If Starmer stated what a woman is...

@lady69

And since people who know what a woman is can’t even safely attend the Labour conference, the chances of that zealot taking over at some point are too high for my liking.

No safeguarding problem or accommodation problem if pupil in girls only school changes gender , as their sex doesn't change( still female) . Safeguarding is an issue if school allows a male pupil who identifies as a girl into school, also changes school to mixed sex and would therefore be discriminatory to exclude other male pupils.

No. Because we vote for parties not leaders. I could only vote for him if i lived in his constituency. And labour would need to enshrine it in their manifesto for me to believe they, as a party, believe it. As good luck him saying it, you voting labour because of it and then him
being booted and a TWAW zealot out in his place.

On the issue of single sex schools. I was talking to a neighbour whose dd goes to an all girls' school. Her dd's best friend has come out as a trans man and has changed their name. They still attend the girls' school however I don't know what changing room they use

The girl is going to have to remain in the same changing room as there will not be alternatives (and the school would be foolish to start providing additional space).

What would be the implications of a male pupil at the boys' school who became a trans woman and insisted on attending to the girls' school?

The single sex school would have to make a decision on accepting a male so decide if it remains single sex or not. As an organisation, removing the key selling point which created market differentiation is a big step.

I worry about safeguarding the other pupils if a trans pupil remains at their single sex school or if they change schools.

Safeguarding is only a problem if the school decide to ignore the sex of the student. Eg if the school is mixed sex it would need to either choose to have 2 changing room by sex or 4 by changing room by wants (2 by sex 2 by ID)

I wonder how schools are dealing with these issues.

Some will deal with the situations is a thoughtful way which focuses on finding solutions which meet all the childrens safeguarding requirements, some will throw out the safe guarding rules to "be kind".

To get my vote back, Kier (and the other Labour grandees) do not have to stop saying TWAW.

I don't think they will stop because then they would need to justify why a man getting a GRC leads to him getting a female birth certificate.

No. He'd have to go a hell of a lot further to make up for the staggering weakness/dishonesty he's shown so far. And look at his cabinet. Loads of TWAW. Labour are totally untrustworthy on this.

I had high hopes for him but he is an absolute weasel.

Whatever Starmer says, his cabinet will be Rayner, Nandy, Sobel, Lammy, Dodds... They will set departmental policies. It’s not good enough.

Women are split on the issue though away from the MN echo chamber. If they weren't then i'm sure he would as politicians need votes.

Most women are unaware of this issue because ,up until very recently nobody was talking about it. People are also for the most part quite kind and willing to support people whom they perceive as vulnerable, like traditional transexual people. However, this doesn't mean they actually believe they have changed sex and that they are not horrified to learn that male sex offenders are being sent to female prisons and women are losing their jobs for saying people can't change sex. I am afraid that those who believe TWAW are the ones living in the echo chamber

Labour have gone so far anti-women that I don’t trust what they say unless it is very clear. If they came out for:
single sex prisons, sports, nhs wards, and single sex facilities in schools, then I would consider voting for a Labour candidate as long as he/she was definitely behind that policy.

I used to vote based on thinking about who the most vulnerable person I knew was and whose policies would support that person better. That used to be Labour.

Now I apply that thinking to women because as a sex class women are the most vulnerable especially when you think of VAWG and disabled women.

This means the Tories are the best party but I really don't know if I can bring myself to vote for them.

I may have to research again how to officially spoil my vote so that it gets counted as a spoiler vote.

If Labour could find the courage to support women's rights I would no longer be lost in the wilderness. I don't see them being able to do that.

He chose to pretend though. So he is either a fibber or a fool.

I don’t for a minute think he really believes TWAW.

Hemce I’d be pleased to see him talk sense.

I won't ever vote for him because I think he does believe that men and women have 'different minds', and sometimes a 'man body' is born with a 'woman mind'. I think this belief is offensively sexist. He also appears to lack the critical thinking ability and grasp of logic to see the harm that inevitably ensues to women of changing the legal and social definitions of womanhood in this way, as it is our bodies that make us vulnerable.

This. I'm recoverable, but I need to see concrete pledges.

And bloody Nandy and Rayner a long way away from any ability to impact on women's rights.

To get my vote back, Kier (and the other Labour grandees) do not have to stop saying TWAW.

What they need to do is to show they understand redefining the word woman in this way also changes everything for the original owners of the word and commit to making this enormous social change work honestly and fairly for both groups not just TW.

What they are currently doing, denying the reality that sex is a huge factor in how society treats a person, refusing to acknowledge that if TWAW is true that changes everything for all women, and painting the people who want these realities acknowledged and discussed, is chilling and I can't vote for them while they continue with this DARVO.

Because even if you don't think protecting women's right to exist as a political voice is as important as the other political issues of the day, once they see the electorate doesn't have a problem with them chucking reality under the bus, which inconvenient truth comes next?

As Johnson and Trump realised, if the electorate doesn't punish a party for telling known lies, what's the problem with lying?

The Tories "Fuck me, they really don't care when they KNOW we lie as long as they like the lie we tell them" moment was the Brexit bus. Will TWAW turn out to be Labour's?

They are not really interested in power so much as purity. Remember when Corbyn got thumped at the last election, his response was to say that Labour had "won the argument". As if that meant anything other than fuck all. Labour has always been (apart from the odd outbreak of professionalism under Wilson and Blair) a sixth form debating society. When one of your star commentators is Owen Jones you know you have arrived at twat central.

As people have regularly said about politics since watergate, it's not the act that brings people down, it's the cover up. It was what finally did for BJ.

Starmer is lying when he says TWAW. He doesn't believe it for a nanosecond. I'd actually be more inclined to support him if I thought he believed it. But pretending to believe something so as not to lose support with key parts of the electorate is straight out of Boris' playbook. Remember Boris didn't actually believe in Brexit, he just wanted to be PM.

Yes and Labour appear quite happy to be the forever opposition which is really really depressing. Conservatives have no credible threat for the foreseeable.

No. It would almost be worse than sticking by TWAW, it would just make him a weak weather vane who could easily flip back again.

No of course not. It would be like Oi Keir do you think you can make your mind up sp you’ve a chance? Don’t worry you can change your mind later

I'm not sure women (I mean the bio version here) are split.

I know most women (most people) would be OK with TWAW / TMAM as a general fluffy statement, but, as per the yougov survey that's often posted, if you dig into what they think that means it's not blanket support for the TRA position at all.

I think some women, mostly young, agree TWAW because they are indeed fully on board with "a woman is anyone who says they are a woman". Part of that is #BeKind but also (convinced by pithy but shallow slogans and mic-drops) they believe that tying womanhood to biology or in any way restricting what a woman is is restricting them as women. They see TW being seen as women and themselves being seen as more than the traditional/sexist version of a woman as two sides of the samecoin. They haven't yet lived long enough in a female body to understand how differently they are treated both physically and in respect to the political and social weight placed on their voices.

Howere I think the majority who agree TWAW do so because they assume it means "support those gentle, fragile souls who cannot live happily as their actual sex by treating them as if they were the opposite sex". I don't think it occurs to them to add the caveat "but only if they are physically transitioned or are on the path towards it with ongoing reviews and psychological support, and obviously not with people born male competing in women's sports or taking up women-only positions and opportunities, and obviously sexual assault is a deal breaker" because it never occurred to them any reasonable person would do any of that in the first place. The more this group see their assumption that #BeKind means #AndGetRespectAndConsiderationInReturn is wrong, the more they will start to say #ActuallyNoWeNeedSomeLimitsHere