How will we ever get these disgraceful Tories out, if Starmer keeps spouting this nonsense?

@AdamRyan In no way has he said he supports self ID

He has made a public statement of support for self ID;
twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1227878854183792642

Self ID is the second demand;
twitter.com/LGBTLabour/status/1227654076453859331

I also think it's a bit naive to think that problems with rape convictions are down to the Tories. That is a much bigger problem which I suspect has to do with changes in the way evidence is considered more generally, related to technology. It's also a problem in countries outside of the UK with similar kinds of systems.

Way too many ‘things’ in my post 🤔

All of it but especially the bold part

That's a great post NonnyMouse.

I just don't get how anyone can say the CP and LP are comparable on this.

About the most positive thing I could say if I wanted to be optimistic is that the LP leadership knows they have no chance of being elected, so maybe they don't think they will ever need to take action on self-id.

But that's a supposition and frankly if they are taking that view, they are as good as saying they don't intend to offer a credible opposition and are happy not to be in power. They are happy for Tory policies to go forward when push comes to shove.

In Scotland, the blasphemy law hadn't been used for nearly 200 years, yet it took that long to repeal it.

In recent years we've ended up with a modern version of the blasphemy law across the UK via hate speech and the non-crime hate incident bullshit that is being used to harass people because it prioritises the completely subjective word of a person with zero evidence. Everyone knows it's bad legislation but political parties don't want to address it because they don't want to be seen as 'getting rid of hate crime laws'.

Same thing with the GRA. Falsifying factual information on birth certificates and other forms of identification is being used to promote the narrative that people have literally changed their sex and therefore are entitled to single-sex spaces and services that are not supposed to include them. This is bad legislation and will continue to affect women's legal ability to completely exclude males, but again no political party will explicitly look at addressing this because repealing the GRA and implementing a better one will be framed very negatively.

Once legislation is embedded, no matter how damaging it is, it is very difficult to remove it. You can tinker around the edges, but the problem will still remain.

I'm astounded that some people are under the naive illusion that once self-id is established in law, it will be easily and quickly removed when women (especially those with the least ability to advocate for themselves) are being hurt by it. Rapists and pedophiles are already being housed in women's prisons NOW and politicians are not in a hurry to address this. You think it will be a piece of piss to repeal self-id?

Using the current state of poor provision around women's rights and protections to justify letting through even more shitty legislation that will affect women's rights and protections is not the convincing argument that you think it is. Guilt tripping and name calling only works on some women, not all of us.

In no way has he said he supports self ID so I'm not sure he has let this one go. He's dealing with other things first I think/hope

This to me just reads as still fence sitting and again women, we will get to your issues after the revolution now be a babe and make the tea.

We are important, just as important as men, just for once our issues are such that they need dealing with right now, not later when its convenient.
I require answers that centre me, we've centred men for the last eon, now it is womens turn.

I did have a big ranty bit then that I've taken out, because I dont want to get banned from pretty much the only site that even let's us discuss this stuff.

But Ken how can you possibly know how and to what extent all the things you are listing are affecting women if the definition of women is - adult human female plus any man who says they feel like one

It’s impossible to get accurate data if you can’t establish what is meant by women

Without accurate data you can’t create policies that meet the needs of women

In no way has he said he supports self ID so I'm not sure he has let this one go. He's dealing with other things first I think/hope

I think if self ID (A TORY POLICY) comes in itll be overturned at somepoint , once its seen to not work and disadvantage women

kendodd

I read your posts, I have a lot of respect for you as a poster on here and I do absolutely take in your opinions on things and think about my attitudes to certain things

But do you honestly and truly believe what you just said, are there no caveats at all?

I get for some women this is the only issue in politics that matters. The Tories could have make rape legal in the manifesto (in fairness they pretty much have) and they would still win your vote if they were against self ID . For me there's a bigger picture, what would do more harm to women overall, and they Tories have consistently, throughout past and recent history shown how little they care for women. Rape convictions is just one thing. Pushing women into poverty and food bank use another. Cutting access to legal aid another. Doing pretty much nothing to stop father financially walking away from their children another and actually making it harder for mothers to get child support. I could go on and on. The Tories are no friend to women. But, like I said, I get for some self ID (a Tory policy) is the only issue.

I don't think Starmer in any way believes TWAW. His focus right now is bringing the party under his control and purging it of electorally toxic views - as was seen over threatening to withdraw the whip from MPs who signed the anti-NATO statement. I think he has calculated that this issue is one he can concede to the loony bits of the party, because he judges it to be a fringe issue. But he has very seriously miscalculated how badly this will end up damaging Labour, and has now personally tarnished himself by stepping in and making the statements that he has. He will find it very hard to get away from those statements at a general election.

Tony Blair, however, gets it - of course!

And as for this -

How many women will have to suffer?
How many suffering is too many?

Right back at you.
How many rape victims going without justice under the Tories cuts to police and justice services is to many? 96%? 98%? How many is too many?

In 2016, the House of Commons' Women and Equalities Committee issued a report recommending that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 be updated "in line with the principles of gender self-declaration".[133] Later in 2016, in England and Wales, a proposal was developed under Theresa May's government to revise the Act to introduce self-identification, but it was dropped in 2020 after opposition. Instead, Boris Johnson's government reduced the cost of application to £5, and the procedure to apply was moved online.[4][6]

The crucial bit is in bold.

The Conservatives (or at least some in the party) are embarrassed by their previous stance on gay rights in past decades. Public opinion on homosexuality has shifted significantly and same-sex marriage was eventually successful. As a result, many politicians across all parties think that 'trans' and 'gender identity' issues are exactly the same as the gay rights movement. They are scared of being called homophobic and gender identity activists love to exploit this fear.

The advice in the Denton's report tells gender identity activists to massage the egos of all politicians - tell them they will be on the right side of history by supporting self-id. Lots of lobbying in the background away from public scrutiny and transparency - attaching the controversial trans stuff to issues that have much wider public acceptance like gay marriage.

Most politicians love the thought of 'making a name for themselves' and self-id initially looks like an easy win. Like other parties, the Conservatives jumped on the trans bandwagon because they thought it wouldn't take much effort to implement self-id and it would be an easy win to make them look progressive since the gender identity brigade keeps telling everyone it's no big deal.

The important bit is that even though the Conservatives thought self-id was an easy win, they responded to opposition. Some have clearly grasped the harms to women and children emanating from this ideology. And overall the party is SMART enough to realise that self-id isn't a vote winner. Staying in power is important to the Conservative party and I can't fault them for that. It's what I'd expect from any political party of substance. Once they realised self-id was going to be a political shitshow, the leadership was clever enough to change course. Reducing the fee to a fiver and switching to online applications was a stroke of genius. How are the gender zealots going to screech about the 'trauma' and 'degradation' of such a process now? They will have to find another hyperbolic angle.

Yes there are still politicians within the Conservative party that want to push for self-id, but opposition to them is getting vocal.
I have no doubt that if Labour were in power, self-id would have been steamrolled through. Leadership appears to be consistently spineless, unable to push back against zealots even though it is clear that public support is not there for these wacky ideas. If this is what the party is like without power, it doesn't inspire confidence in people that they can handle the pressures of being in power.

Labour doesn't come across as a serious party. Much of UK voters are fairly centrist and socially conservative. The public perception is that the Labour party is focused on trendy activism that is popular with its niche, affluent supporters and prefers 'purity' over pragmatism.
Research repeatedly shows this is the public perception but the Labour party just cannot acknowledge this for some reason.
They are hamstrung by their over-reliance on divisive identity politics that spans much more than just the gender identity stuff, and the Conservatives are smart enough to exploit that for their own benefit.

And yet Boris Johnson, just two years ago, made it considerably easier to get a GRC.

I've written to all the main parties about self ID tbh it was a long time ago and I can't really remember what they wrote back. I wrote more to try to add weight to numbers than for a reply. Anyway, none of them wrote back saying they don't want my vote (I would have remembered that). I think most wrote back waffle about considering all positions blar, blar, blar. I don't remember any concrete twaw reply.

I don't get the question. Yes, the Tories initially were positive to the idea of self-id. As were many women including some on the thread now.

They have backed off, and also allow their MPs to speak their mind on the issue. Some have been pretty active in speaking against it.

Labour and the other left parties OTOH have embraced it, say they will implement it, say things like you shouldn't say only a woman has a cervix, silence and even expel MPs and members who do not agree, and told voters that if they disagreed, they did not want their votes.

What are people not seeing here?

So, self ID, proposed by Teresa May's government, after six years of Tory rule, was a Labour policy.
I just don't know what to say to that.

[quote Kendodd]**@Terfydactyl

Self Id was not a Tory policy, what makes you think it was?
More to the point, why do you and almost everyone else think it isn't? Genuine question. Why has self ID, a TORY policy managed to damage every party EXCEPT the Tories.

In 2016, the House of Commons' Women and Equalities Committee issued a report recommending that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 be updated "in line with the principles of gender self-declaration".[133] Later in 2016, in England and Wales, a proposal was developed under Theresa May's government to revise the Act to introduce self-identification, but it was dropped in 2020 after opposition. Instead, Boris Johnson's government reduced the cost of application to £5, and the procedure to apply was moved online.[4][6][/quote]
I sort of get where this is coming from now but I know the history and I (and many others) saw this coming back in about 2002 for me. Back when unless my memory is totes shite labour were in power.

Now obviously your going to say no way it's from 2016, but I guarantee you it started way way before then.

So I stand by it's a labour policy and it's been nudged along by labour and momentum and interested parties until it finally reached a tipping point around 6 years ago.

@Terfydactyl

Self Id was not a Tory policy, what makes you think it was?
More to the point, why do you and almost everyone else think it isn't? Genuine question. Why has self ID, a TORY policy managed to damage every party EXCEPT the Tories.

In 2016, the House of Commons' Women and Equalities Committee issued a report recommending that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 be updated "in line with the principles of gender self-declaration".[133] Later in 2016, in England and Wales, a proposal was developed under Theresa May's government to revise the Act to introduce self-identification, but it was dropped in 2020 after opposition. Instead, Boris Johnson's government reduced the cost of application to £5, and the procedure to apply was moved online.[4][6]

And since it will turn out to be a vague mix of:

• stating material reality
• believing in biological fact
• pointing out where women's rights are incompatible
• maintaining responsibility for standard safeguarding, duty of care and due diligence
• saying that inclusion and kindness and accessibility for females must be equally important to the wishes of male people who transition
• female people saying no and maintaining boundaries based on their bodily autonomy, consent and requiring equal consideration of privacy, dignity and voiced experience to those of TQ+ male people
• saying things that someone doesn't like hearing

It's either going to end up looking completely batshit and rendering the party unelectable on multiple grounds, or agreeing that actual 'transphobia' is rare and not just people saying things like 'other people have rights too and we need to find solutions that work for all, not just TQ+ male people'.

Interesting thread in Chat.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4503978-Being-curious-how-many-of-you-are-thinking-to-vote-Labour-in-May-election-just-as-a-revenge-to-the-superiority-that-carried-by-Tory

Wasn’t sure where to post this, but an update today from the Labour Party’s latest NEC Equalities sub-committee meeting:

www.annblack.co.uk/nec-update-march-2022/

Interesting bit: “ We continue asking for a code of conduct on transphobia but were informed that the party is awaiting the outcome of multiple legal cases.” I infer that this means those at the top are very aware of Maya’s case and others (which ones might they be referring to? I don’t know what happened with the challenge to the legality of TW on all women shortlists).

The concerning bit: “I was also disturbed to discover that emails which the sender believes to be private are treated in the same way as public postings on social media. So a word of advice: if you get angry about repeated requests from “Keir” or “Angela” for money or support, watch what you say. Your response will not be read by Keir or Angela but by staff, who may report it if you express unacceptable views, and you may be suspended or worse. And so-called private WhatsApp groups are not private either. You have been warned.”

I doubt this is directly about sex-based concerns - I suspect the writer is warning those who write frustrated/“abusive”emails to or about the current leadership. But it is worrying for anyone who is still a member of the Labour Party who writes expressing concerns about the party’s approach to sex based rights. I have always assumed that many such emails don’t make it to the named recipients and are dealt with by staffers. If the culture is now one where those emails can form the basis of complaints that’s deeply concerning.

And that goes for whatever party women feel they can and should join.

That being said, on that basis some years ago I joined the Green Party in my country, and eventually I left over this and other identity politics related issues. The thing I most valued about the Greens, apart from the fact that they seemed to look a little deeper into the origins of some social problems rather than simply wanting to band-aid them with social programs, was the fact that they do not whip their MPs, and expect them to represent the views of the constituents who voted them in. Which I think is fundamental to our system.

Right up until there was a bit of a controversy and the leader made it clear that they would achieve the same thing by other means if it means doing something that party members found upsetting.

I've somewhat come to the conclusion that there may be more room for influence within conservative parties around moving to a more pre-Thatcher approach to things like investment in infrastructure and social programs. There has already, in my country, been increased support from legislation around union and worker rights in the Conservative Party.

All of which to say - that is an avenue worth considering as well, that may in the end be more effective than trying to move Labour away from identity politics.

“The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) provides a procedure for a person to apply for a gender recognition certificate (GRC). Most applicants must provide two medical reports, evidencing a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and outlining details of any treatment received
The consequence of receiving a GRC is that the applicant is treated in the eyes of the law as being of their acquired gender.
In January 2016, the Women and Equalities Committee published a report on Transgender Equality. The report criticised the GRA for its dated “medicalised approach” and recommended reform in line with the principles of gender self-identification.”