Labour promises to keep single-sex exemptions

I met Rayner to discuss the GRA. Results not hopeful. makemorenoise.libsyn.com/suffragette-city-radio-extra-one

Labour have shown time and time again just how much they despise women. The front bench can't even hide their distain for women's rights. They lost my vote and my trust.

I hope the likes of Angela Rayner, Dawn Butler et all lose their seats. They don't deserve them, they are not fit to represent the people of this country.

IIRC, 'updating' the GRA 'but there are the exemptions' was the stance of the conservative party/W&E around the time of the consultation.

This was gradually muted with mumblings of 'unintended consequences' and the long grass waved invitingly as circumstances slowed down the report of the consultation.

I feel like we have been here before, but Labour has not yet reached stage 1.

Swinson do one and take rayner with you

And that’s the crux of the matter - men’s gender identities are not up for debate. Women, you’re female now STFU.

If they do change the Equality Act to gender identity what happens if you have no gender identity?

You will be assigned one and compelled to use it.

Yeah I don’t see how gender identity is workable. It’s a bit like saying my personality must be a protected characteristic. For instance if someone’s gender identity is not a quantifiable thing - which seems to be what non-binary is - how on earth is it enforceable.

Well said Arnold.

Good stuff on Marr, Angela, good stuff. Way to go in fucking up your own election campaign. You fool.

Angela Rayner says she wants to "make sure everyone feels valued"

Dear Angela Rayner,

Rest assured I do not feel valued when your party allows any XY individual who declares themselves a 'woman' into spaces where I am vulnerable due to being in a state of undress or unconsciousness.

I do not feel valued when you try to prevent me withholding consent from XY individuals touching me intimately if they declare themselves 'women'.

I do not feel valued when you allow XY individuals who declare themselves 'women' to compete in women's and girls' sport or on to all women short lists or to take women's prizes.

I do not feel valued when you allow XY individuals who declare themselves 'women' to be counted as women for statistical purposes undermining the legitimacy of those statistics.

I do not feel valued when you knowingly put those women who are most vulnerable, prisoners, sexual assault survivors, women who have suffered domestic abuse, women from religious minorities, women with learning disabilities, at risk by allowing any XY individual who declares themselves a 'woman' into women's prisons, shelters, rape counselling services, support groups.

I do not feel valued when you undermine my right to freedom of thought, conscience, belief and speech by cowtowing to demands of XY individuals who declare themselves 'women' that people who do not share their unsubstantiated beliefs about themselves be punished for stating the truth that they are not, never have been and never can be women.

I do not feel valued when you try to prevent me speaking out against the horrific medical experimentation being carried out on children.

I do not feel valued when you try to prevent me speaking of how teenagers and vulnerable adults are being groomed online by those advocating this medical experimentation.

Take your lies and shove them. You don't give a shit about whether people feel valued, only whether people are willing to pander to an ideology that has no credibility and is causing enormous real world harm.

Yours, one of millions of not valued at all and very pissed off voters.

Much as I long to believe there's some hope that the LP will support us, there's no evidence to suggest that's the case, and plentiful evidence to the contrary.

I think they have been quite clear about what they want to do. They are going to keep the 'single-sex' exemptions in the EA2010, so they will still allow services and spaces to be segregated by sex - hospital wards, prisons etc.

At the same time, as Dawn Butler says "there is no way spaces will be permitted to discriminate against trans people." This means that they won't enforce the gender reassignment exemptions, which allow single sex services to exclude transgender people with a GRC using the proportionate/legitimate clause. I am not sure whether this exemption is actually enforceable in a real-life situation, and there have been some barristers saying the same.

Julian Norman said:
"it is legal for an organisation to exclude a trans person even with a GRC. Whether this is possible in practice is a moot point."
filia.org.uk/news/2018/8/23/has-everyone-really-got-it-wrong#

Claire McCann said her evidence to parliament regarding Transgender Equality:
"I would doubt that a service-provider of single-sex or separate services could turn away a trans service-user who holds a GRC because this is unlikely to be proportionate."
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/39007.htm

Also, with their trans-inclusive AWS, they are showing no commitment to reserving anything for female-born people only.

TL;DR - Labour says single sex spaces will be kept but they will be fully trans inclusive.

I'm pretty sure Angela Raynor, like Butler, is on the TWAW wing of the party. She is also normally very loyal to Corbyn. My guess is that she understands the situation perfectly.

If they do change the Equality Act to gender identity what happens if you have no gender identity?
How can they measure...anything? It’s such a nebulous term that surely it will be unworkable in the long term, and dangerous in the short term.

I've been frantically trying to cling on to the notion that the single-sex paragraph in the Manifesto meant what it appeared to mean but, as Lang says, if that was the case someone senior would have been wheeled out to clarify it. All we've had is half a sentence from LauraP followed rapidly by a trans-supportive gloss. And then today's waffle from AR who clearly has no real understanding of the situation.

Much as I long to believe there's some hope that the LP will support us, there's no evidence to suggest that's the case, and plentiful evidence to the contrary. We appear to be doomed.

The Labour party has decided that the quickest route to 'Equality' is to abolish all the causes and reasons for inequality. By abolishing sex as an actual thing - we can all live happily ever after in the great Socialist utopia.

That does seem to be what they want. "gender assignment" could be both "gender reassignment" and the "gender assigned at birth" i.e. sex. If they replace these with "gender identity", they will have abolished sex in a legal sense. And "gender identity" is a concept with no clear definition - even the adherents of the faith can't define it in a way that they all agree on, let alone one that makes sense.

Look, if nobody on the front bench is prepared to come and defend what is, in effect, a fairly lukewarm offer of compromise in the manifesto - it says all that needs saying.

There's an article in the Sunday Times today

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/general-election-labour-putting-women-at-risk-with-manifesto-trans-pledge-k62klvldd?shareToken=1aae014e0dbe161a3b374c2974de14ee

The quality of most shadow cabinet members and the Labour party front bench is shocking. Pure tokenism most of it. No intellectual rigour. No grasp of the brief! Shocking!

Now I see! The Labour party has decided that the quickest route to 'Equality' is to abolish all the causes and reasons for inequality. By abolishing sex as an actual thing - we can all live happily ever after in the great Socialist utopia

For years our staff survey at work indicated that there was a big institutional issue of bullying. Following a few years of half-hearted attempts to deal with this, the management then decided to no longer ask any questions about bullying in the staff survey. Hey presto! The university no longer has a problem with bullying. All sorted!

abolition of sex

The labour one, was say how it is so completed and hard to transition and it's not a easy decision to make, "it's not just growing your hair and buying a dress"

Total confusion reins.

Self ID means precisely that; in fact you don't need to grow your hair, or even shave your beard - you can just "expand the bandwidth of what it means to be female", and 'hey presto'.

And did anyone ask those old school transexuals how they feel about the abolition sex, and with it their identity?

Ah ok @oldcrone I didn’t realise that had changed.

At least you could choose to say your gender identity had changed if you wanted to move - whereas you can’t change your biology.

Dawn Butler et al seem to believe both that sex that doesn't exist and that trans people don't exist. confused

Now I see! The Labour party has decided that the quickest route to 'Equality' is to abolish all the causes and reasons for inequality. By abolishing sex as an actual thing - we can all live happily ever after in the great Socialist utopia. We can all wear virtual reality head-sets and be done with it.

The labour one, was say how it is so completed and hard to transition and it's not a easy decision to make, "it's not just growing your hair and buying a dress".

Yet that is exactly what self ID will allow, any Tom dick or Harry to do, or even not do.... and hey presto! They say they are a woman now they are. I was frustrated Andrew Marr didn't point this out.

The trouble is, if I don't vote Labour I'll be helping to let in the Lib Dems (in my constituency) and I've a bad feeling this is exactly what Stonewall would like me to do.

Only gender identity is recognised and a gender identity does not change

Dear God!.....The truth is 'identity' shifts and changes in all of us throughout our lives. Identity is not a fixed concept or 'thing'.

The world has gone mad! When our, supposed, leaders and politicians believe this stuff. Even worse - when they don't believe it, but say they do, anyway......That's why the Labour party cannot be trusted on this issue. This is pure recklessness.