Ex Head of the Labour party’s domestic policy unit: "Demedicalisation” of the gender recognition makes a mockery of the reserved equality laws that facilitate an accessible public realm for women and girls

" Agree.
I didn’t even know this was a thing until I started looking at the feminist board on mumsnet!
Don’t remember women ever being asked if they were ok with this…..I guess because we weren’t. "
@Yeahrightthen

Well precisely!
It seems to me, that whilst women were allowed, by the two faced with the ability to talk out of both sides of their mouths, to think that they had won some victories over the last few decades, they were really taking away more of our rights, a bit like a literal game of find the lady! " Keep your eyes on the shell that holds the lady ", while it gets shuffled about, only we're not losing money, instead we just lose rights, peace of mind, dignity, safety, etc., but none of that matters because we don't count!

Exactly this. There’s no such thing as collective consent.

All this guff is aimed to force team women into still supporting Labour in return for crumbs which we're supposed to believe are negotiated by Lachlan and his mates behind the scenes and which we uppity female realists risk upsetting if we don't tiptoe around delicately.

He's the epitome of what our old friend Lang calls the "Gentry Left". They lead and we should gratefully follow.

Lachlan is, and always has been, a moderate lefty TRA. He aligned with WPUK for that purpose.

He has the same goals as Hayton- ie stopping the madness of self ID to preserve the rights of "reasonable" "transexuals". He has never been on the side of women.

He blocked me on Twitter for asking him a question.

I think the GRR has just given Labour a massive wake-up call. The fact that even many pro-independence Scots support the Tories stopping the GRR is huge.

I'm not Scottish, but I used to live near Glasgow. Politics there is so partisan that I wouldn't have believed there was any issue on which a pro-independence Scot would have backed the Tories over the SNP. Yet look at what has happened about the GRR. Despite all NS's attempts to frame the use of Section 35 as an assault on Scottish autonomy, the protests in Edinburgh and Glasgow have been tiny. Polls are showing support for the Tories' response, which is absolutely incredible, given how much even most pro-Union Scots dislike the current incarnation of the Tory Party.

It's no coincidence that we are suddenly hearing Labour voices expressing support for single-sex spaces. They have got a long way to go, and Starmer remains a pathetic enabler of the abuse of women. But you can almost hear the party cogs grinding as they start to reverse-ferret on the GRR.

For now… The gulag beckons.

It is quite eye-opening to notice the exceptions in 'inclusion' which are allowed to base something on biological sex, such as the peerage exception and also the US Rowing exception, both only protecting male interests.

In fact, watching this debate has been like watching one example of how the subjugation of women may have happened historically in many places. There have been women (the #bekind ones) who have contributed to this, but we can all now clearly see the man behind the curtain, too.

Agree.

I didn’t even know this was a thing until I started looking at the feminist board on mumsnet!

Don’t remember women ever being asked if they were ok with this…..I guess because we weren’t.

Sorry should have said, Blunkett came out very sensible, and said it's "just not acceptable" to have males in women's prisons. And that Labour is in a bit of a mess about this

Blunkett clip:

twitter.com/haggis_uk/status/1618218718743658496?s=12

See also this thread:

Miriam Cates is on Politics Live today, 25 January.
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4728027-miriam-cates-is-on-politics-live-today-25-januaryy_

What has Blunkett said?

After the comments from Blunkett, I now get the feeling Labour was flying a kite with this letter. They're not dealing with the core issue and want to soften us up to their Shitty Sex Fudge.

#nothankyou

Lachlan Stuart is mostly ok on this, but he's too true trans believing for my liking. The other day he was congratulating TRA Steph of "Steph's Place, noted misogynist, for getting a GRC 🙄 And that is why I want the GRA repealed.

I can't tell whether Dr Jane Hamlin, Duncan Adamson and Matilda Simon are dim, dishonest, or simply crashingly ignorant.

Matilda is actually quite clever as they are currently pursuing a hereditary peerage as a man, whilst claiming to pass as a woman. They don't.

(I think I’ve read an article by Lachlan Stuart. Isn’t he the one who, in his role with Labour, was horrified to learn that TRAs are much more interested in destroying all legal protections for women than in policies which would substantially improve trans people’s lives without harming women?)

That was this:

The Confessions of a Transphobe

But [Labour's 2019 election manifsto] dismayed trans people, according to Heather’s account and the actions of pop-up people like Ellie-Mae and her ilk. It dismayed the pop up people and LGBT Labour because it was the removal of the established legal rights of women that interested them.

Nowhere, ever, have I seen any recognition from any of them of the astonishingly bold, tangible and very expensive commitment that we gave to improve the lives of trans people by ensuring adequate and much improved access to health care services.

It’s not because they didn’t know.

It’s because that’s not what they’re interested in.

Had forgotten that get-out. Typical and so misogynistic. Thanks for reminding.

Peerages as an exception were written into the GRA in 2004.

16 Peerages etc.
The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act—
(a) does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7

This was to prevent any negative effect on a male person who transitioned or a positive effect on a female person who transitioned.

As if we needed any more proof that misogyny was at the heart of the GRA.

I see I've been deleted yet again. Obviously hitting the nail on the head.

I'm so glad someone has finally admitted that it's women and girls doing all the accommodating.

yes, I really appreciated the bluntness of that phrasing. Now let’s agree that it’s unfair and dangerous to women and girls to require anything of the sort.

(I think I’ve read an article by Lachlan Stuart. Isn’t he the one who, in his role with Labour, was horrified to learn that TRAs are much more interested in destroying all legal protections for women than in policies which would substantially improve trans people’s lives without harming women?)

If (s)he's a hereditary peer (s)he cannot inherit the title unless it is one of the few baronies that allow female inheritance. Identifying as a woman and inheriting a peerage that will almost certainly be inherited through absolute male primogeniture? Remove yourself from the title and let your male cousin, younger brother or whoever have it. That (s)he has done this (and is not a life peer) shows that being trans is anything the trans community wants it to be and that includes male privileges as well as any female ones. What wnkrs.

I can't tell whether Dr Jane Hamlin, Duncan Adamson and Matilda Simon are dim, dishonest, or simply crashingly ignorant. But on learning that "Jane" and "Matilda" are actually trans, I'm going to assume that they are simply ideologues, bent on enforcing their will and warped reality.

“in order to facilitate an accessible public realm” - accessible for who? Certainly not women and girls who self exclude from parts of that realm which they have every right to feel safe in. Although Lachlan Stuart partly gets why self ID is a massive problem he doesn’t seem to get the point about the many ways in which this has been imposed so unfairly and with the needs of only one group in mind.

While our society has for decades agreed to require women and girls to make limited accommodations in the public sphere for all those who are experiencing gender dysphoria, in order to facilitate an accessible public realm...

What does this mean? What was not accessible about the public realm that women and girls had to budge up for males, to begin with? I can't remember the inaccessible public realm referred to here. Can anyone else?

Side note: "decades" doing some hard work here. It's two. And it's two, too many.

#repealtheGRA