main reasons women avoid it is due to lack of trust in HCP, based on national scandals and due to previous experience due to poor care or bedside manner. And there are more women potentially doing avoidant behaviour as a result of 'trans inclusivity' than transmen who would be avoidant due to sticking to sex based descriptions.

The lack of recognition of this is, a scandal in its own right.

Women who have been able to build a good relationship with a HCP are far more likely to trust them with their care. And this goes the same for anyone trans identifying.

The fact that indulging the nonsense that sex is gender is part of the problem and should be stressed by medical professionals in any transition, with failure to acknowledge or accept this, being a barrier to further medical transition - because it points to an inability to demonstrate that they understand what they are consenting to. Such behaviour is a red flag in its own right, which should be acted upon - it is suggestive of other, unaddressed issues.

Women who have had birth trauma and ask for an ELCS are recommended to be immediately granted on, but it should be taken as a red flag to recieve extra appointments and emotional support regardless. Upon doing this, it was found that women are much more likely then to revert to a VB without pressure - because the fear is more about the relationship with HCP and a feeling of not being in control. It centres on the idea of 'not being listen to' and 'being forced into x, y or z'. THIS IS PART OF THE NATURE OF SUCH MEDICAL BASED TRAUMA AND IT IS (OR WAS) BEGINNING TO BE RECOGNISED.

The onus, in this scenario can't be on women to 'chase' help. Part of the point is that these women, are often too vulnerable or traumatised to be able to do this without proactive support from medics who recognise these women can't just be shroved through a sausage factory of care and come out the other end ok. The default needs to be upon identifying women who have a trauma background in any such scenario. And they be treated accordingly with women centred care - and yes that would include excluding males if this is requested and not putting them into a situation where they fear they could be forced into a situation with one against their wishes. Or in the care of transmen, exploring further underlying reasons for being in denial about their sex because this doesn't simply disappear because pronouns are used in the way required.

Female patients should not be asked to uphold the fantasy of others and to stop the hurty feelings of male employees or other patients. They should not be collateral damage to other people's issues. They should be centred. Care should be provided that understands this. Any staff member who doesn't understand this, isn't fit to practice. Any patient who thinks their right to uphold gender beliefs should trump others biological, emotional and differing beliefs shouldn't get preferatial treatment. They should be treated with sensitivity away from other patients to prevent potential conflicts - the onus being on trans patients being a minority versus women.

But ultimately we can not ignore that the 'trans' bit means 'I am the opposite sex to the one I wish I was' and that gender is not sex. We should NEVER be conflating gender with sex in a medical setting because it produces risk to trans patients and has potential to harm to vulnerable patients.

And thats ALSO why the default in healthcare should reflect sex - with those struggling with that, treated in other channels in parallel to other issues. Transmen who transition with hormones and surgery, aren't the type of patient who rocks up to a GP having never seen one for years. They will have been frequent flyers and repeat attenders - probably more than other females. The opportunities for HCP to engage are therefore much more numerous than with say a woman who doesn't speak english and struggles with healthcare messages which aren't really clear.

For me this highlights a real issue: that medical transition isn't fully addressing psychological needs and promotion of social transition isn't recognising there is an inherent psychological problem with conflating sex with gender thats being effectively swept under the carpet.

You can't just ignore the fact that sex isn't gender without doing harm - whether thats to women and transmen or men and transwomen. However there is also a bunch of evidence that females are coming out much more negatively in this, regardless of their beliefs.

Saying we should change language and everyone should just suck up the fall out, does exactly this - ignores the harms to everyone concerned.

Its a cop out. Its a failure of properly individualise care centred on differing needs. Its NHS sausage factory care at the expense of real people who aren't robots.

Labour would have to be certifiable if they made the doctor concerned anything other than a clinical psychiatrist given the serious risk of people detransitioning and potential litigation.

A GP could refuse to do it. Who would want that kind of liability? No one.

There’s no doubt that a lot of institutional capture happened on the current Government’s watch but a lot of it was covert and the result of a very long game.

If you haven’t read the Denton document (drafted by the city solicitor Dentons, suggesting tacking self-ID onto gay marriage so as to slip it through covertly in the knowledge it had little support) it is worth a google.

There are also threads on the FWR board which set out evidence of premeditated institutional capture starting in the 90s when the Beaumont Society became actively involved in campaigning for the Gender Recognition Act (and you might want to ask yourself why a society for male transvestites and their wives chose to make common cause with transgender people for a gender recognition certificate, and why it and others campaigned for the conscious use of legislative language that obfuscates the difference between sex and gender, which has resulted in some of the problems of interpretation and application of the law on single sex spaces that we see today).

So to a degree I give the Tories a pass for not realising what was going on under their noses - it was meant to be hidden and for a long time it was, very successfully. They were foolish to have proposed GRA reform without proper consideration of the issues it raised and to have hung onto it for so long - but they have abandoned it now and arguably forcing it into the open has blown apart the secrecy in a beneficial way.

As for Labour: I speak as a member and as a non-bot. They are guilty in my view of expressing rabid support for self-ID to own the Tories - at precisely the moment when a lot of people were waking up to the problems with it. They also attempted to stifle debate inside and outside the party, and maintained it as policy way after it had become clear it was both a stupid idea and a stone cold vote loser.

It should not have taken Isla Bryson and Sturgeon’s implosion to make Starmer change direction. To characterise it as a culture war (as he continues to do) is frankly an insult given that Labour Party policy is now belatedly what many members of his own party have been saying for years. It’s a piss poor way of trying to minimise and shut down a debate in which he has repeatedly failed to gain the upper hand.

PS Labour also don’t get to play the “culture war” card when some of its MPs are actively engaging in the same war from the other side. Drag Story Hour was a culture war creation of the left in the US to own the Republicans. When Stella Creasy posts pictures of herself and her kids at Drag Story Hour she’s down in the trenches herself. So they can fuck off with that, IMO.

The SNP don't want a GP or any other medical professional involved in the process at all.

All it would take under the Bill passed by the Scottish Parliament is a declaration by the individual who wants to change gender officially.

https://www.gov.scot/news/gender-recognition-reform-bill-passed/

Self ID, in other words.

Labour are proposing the need for a diagnosis of dysphoria by one doctor (details of which doctor unclear).

The SNP should just be honest about gender identity ideology. Dispense with the GP and require a Gender High Priest instead. Gender identity is a matter of faith, not medical diagnosis.

Then write public policy to treat it like any other religion.

"In fact, they said Holyrood's proposed safeguards were "much stronger and more specific than a GP being involved in the process"’

This second quote comes from a news item on Stonewall's reaction to Labour's proposal.

Here is the full text on Stonewall''s site, with a link back to the AD piece in the Guardian.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-statement-labours-gender-recognition-act-reform-proposals

It looks to me as if Stonewall have taken it for granted that "one doctor" refers to a GP - unless they know something the rest of us don't because it hasn't been published

I didn’t google loads but a few came up and it’s so unclear. Which as always is how they do it. No clear answers

‘For example, instead of a panel of doctors having to sign off on the decision - something she called "demeaning" for trans people and "meaningless in practice" - they would replace it with the requirement of one doctor and a registrar.’

‘In fact, they said Holyrood's proposed safeguards were "much stronger and more specific than a GP being involved in the process"’

So is that some appointed GP doing the lot? By zoom? No idea

Or it could be all GPs

As usual it’s PR bumpf and no clear indication

It's not fine
But I think the majority were happy with the status quo, e.g. a bit of gatekeeping, GRC to be legally treated as a woman, the rest to be a social contract.
Proposing Self ID in law and starting to implement that in policy was the big wake up call for most people and that happened under the Conservatives.
Now both women, GNC children and tradespeople are all suffering and it was quite avoidable.

We need a grown up response, not Conservative knee jerk culture wars.

Can anyone find a source on the Labour Party site or a quote from a Labour politician saying that it will be their local GP?

Because the only reference to diagnosis under Labour's proposed reform that I can find is the piece by Annaliese Dodds in the Guardian on 24 July which I linked to above.

Which is also what the Atlantic piece links to. It mentions "explanatory tweets" tweets by Annaliese Dodds - does anyone have access to those? They would presumably be around the same date

Tbf someone already posted how great it will be under Labour and no need to be concerned which re routed thread

Which of course only the most Labour lot will agree is dandy

Most can see through it even if some blindly say all fine

I think they mean men won’t need a panel anymore, just a sole practitioner, their local GP

What GPs think of that idk.

Anyway I see this thread has already derailed into "But labour...." when the OP specifically asked about the Tories 🙄

YANBU. They flipping started all this shit by having a consultation and proposing a move to self ID in 2015, now they are pretending they are the only party who can stop it happening.

It's shady as fuck and I say that as a fully indoctrinated radical feminist. Drives me to distraction that they are playing politics and making a wedge issue out of something so central to so many people. Very irresponsible

Is it going to be GPs?

In The Atlantic article it says "family doctor" which I interpreted to mean GP.

Exactly to all the above concerns about Labour's apparently Damascene conversation.

At the end of the day, they still believe some male people are "really" women (and vice versa for trans men) because of how those people think.

The fundamental issue is not whether a GRC is required, and if that's supported through self id, or a tame GP, or a firey committee of Lisa Nandys who can ascertain the True Trans with a mere glance in the eyes.

It's not about how high the bar or well kept the gate, it's that that particular wall never should have had a gap in the first place.

Womanhood is not a type of personality, or a state of mind that occurs in whoever happens to think it.

There is no way this bizarre belief can be compatible with understanding the reality of life for female people and what that means for our opportunities, safety (physical and economic) and dignity.

Forming any law around those false beliefs is detrimental for female people who at a swipe of the pen not only have to accept men as "women" when this is not reality, but also lose legal recognition of their actual reality.

As long as Labour or any other party stand behind the sexist and regressive idea that the physical differences are inconsequential, it's just that women think differently to men, they cannot be trusted to understand women's needs and therefore they cannot be trusted to safeguard women's interests.

The Labour Party have reluctantly accepted the public is not ready for open self ID, so they will introduce it by sleight of hand and hope everyone is fooled. There is no recognition of how badly women in the party have been treated. They still talk to Stonewall, dont talk to womens groups. There is no commitment to issue that guidance for schools that the tories are at least looking at. They are still not opposing harm to children, even if they are marginally less enthusiastic about promoting it.

I would really like to be able to vote Labour at the next election, I dont expect to do so. If the tories take action on this instead of sitting on their hands I may even vote for them. Fine words butter no parsnips my granny would have said - or all mouth and no trousers.

Words from either party wont cut it. I'm expecting to spoil my ballot again because I wont legitimise any party destroying children's lives.

I'm heartened that Labour have dropped Self ID. There's a wee glimmer of hope that the Tory trans shitshow will end with them

As others have said, labour plan to make it as easy as getting a new bus pass to legally change sex marker.

What we need is for the exemptions, where in some instances it is legal to exclude males, even those with a special lady certificate, to be solidified and actually enforced.

I don't get any pleasure from knowing that in upholding sex based rights, some encounter distress

Not women's problem though.

The only 2 options are, we either completely remove the rights of ALL females just because a tiny % of males are upset by their sex and have demanded we alter the definition of our own bloody sex class to 'include' them or we uphold the rights of all females.

The feelings of a tiny minority should not dictate that the rest of us be forced to deny reality or alter the very language we use to describe ourselves, just because they can't cope with it.