Labour promises to keep single-sex exemptions

I'm not LGBTQ and so making sure they are 'centred in everything we do' doesn't interest me.

The alphabet soup only means T, anyway. I wondered about Madigan’s reaction but that account is currently set to private.

Depends where you live in terms of how tactical voting for you.

As a Jewish woman, I face 3 existential threats - to the NHS and therefore my life and health and that of my loved ones from the Tories (Tory cuts to the NHS killed my DF), to Jews from Labour (many of my family were murdered in the Holocaust; Corbyn supports Holocaust deniers and terrorists who state plainly that they are in favour of murdering all Jews); and to women from all parties.

Of those 3 threats, the one to women is the only one which doesn't actually lead imminently to murder. And is one area where I feel the tide may be turning slightly.

But we all have to vote according to our own priorities. I wish I could fight on one front alone. What a luxury that would be.

Looks like they might be backtracking already judging by this tweet: twitter.com/helenlewis/status/1197778910836117504?s=21

I know it's fudgy and I know we'd still have the mother and father of all battles. However at least it now looks like we'd still be in the fight, which is more than we'd get with the other centre-left parties.

I've effectively got a choice between Labour and Lib Dem and I think my priority now is to vote to keep out the Lib Dem.

Crucial terms are not clarified.

In the current climate, I tend towards cynical. As OldCrone says above:
But what do they mean by sex? If they mean biology, there isn't a problem, but if they mean the sex marker on your birth certificate, it means men can be women, and the protected characteristic of sex disappears at that point. If men can be women just because they say they are, and get their birth certificate changed to say female, then sex becomes a matter of choice, not biology. It therefore no longer exists in any meaningful sense.

and up way later than I should be Yep. Me too. Night night.

I'm not disagreeing with you as to the self ID pitfall (or even, frankly, the GRC pitfall.in the first place).

But I'm knackered, and up way later than I should be, and I havne got the energy for this. Off to ma bed.

Whatever bastardization occurs due to the GRA or any reform thereof, one of the protected characteristics in the EA2010 is sex.

But what do they mean by sex? If they mean biology, there isn't a problem, but if they mean the sex marker on your birth certificate, it means men can be women, and the protected characteristic of sex disappears at that point. If men can be women just because they say they are, and get their birth certificate changed to say female, then sex becomes a matter of choice, not biology. It therefore no longer exists in any meaningful sense.

Whatever bastardization occurs due to the GRA or any reform thereof, one of the protected characteristics in the EA2010 is sex. I get that this has been weakened by successive utter fucking cobblers, but it's there, and this person seemed to think that it wasn't.

despite the fact that EA does not even use ‘cis’.

Ha Ha Ha Ha - who'dda thought it?

they think the EA2010 absolutely does not include any rights for women, and that the idea is so ridiculous they have put the words rights in scare quotes.

I'm not sure that the EA2010 does include rights for women. From what I've been reading today, there's nothing definitive that says people with a GRC can be excluded from single sex spaces for their acquired legal sex. In fact, there seems to be more evidence that they can't.

Which is why self-ID is so dangerous.

That Twitter thread includes this corker-

Please may we put our heads together and work up some ways of helping people to understand EA2010, as mentioned. I think there may be people who truly believe that it includes discrete ‘rights’ for cis women (and cis men), despite the fact that EA does not even use ‘cis’.

Now, I know we're not 'cis' women, and this person is talking about women here (clearly men are an afterthought in parenthesis) but this is a statement that they think the EA2010 absolutely does not include any rights for women, and that the idea is so ridiculous they have put the words rights in scare quotes. I mean, do we need to list the protected characteristics again?

Remind me again how 'trans rights' absolutely will not affect women's rights? Or do they simply mean 'Women have no rights, so why would anything affect that?' Jaysus.

I am no elephant but my memory serves up the following on this topic and it is going to take a bit more than "hang fire terfs and vote for us please (til the legal fiction sorts out these uppity terfs)".

www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/transgender-woman-heather-peto-chosen-1323503
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lily-madigan-labour-party-transgender-officer-mp-young-abuse-threats-a8225771.html
www.rt.com/uk/410541-rape-twitter-transgender-labour/
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/22/labour-allows-male-activist-stand-womens-officer-identifies/

Doesn’t look like Ellie Mae is putting out accurate information, just a regurgitated 2017 manifesto:

twitter.com/MissEllieMae/status/1197632658806845444?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

From Ellie Mae O'Hagan on Twitter

'I'm delighted Labour has confirmed that "single-sex spaces" mentioned in its manifesto are trans inclusive, and that the party is committed to trans rights. See statement below from a Labour spokesperson: (sorry don't know how to link)

'To be clear, I spoke to someone directly at Labour comms to obtain this statement. I have had absolute confirmation that this is the party's official position'

I'm still not buying any of it. That said, overall I'd rather have Corbyn in Downing St than Johnson (in the same way that I'd rather have pneumonia than Ebola)

But I'm quite convinced that the Tories will romp home with a thumping majority so Labour's self ID plans are largely irrelevant.

Shows what times we are living in when you have to be grateful for Liz Truss.

I’ve got the Winds of Change in my head now thanks to this thread 😂

Suggests some strong voices kept arguing, even if only arguing that women have noticed what's going on and don't like
Suggests they’re so desperate for votes they’ll trot out any line to get them.

Gosh, some people are gullible.

This is Labour, the party of Brexit fudge here.

It's just before an election and they want back some of the votes of women as well as the votes of the woke.

Think they actually suddenly magically care about women? Labour? The party of Dawn Butler and Lily Madigan??

Ha ha. Pull the other one. It's got knobs on.

Agree with Lang; aren't the LGBT+ crew just re-quoting what Dawn B said in Penis News the other day? And it looks like that was over-ridden for the final version. Which is a significant indication of the up-to-the-line discussions which must have been going on. Suggests some strong voices kept arguing, even if only arguing that women have noticed what's going on and don't like it.

They have already demonstrated that TWAW in their AWS so single sex spaces is just a sop.

They believe TWAW so single-sex spaces for women will include TW.

LGBT+ Labour update and clarification

I think they've used an old quote of Butler's and implied it was issued after the manifesto launch. Looks like panic to me. Wasn't the "outdated language" bit in the 2017 manifesto?

I call bullshit. They have already demonstrated that TWAW in their AWS so single sex spaces is just a sop. They think we're stupid.

We're not.

I am swaying with the "it's an acknowledgement that there is an issue so that's progress" view.

I'd love to see a good, close-in journalist (eg Janice Turner) grill Dawn Butler or Angela Raynor on this because they'd trip themselves up in 10 seconds flat.

Macareux, I don't think they are happy. That tweet looks like damage control to me.

The funny thing about that Labour LGBT+ update is that it hasn't occurred to them that anyone under the umbrella except 'lesbians and bi women' might need IVF. As though humans were mammals with two reproductive sexes, one of which gestates young. So old-fashioned!