To ask who you are voting for?

Two quick points before I go to bed.

1. You've neatly identified that it's impossible to tell who is "really trans" and who is saying that they are trans for nefarious purposes. How is my 11yo DD to know that the man wearing a dress and lipstick in the women's toilet is harmless or not, or trans or not? What is the difference between (a) a man pretending to be a woman and (b) a man pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman? Who gets to decide who is "really trans" and who is just pretending to be the opposite sex?

1. Sadly there are plenty of reputable sources showing transwomen sexually abusing and raping women and girls in toilets etc. I'm going to bed now so am not going to research and link but I would suggest you look into it further as it is most definitely happening.

@Bluemincat I don’t believe they’re sexual offences by trans women. I believe they are sexual offences by men who are convicted and subsequently claim they identify as trans women in prison. They’re no more trans than you or I.

By doing this they’re segregated from the other male prisoners who would kick their heads in, or worse. The stats make it look like half of sex offenders are trans women when they’re not. It’s a common trick and there’s nothing the prisons can do about it.

I’ve heard lots of people talking about trans women raping women in toilets but it’s only been hearsay so I ignore it. I’ve never found a credible news source to prove all these stories. I do think that men masquerading as trans women are a much bigger threat than trans women.

Also, swimming pools have had unisex changing rooms for years and nobody seemed to mind.

I'm sure your child is lovely and not a risk to any woman (even a screeching terf). But you must surely be aware of the statistics of sexual offending among transwomen? And the instances of sexual abuse and rape that transwomen have carried out in women's toilets?

In any case, one of the big issues is that if you let any man who "feels like a woman" into the women's toilets then any mam with an ulterior motive can go into women's spaces unchallenged. And then when they expose themselves to little girls the staff back them up (ever heard of WiiSpa?).

It's strange. When women talk about the need for single sex spaces I don't get an urge to tell everyone how wonderful my husband is and that he would never hurt anyone. It's not a sleight on my husband's character to say that I don't want men allowed in women's toilets/changing rooms/rape centres etc. It's not all men who are dangerous and it's not all transwomen. But the statistics of sexual assault, rape and violence by men and transwomen against women and girls is horrifying.

I’ve got a trans daughter. She uses the disabled toilets, and has never been in a women’s changing room. That won’t stop GC people from deciding she’s a rapist (even though she’s only attracted to men) and a danger to them. I wouldn’t mind but she’s been chemically castrated and has no sex drive anyway. It reminds me of the 80s when it was gay men that were all branded as sexual deviants and paedophiles and other hateful labels. Maybe trans women don’t want to share a changing room with a load of screeching TERFs.

@HangryBeaver which women's spaces do you think transwomen should be allowed into?

But Starmer hasn't said that he would support single sex spaces - he says "safe spaces" and then immediately talks about how traumatised and vulnerable trans people are. So it's pretty obvious he thinks allowing transwomen into women's spaces is "safe".

Starmer isn't hiding behind that, at all.

He had repeatedly said that he backs the current provisions of the Equality Act that permit for single sex spaces (where reasonably required). He has repeatedly said "single sex" and was has been clear on multiple occasions, including the most recent debate, that people with Gender Recognition Certificates can be excluded, and that he supports that.

This is how the law currently operates and is why transwomen, with GRCs, can be excluded from women's prisons.

If the Supreme Court does determine that sex in the Equality Act means legal and not biological sex, only then the Act would require amendment. Given that Starmer has repeatedly said he supports maintaining existing protections for single sex spaces and supports clarifying legal guidance around their implementation, I don't see any reason to think he would not follow through on that, if the Supreme Court decision requires it.

What you (and Jane) seem to want, though, is for all transwomen to be excluded from all women's spaces. I agree that Starmer won't deliver that (and nor do i expect the Tories would). To repeal the GRA, we'd likely have to leave the ECHR, and I hope that does not happen.

Lib dem because Labour have never had a presence in my area so it’s a two horse race between them and the tories.

And to be clear, there is an obvious issue with the need to clarify that ‘sex’ in the Equality Act means biological sex only and not those with a GRC. The confusion arises because of the judgement of Lady Haldane. It is this set of smoke and mirrors that Starmer hides behind as he knows that currently there is a standing legal judgement that someone with a GRC would fall into this category. This is why many women are calling for repeal of the GRA and clarification of the Equality Act. Starmer doesn’t want this though. Funny that.

You are lying

I beg your pardon?

I can appreciate that people can get quite het up about politics and sometimes angry when others disagree with their pet party, and sometimes fearful they may influence others, but this is an ill-mannered way to proceed. A more adult way to put it would be to suggest the other person was mistaken and to engage with their points. That way you are more likely to get engagement than an angry dismissal and you can retain the moral high ground.

As it happens, I’m not lying or, I believe, mistaken. Starmer has - on numerous occasions - ducked and weaseled his way out of attempts to get him to clarify that biological males with a GRC will be excluded from single sex spaces. And so did Philipson last weekend. When asked about the safety risks to women of biological men being in their spaces, he takes about ‘safe spaces for women’, not single sex spaces. Because he thinks trans women fall within this category. He habitually skirts over the safety issue for females and goes straight to there being a ‘small number’ of poor old traumatised men and how hard they have it. Implying that them having hurt feelings is worth more than the safety of women. And often uses the murder of poor Brianna Ghey to shut down opposition. Listen to his answer to Jane on the LBC phone-in for a recent example.

However, if you have proof he has categorically stated that men with a GRC will be excluded from women’s changing rooms, toilets, prisons, sporting events, etc, please feel free to post a link to prove your point.

What? Are you having a laugh? Life in this country under the Tories in name only, to quote Chris Patten, last governor to Hong Kong, has got immeasurable worse.

You must be of extreme wealth to say that. Have you not seen that foodbanks have more places now than supermarkets? The debt people are in, the housing crisis, and we won't even go their on brexit.

Every single service in this country the Tories have bought to their knees, from the NHS, education, dental, and so on ad infinite.

No, I'm not Angela or any labour mp before you coming that ridiculous, boring so-called joke.

You're either trolling or in cloud cuckoo land 🤦‍♂️

@EnglishBluebell nah I’m not ashamed to vote Tory.

labour did not do enough to convince me that they could do better. Their stuff is just bitching about tories. They don’t have a plan. Not that I heard anyway.

and the final nail was their stance on women/trans men.

that said… labour will win and we will be back here in a few years moaning about how they fucked it up

Labour.
I sit on the board of a large women's refuge. Have done for over 20 years. I can see very clearly both sides of the women's right argument.
The fact is that regardless of which party's definition of woman I agree with, the impact of the Tory cuts in local and national government has had a devastating effect on the services that women and children need to survive in a patriarchal society. Not just in refuge but police, courts, health, social services.
I understand the risk in respect of sex based provision being affected by possible Labour policy. I know that risk is far smaller than the risk Tory policy poses to women. They don't give a shit about women.

The SDP's family income policy is pretty scary for women though.

"We'll pay you to have kids but only if you get married and stay married..."

Labour.

Whilst I don't agree with everything Starmer says, I will vote for the party that can form a government close to what I can live with.

And secondly, to put some grown adults in charge.

SDP. They’re good on sex/gender and we don’t have a Party of Women candidate.

It’s my first time not spoiling my ballot since 2017.

Are you?

LibDem because our Tory incumbent is a waste of skin.

@EnglishBluebell We live in a democracy thankfully and everyone is entitled to their own opinion and make their own choice on how to vote. You may not agree with their opinion, but if you can’t accept that people have different opinions to you without trying to shame them, it is you who has a problem.

I agree with @ComeAlongPeggy, I’m fed up of this puritantical way of seeing the world.

I have no idea.
Conservative is really the best candidate, new to this constituency but more experienced, been in the area a lot and pitching in at local events since he was chosen but he is a Tory!
Labour seems like a nice guy, local resident but his campaigning is just "Don't vote Tory", and he's not been seen about the area plus I'm concerned about the bigger issues like women's rights and rising costs.
Lib-Dem - no leaflet, no social media presence so not worth my time
Reform - not a particularly likeable individual
Independent - No, just no! Local snob

Who to vote for? God knows!