Starmer, JKR, what's most important to most women 2?

This affects all women. No matter their race, income, or class.

This is so absurd because it ignores how the major political party's actually treat the most vulnerable in society and we should care about poor women, black women

Not just white middle
Class women

In the US it's already being used against women who've woken up and realised what happening to women's sports.

Many men aren't interested in helping us fix this. All they're saying is 'well you women voted for Biden, you're reap what you sow'

Women that vote for this don't seem to realise that once it hits mainstream properly, they will see this as female driven and won't be happy til women are back out of the workforce and out of positions of power across the board. Let alone what they will do to lesbians.

This is basically where I am now. I'm afraid that this isn't going to stop so we're just going to have to go through it.

All I hope is that when the lovely Isla Bryson is out of prison, he ends up next to one of the stupid women that are advocating for men in women's spaces and not next to my daughter.

Some people will only care when it affects them personally. It's amazing how they think they're the kind ones, isn't it?

Exactly. The focus on one at the expense of everyone else is quite something.

I remember an awful Twitter exchange where a mother whose child had 'transitioned' was getting absolutely piled on for being upset to be told she'd actually given birth to a 'daughter' rather than a 'son'. Like her own memory and experience of that event was worthless.

Its all very well denying your own material reality - but its deeply unfair the way it's being used to deny everyone else's.

But these are people's lives we're talking about.

Exactly, of course in this Brave New World the only life that matters is that of the person that is changing gender and fuck everyone else.

It also highlights the total absurdity of it all.

So the material reality of someone's marriage gets contradicted by a piece of paper based on an idea in someone's head that cannot be verified in any way? It's like Alice Through The Looking Glass. But these are people's lives we're talking about.

You really can't see the problem with completely re-writing the marriage contract and history of the marriage from a heterosexual union to a same sex union on one party's say so?

Really?

Trans Widows on Twitter/X:

“Despite the @UKLabour manifesto being silent on the Spousal Exit Clause, confirmation here that they intend to abolish it, and remove #transwidows right to end their marriage before their husband legally changes sex #NotAVeto”

It’s trapping them in a same-sex marriage when they entered into a heterosexual union. Divorce is never easy, emotionally or financially, and this makes it far more difficult.

The long-running transwidows threads give some genuinely upsetting insights into how women and children can have their lives torn apart in particularly damaging ways when a husband decides to transition.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4879982-trans-widows-escape-committee-6-the-next-generation?page=1

"We’ll replace it with a reflection period. It counters the idea that you can put on a dress and then the next day you’ve got a GRC. It’ll be a considerable period of time of two years. But of course you are still protected under the Equality Act even if you don’t have a GRC … There are protections so you can’t legally change your gender overnight.”

How does it counter the idea that you can put on a dress and the next day have a GRC? That is exactly the mechanism they've just described, isn't it? You just book in with a friendly trans affirmative doctor - Webberly will do it for a fee - and abracadabra, you're a legal female.

It just means that for two years after putting on that dress, if at any point you decide you don't want to avail yourself of women's spaces/rights, you can take the dress off again and change your mind. Or am I misunderstanding?

What are the protections - that you have to phone Dr Webberley and pay a fee? Will that be the existing £5 fee? If they are saying that men can be charged £5 to access women's rights and spaces is 'protection' they are apparently determined to insult us outright.

This was posted on another thread by @SilverElf:

There is also no mention in Labour’s plans about how they will stop eg sex offenders from changing their name, gender & address before skipping off with a clean police record. These are real threats and need to be taken seriously

A very important point.

How is it trapping women in marriage? Are people in same sex marriages debarred from divorce?

Yes, change the marriage contract and the history of the marriage without the consent of one of the parties, namely the woman, and yet Labour are all for women's rights, except of course when it interferes in any way with what a man wants.

How progressive trapping women in marriage.

A Labour source said: “Our intention was always that we don’t want to change how the diagnosis [of gender dysphoria] is made. It’s not about how it’s diagnosed but we do want one diagnosis.”
The source described the requirement to show two years’ worth of proof as “nonsense”.
They added: “We’ll replace it with a reflection period. It counters the idea that you can put on a dress and then the next day you’ve got a GRC. It’ll be a considerable period of time of two years. But of course you are still protected under the Equality Act even if you don’t have a GRC … There are protections so you can’t legally change your gender overnight.”

These people are so monumentally fucking stupid I have no words.

This is absolutely disgraceful 🤬

So in effect a woman will be recorded as being in a same-sex marriage with a self-ID ‘male lesbian’, despite having had kids together?

Spot on. And with no opportunity to gracefully exit the marriage, when the marriage contract has effectively been rewritten unilaterally.

So in effect a woman will be recorded as being in a same-sex marriage with a self-ID ‘male lesbian’, despite having had kids together?

Oh dear.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/29648ec1-5b29-4b35-97df-2a443c71d7e0?shareToken=fd3bf0c5a080ae78044dd82770d8e1a7

Archive link in case needed:

https://archive.ph/jUBcS

Unsurprising but still disappointing.

Some days I despair.

All of you who think men of any gender should be in any and all of previously women only spaces, I hope you get what you want. And can never reverse it.

You've given no thought to it, you spout soundbites that you heard somewhere.

But, well I'm alright. I've always been alright. I never have to use public toilets, I dont do sports and if I need caring for at some point, I have enough money for private care. If I end up in prison, I'll just hope for the best. If I need counselling I'll buy it. I could maybe get private healthcare too.

I've given a lot of time and energy trying to make others see the issues. I've spent more than 20 years of my life making it known this was coming. But you all seem invested in not seeing it.

So, have at it, I hope labour wins for you all. You just remember, we tried to tell you .

'Does not have a peniis' My proof reader is poorly!

'Sexism = the women should do the dishes.
Feminism = men or women can do the dishes.
Gender ideology = whoever is doing the dishes is a woman.'

https://x.com/genderisharmful/status/1358499334850023426?lang=en

I haven’t heard the ironing shirts = woman one before. Fascinating.