Corbyn and adviser split over biological reality. Times Article

I've also called him Stuart, despite knowing that's the wrong name.

I suspect he gets it a lot

(Incidentally, his first name is Lachlan, last name Stuart)

THanks for the correction.
(I had known that, not sure how it got switched in my head and am suitably

Great comment on the Times article. Though I'm not clear how we define someone who is intending to undergo gender reassignment. Is it this 'intention' (that might never be carried out) that would allow male bodied people into female spaces under the GRA?

Worrying that the Labour Party thinks "Gender Assignment" is a protected characteristic. It is not. Gender Reassignment is a protected characteristic, and the Equality Act 2010 states that "A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex." The Equality Act goes on to define a transsexual person as somebody who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. In other words, only transsexual people - those who actually intend to try to change their sex - are protected in law. Transgender people - i.e. people who have no intention of trying to change their sex but simply wish to "identify" as a different gender - are not, nor ever have been, protected in law. Nor can they ever be, without removing existing sex-based protections. Corbyn would do well to listen to his policy adviser, who clearly has a better understanding of the differences between sex and gender than he does. And the Times and all other media would do well to stop using the term "trans" to refer to transgender and transsexual people as though they are the same thing - they absolutely are not.

I don't get the impression that Caroline Wheeler is doing a hatchet job with her article really.

I think it's more likely that TRAs have presented to the Times what they consider to be a collection of tweeted 'transphobic' wrongthink thoughts expressed by Lachlan.

The Times seem to have taken rather a neutral view in this article, to me.

(Incidentally, his first name is Lachlan, last name Stuart)

I suppose it's a perfectly sensible move if he's being discussed it the Times.

it looks like his tweets are protected. Has there been a pile on?

I think its recently protected, not sure what's happened. Sorry

R0wan it looks like his tweets are protected. Has there been a pile on?

It's a rather good opportunity for people to come out of the woodwork in support of his position, I'd say.

Staurt Lachlan tweets consistantly, calmly and supportively of sex based rights and understandings.
twitter.com/Lachlan_Edi?lang=en-gb

See thread I started 18th October 2018
"Stephen Whittle influential TRA asserts 'We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected' & Corbyn seems to confirm this at Pink News "
OP:
"Yesterday on a thread condemning Stephen Whittle's use of predicted suicide, he joined and commented confidently:

"In the end we will pull ourselves together and continue the campaigning – as we have always done. We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected. As I tell the community “we have always lost more battles than we have won, but we only ever need to win the big one

I hope that clarifies matters."*

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3397010-Guardian-article-on-MPs-concern-with-GRA?msgid=81891984#81891984

Last night at Pink News party, Jeremy Corbyn apparently confirmed Whittle's belief:
'PinkNews Awards 2018: Jeremy Corbyn vows support for transgender reforms'
by Nick Duffy
(extract)
"Speaking about transgender rights, he said: “We must speak up for the trans community, who today face shocking attacks in the media—just as lesbian and gay people did in the 1980s—as well as now online, which can be a wonderful place but also a horrendous place where attacks take place.

“Labour supports reform of the Gender Recognition Act and Equality Act to allow for self-declaration. The deadline for Government’s consultation is on Friday.

“Trans people must be able to live full, healthy, and happy lives—being the person they want to be. Labour will stand up for their right to do so.”
www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/10/17/jeremy-corbyn-pinknews-awards-2018/

In the same week, the Labour Party promoted Stonewall's guidance for the GRA:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397280-Labour-party-promoting-Stonewall

threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3390910-Can-we-talk-about-Pink-News-Collecting-examples-of-their-propaganda

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3375587-Press-for-Change

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397127-Stephen-Whittle-Press-for-Change-irresponsible-use-of-likely-suicides-follows-Helen-Belchers-Trans-Media-Watch

It's more of a failed attempt at a sting, I think.

Is the author of the article particularly known for being a TRA? Deputy Political Editor? I'm not familiar with the name.

I can't see Labour under Corbyn winning an election despite the state of the other parties.

I can. There are still people who are utterly oblivious to this. I have people posting on my fb feed all the time stating that the only sensible vote is Labour and that they are the party for the many and not the few.

There are an awful lot of people who don't know about any of this and aren't interested if you try and tell them.

Not because they believe that TWAW but because they think it's all been blown out of proportion because they think NOBODY believes TWAW and so there's nothing to worry about.

They won't define it bowl

The GRA and the EA are both extraordinary in that they don't define the characteristics clearly.
They've been written to allow circularity and conflation deliberately.

Even SEX, FEMALE and WOMAN are not properly defined.

It's imperative that they are not, lest the whole ideological premise unravels.

So they'll continue to allow gender to overwrite sex, whilst letting the actual definition of sex morph into something meaningless.

This is deliberate, in my opinion. Not an error of incompetence. It was pointed out in 2003 that definitions were critical and the government actively rejected calls to define sex and gender identity.

It's all hanging by a thread.

‘Gender identity’ will need to be defined.

wasn't there some attempt at this already....and Northern Women weren't deemed to be Real Women because they are too loud and shouty?

Another dystopian thought:

‘Gender identity’ will need to be defined.
So the sex stereotypes will be written into law. A woman does this, not a woman IS this.
Then what happens if you don’t conform to those stereotypes?

It's more of a failed attempt at a sting, I think.

It's not the first time a TRA has attempted to discredit an eminently reasonable person saying eminently reasonable things. I think it's a rather weak attempt to 'expose' the tweets of someone in labour who has dared to have his own opinion. I expect they collected his most 'shocking' tweets and this is the best they could manage.

I'm not sure the timing is especially significant.

It's a rather good opportunity for people to come out of the woodwork in support of his position, I'd say.

If it were a novel I'd accuse it of being foreshadowing - something else is coming.

I wonder if the results from a certain consultation are nearing publication.

OMG

This thread has clarified a few things for me, especially the post by CandidPeel.

"I begin to question why any sane woman would vote for us at all"

Well Lewis, I think there could be a lot of men who feel the same way, and it will be very interesting if there is a general election this June, because I think a lot of people are aware of this issue, and they are leaving the Labour party.
People, both men and women, who regarded the Labour party as the party of the oppressed, the working class, are now seeing Labour as the party which puts minority rights above all else, particularly above the rights of women, and this is going to come back to bite you.

Good.

Yes. The problem with "gender identity" is that it assumes that everyone has one.

So it's not just that a transwoman has the Gender identity "woman", but you have the Gender identity "woman" too. So you share a protected characteristic - - so all the EA2010 exemptions about people who share a protected characteristic will in practice use gender ID rather than sex. The single sex exemptions are already in practice being read as gender.

It would be the nail in the coffin for single sex exemptions

Yes, I'm curious - and a bit concerned - as to why this has surfaced today, with absolutely no context. How is "advisor says something contentious two years ago" news today?

If it were a novel I'd accuse it of being foreshadowing - something else is coming.

Is strange that a quote from 2 years ago is in the paper today......
However the comments are good-raising awareness.

I suspect that Labour's "gender identity" is simply a way of saying "sex". Good-bye, sex-based protection for women; hello protection based both on "identity" and "gender" thus doubly ensuring male supremacy and kicking women to the kerb.

Lewis Moonie, Labour Peer in the House of Lords has this to say on Twitter:

twitter.com/martindufresne/status/1091999831457959937

"Lachlan is 100% correct, and the Labour Party doesn’t know its arse from its elbow on this issue. I begin to question why any sane woman would vote for us at all".

As it is, 'gender reassignment' is pretty vague, given the GRA does not insist on any form of medical or surgical 'reassignment' in order to change legal sex.

And the 'gender reassignment' protection starts from the moment the decision to 'change gender' is made - no GRC necessary.