Starmer may make the Labour Party electable

Please, never assume I've seen anything important. Always harass me. I'm frustrated I can't think of anyone else to sign it.

Wasn't this also the bill that Stephen Whittle, TM and with really rather exceptionally dirty hands in all this, said had been successfully slid in under the radar with barely anyone noticing and 'no fuss in the press'?

I think this is the same individual who mentioned lots of cosy cups of tea with key people behind closed doors to manipulate them. The game plan has always included keeping everything as secret and disguised as possible so it slides through unquestioned, with a lot of soothing 'nothing to see here' noises and No Debate as the back up when that began to fail.

This pernicious movement's main fear has always been people waking up to what they were doing in time to prevent them.

Labour badly need to win back seats from the SNP so why is Starmer essentially backing such an unpopular move? This was his chance to show how much better Labour could be compared with the SNP. All the waffle and fudge just makes him look devious and untrustworthy. I suppose, as already noted, he’s hamstrung by the TRA types in his own party who seem to have a lot more sway than their counterparts in the Tories. Having said that, this seems to be a dangerously divisive issue for both parties.

Yes. He does, as quoted a few times here and across other threads - I'm on my phone but I'll try and find you a direct quote. He seems to acknowledge only one aspect of the legislation around a GRC. He has a habit of not setting out the whole issue.

scratchedbymycat · Today 09:57
I've signed that and shared with everyone I know. Got DH to share with his friends too and ask them to share etc. Wish I could sign it every day instead of checking if it's moving

Sorry to have seemed to harry you, scratched especially with all that sharing you did!

I hope though that anyone here reading what you said about improving the legislation around GRCs, will see the point of signing if they haven’t yet.

I read the Guardian (yes, I know!) but usually scan the other papers online. It was in the Mail and being presented as from his spokesman - www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11651245/Keir-Starmer-sides-Nicola-Sturgeon-Scottish-gender-law.html#article-11651245

Does he? Not even the law says that...?

I've signed that and shared with everyone I know. Got DH to share with his friends too and ask them to share etc. Wish I could sign it every day instead of checking if it's moving.

With Kelly-Jay standing against him, does he really think he's got a chance to get away with weasel words. Does he really think the media won't cover it. Does he really think the Tories don't spot an opportunity.
Remember to win the next election, Labour needs people to get out and vote on a massive scale.
I will never vote Tory so I will continue to spoil my ballot paper until Labour gets its act together on this. And the more of us they fail to convince, the harder it will be to get a workable majority at the next election. Or any majority.
Not in my fucking name.

I cannot find any evidence that the GRA has been amended to remove the need for medical checks. Please could you tell us where this has come from?

The fact that he keeps on stating that a GRC means the holder must be admitted/ accepted in to female spaces is fucking infuriating - and the reason that everything he says about 'women' is based on that lie.

Starmer’s word salad!

^scratchedbymycat* · Today 09:06
My gut instinct is Labours GRC reform won't go as far as the SNPs. For a start - Keir Starmer said he was not happy that some of the amendments proposed for the GRR had been voted down implying it should have been more cautious.

I've learned in this thread that tightening the EA is necessary as well. It's not enough to assume exemptions will be applied - legislation needs to back it up in some way. If he did both, then reform might work.

Surely it would be better if both women and trans people were happy? As opposed to sacrificing women.

Re: what you said about it “not being enough to assume exemptions will be applied - legislation needs to back it up in some way”

I wondered if you had seen this petition to
to update the Equality Act to make clear that ‘sex’ means biological sex, not sex as modified by a Gender Recognition Certificate?

To sign and share the petition,
⬇️
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

Labour are absolutely awful but the Tories are bloody terrible. I wouldn't trust Starmer with a paper run but that is all we have basically. ( At least we are not in Scotland😭). I think he is watching and seeing what Nicola is not getting away with re the GRR and thinking "fuck". Don't get me wrong ,the nutter wokes in the Party will be pushing for Labour to have full self Id in the manifesto and much tantrums will occur.
I am sick of it all. The Tories are removing our right to strike and the NHS is crumbling and I am reluctant to vote Labour as they are so woeful.

My gut instinct is Labours GRC reform won't go as far as the SNPs. For a start - Keir Starmer said he was not happy that some of the amendments proposed for the GRR had been voted down implying it should have been more cautious.

I've learned in this thread that tightening the EA is necessary as well. It's not enough to assume exemptions will be applied - legislation needs to back it up in some way. If he did both, then reform might work.

Surely it would be better if both women and trans people were happy? As opposed to sacrificing women.

OK.

I think those letters now are critically important. I was up until 1:30am writing one jointly to Lloyd Russel-Moyes and Starmer after I finally actually saw footage of LRM vicious outburst in Parliament.

I'm going to write something supplementary to go in with Starmer's and I'm sending it recorded delivery.

What you heard / read was in the Telegraph, so I'm smelling a bit of politicking going on. The most alarming thing said is this:

"The Labour leader has said he will “update” the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) if elected, despite warnings that doing so would impact women’s rights and could enable <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/mrrck/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/18/predatory-sex-offenders-could-exploit-new-gender-recognition/" rel="nofollow" target="blank">predatory menen to access single-sex spaces.*"

The Starmer quote is "update". Kier Starmer said the GRC law needed reform on the Nick Ferrari show as well earlier this week - the same show where I felt I saw light. I think it needs possibly reform too - but not the way Scotland did it.

I am accepting there will be reform, but I don't know what the reform will look like.

On that, The Telegraph says this:

"Sir Keir’s commitment could mean legislation in the UK mirrors changes <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/mrrck/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/22/scotland-passes-gender-reform-bill-snp-nicola-sturgeon/" rel="nofollow" target="blank">passed by the Scottish Parliamentnt on Thursday, which allow people as young as 16 to change their legal gender by signing a declaration.*"

Note the "could mean" speculation and deliberate fanning of flames.

And this - read carefully - my square brackets:

The Telegraph can reveal [implies new information ] that Sir Keir has promised the LGBT community that he would take similar action on the GRA in England and Wales if elected.

In a message to Pink News for Pride last year [is this the reveal? ... last year ...?] he said his priority was “forming the next government so we can introduce legislation and change society so that, whoever you are, you can lead a happy and fulfilled life. We are committed to updating the GRA to introduce self-declaration for trans people”.

No, this is the reveal. Just confirming last year's position which Starmer confirmed on LBC anyway.

A party spokesman said: “All political parties agree that the process needs modernising. A future Labour government will consult on what that looks like, while upholding the Equality Act and maintaining single-sex spaces.

“Labour has a strong and proud record of standing up for women’s rights. Our commitment to them is unrelenting.”

So actually - unless he's made a statement since - literally nothing has changed since Monday when I sensed massive reservations from him re Scotland's approach.

"A future Labour government will consult on what that looks like,"

Please god, not like the SNP consultations.

Oh no 😰

Yes, I saw the reports of what KS had said. So it seems clear now that when he said he would protect same sex spaces, he meant “unless a man who wants to go in tells you he is a woman”. So insulting to women. So weasely. How can I trust him now with anything?

@scratchedbymycat I've just read today that Keir Starmer doesn't believe that England should be blocking the GRA in Scotland because it doesn't present a threat to single sex spaces. Apparently he can't see anything in it that's problematic. This is HUGELY worrying and suggests that he's not on board with the concerns of biological women.

His point is apparently that you can't refuse entry to someone with a GRC at the moment, so there's no difference. Conveniently missing the point that as it's radically simpler and easier to get a certificate, lots of questionable individuals may be able to access single sex spaces.

Honestly, every time I think maybe there's a chink of light, the door is slammed shut again.

I loathe the Tories with every inch of my being but I'm delighted they're blocking the GRA. I think there may be a constitutional fall-out over it, but that's a risk I'm prepared to take to prevent Nicola Sturgeon's ridiculous vision reaching England.

In other news, apparently Rosie Duffield was shouted down by Labour MPs when she spoke in the Commons about her concerns. I haven't heard it myself, just seen it reported.

In 2017 Tory PM Theresa May removed the need for medical checks for Trans folk, thereby saying that the feeling of being the other sex was enough to make it real.🤯

@TrainedByCats

What was I doing? 2004 ... recovering from male violence initially, and I wasn't aware of the GRC at all. I then spent 15 years working obsessively in human rights focussing on a country outside the UK. I wasn't aware of any issues re the GRC during that time. I've been hyper aware of what's been going on in recent years (but not the actual nitty gritty legal detail). Very very triggered, in fact ... I don't think I ever fully recovered.

@ScrollingLeaves

If they amend the GRC, then they need to address the inheritance/ title bit quickly. Let's see how quickly men freak out about the possibility women will abuse the GRC for personal gain.

OvaHere · Today 13:54
Thank you. What a good explanation.

The Blair government then was apparently golden. It seemed charismatic and they were good at using ‘spin’ very well.

I had no idea of this bill then.

No one announced
“We have a new law which will make it legal to lie about your sex even on your birth certificate and create the legal fiction ( what a euphemism, what an oxymoron) that you are the opposite sex for all purposes.”

(Except if you were born an aristocratic woman: in that case, if you ever become a man, you cannot inherit the title or estate even if you are the only child in the immediate family.)

why has there not been visceral anger and demands for clarification dating back to 2004 and through all the years in between?

2004 I had young children a full time job and I didn’t hear anything about this legislation come in.

However when the GRA reform consultation was announced like many women I attended a discussion meeting where trans activists hammered on the windows and doors and we had to exit through a narrow space between a group of aggressive young men towering over me rather than the police dispersing them and when I noticed I was being followed back to my car I had to evade the young man following me (advantage of being stalked previously is you notice quickly and have honed your evasion techniques).

In the meantime online discussions women were being shouted down and women who expressed anger/asked for clarification were being expelled from twitter, facebook and mumsnet among other places. Our anger and requests for clarification were being ignored by our MPs (I’ve lost count how often I’ve written to mine on this).

What have you been doing?

@OvaHere - Thank you. In fact, thanks to all of you for taking the time to explain. It's deepening my understanding a great deal. I did think I had a very good grasp of it all, but my grasp is probably more current and less historical (well, excluding researching how QueerTheory grew out of postmodernism and the 1960s rights movements and French philosophers). I need to get to grips with the laws and how they evolved etc. You are helping me fill in blanks.

A body responsible for regulating the participation of persons as competitors in an event or events involving a gender-affected sport may, if subsection (2) is satisfied, prohibit or restrict the participation as competitors in the event or events of persons whose gender has become the acquired gender under this Act.

This subsection is satisfied if the prohibition or restriction is necessary to secure—

fair competition, or

the safety of competitors,
at the event or events.

“Sport” means a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature.

A sport is a gender-affected sport if the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one gender would put them at a disadvantage to average persons of the other gender as competitors in events involving the sport.

From the GRC? Why aren't those bodies allowing TW to compete against or alongside women being taken to court?