Keir Starmer confirms Labour will push ahead with self ID (7th Feb 2023)

Cantthinkofabetternameforhere · Today 16:17

None of these people have a GRC! if men want to abuse women, they won't need a GRC to do it.

Nobody is disputing that, but if TIM are allowed access all areas and women are not allowed to challenge that, it's a huge problem. If you read these threads, you'll see that it's an affront to the dignity of women and girls to undress in front of a male, for a variety of reasons.

Are you unable to see that? The women who now self exclude from swimming pools, avoid public toilets, don't go to rape and domestic violence shelters - all of those are because males, GRC or no, are now allowed into them.

I don't want the lie that you can change sex further rooting itself into society. That lie has done enough damage already, and I don't think it does trans-identifying people themselves any good. I would revoke the GRA altogether if it were up to me.

You might say 'gender', but TRAs have now conflated sex and gender to such an extent that your continual mention of gender rather than sex doesn't mean much. Birth certificates record sex, so if only gender has changed there's no need to alter a birth certificate. The word 'woman' records sex, age and species (female, adult human) so if only gender has changed, there is no need to refer to a transwoman as a woman.

I'm also fairly sure that, if the GRA is reformed, there'll be a push from TRAs for anyone with a GRA to be sent to the prison of their 'gender' (sic). So they'll be arguing for that trans rapist to be put in with the actual women "because cis women rape too". Forget the tiny number of female sexual abusers or the fact that under UK law, rape can only be perpetrated by someone with a penis. There are already loads of posts in the trans subreddits which state how unfair it is that this rapist isn't in the female estate "because cis women rape too".
Institutions, as you've already pointed out, have been very quick to not bother to use the single sex exemptions, so I don't trust them not to cave into this kind of pressure. I think hanging onto the truth at this point is very important.

As for 'predatory men will attack women anyway, they don't need to pretend to be trans' - I honestly don't care whether they are pretending to be trans or genuinely are trans. They retain the criminal offending rates of other men regardless (in fact there's evidence that they commit sexual crimes at a rate significantly more than men who don't claim to be trans) and I don't want them in spaces that are sex-segregated.

The GRA has already written a lie into law. Self ID just exacerbates the harms being done by that law. The GRA is confusing and conflates sex and gender. Over the last few years it has caused confusion and numerous court cases because nobody seems to have a clue what the law means. An example is the recent statement from UKA who said they want to exclude men from the female categories but they are worried that they will get sued and so may not want to take the risk. Men in the female category harms women. The money and time women have spent over the last few years attempting to clarify the law harms women. Self ID normalises the idea that men can be women. It gives men the green light to colonise women's spaces / sports and services. It allows already entitled men to further push women's boundaries.

@SinnerBoy

None of these people have a GRC!

if men want to abuse women, they won't need a GRC to do it.

800 officers in the MET are being investigated for sexual abuse. By the same logic allowing men into the MET encourages predators so we shouldn't allow any.

Look for the thread called 'Break it down for me' Cantthinkofabetternameforhere - it may take you a while to read it but all the info you've asked for is there.

Back to Labour and this anonymous group of 30-odd dissenting MPs: I read that Guardian article at the time, and the one in the Times the other weekend, and I've read various references to them in this board but unless they find the gumption to speak out, all this evidences to me is cynicism and cowardice.

Besides, if they don’t do anything practical, why not just repeal them? Now that same sex marriage is a thing and the pension age has been equalised, no need for a GRC anyway.

They're just birth certs. They don't do anything practical.

They're records of facts. Records that belong to the state. In no other area do we lie about such records. If I get married, then divorced, the record of marriage isn't hidden. It's a fact. The marriage happened. The birth happened.

Cantthinkofabetternameforhere · Today 15:56

I wrote the post myself just now. I genuinely don't understand the GRC threat to women. They're just birth certs. They don't do anything practical.

They embolden them to go into women's spaces; predators, I mean. If challenged, they have hissy fits and the staff either say that they can't do anything, or scold the complainers.

There are loads of such cases, don't you read the news? It's not just prisons, but "Karen White," "Bardie Kardashian," "Katie Dolakowski" and most recently, "Isla Graham," are all examples. "Karen White" sexually assaulted a further two women in prison.

Dolakowski sexually assaulted two little girls in a women's toilet, in supermarkets.

And what about Wii Spa, in California?

A GRC seals up info and makes it illegal to share it.

It’s why GIDS don’t have any data on adults who were prescribed puberty blockers.

It’s a terrible bit of law.

Are you asking if I copy and pasted? I wrote the post myself just now. I genuinely don't understand the GRC threat to women.

They're just birth certs. They don't do anything practical.

Is that copy pasta @Cantthinkofabetternameforhere ?

Genuine Q - why does self ID harm women?

A GRC doesn't really do very much practically day to day so what difference does selfID make to anyone not trans?

Even in prison having a GRC doesn't mean you automatically go to your new genders prison. The MOJ decide.

Trans people can change their gender in passport, drivers licence, NHS gender markers, almost all documentation for daily life without a GRC. They can just make the changes.

A GRC just means people get a new birth certificate which means they get married and have death cert in changed gender.

And a trans person even with a GRC doesn't get automatic entry to single sex spaces - these are protected by the Equality Act.

You talk about men in women's changing rooms but you don't have to show your birth certificate to go into a changing room so whether there's selfID or not, anyone can walk in anywhere. Having a GRC doesn't really make a difference.

The biggest threat to women is... shocker... cis gender men. Men are the biggest threat to women www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/facts-and-figures

You'd argue that transwomen are men - but really, if a man wants to abuse a women or child he doesn't need to get a GRC and pretend to be trans. He's got ample opportunity to do whatever he wants to do!

There's no evidence from other countries selfID harms women. www.openlynews.com/i/?id=21757767-4909-4844-922f-41903ff042f8

I'm sure theres examples of a few transwomen harming women, there will be, but they're the exception not the rule. If a man who is not trans wants to harm someone, he will, he doesn't need a GRC!

So really, what impact does selfID have on women? When having a GRC doesn't actually do anything on a day to day practical level.

But I don’t think it’s fair to assume there isn’t an internal struggle going on over this.
You may think it's unfair but nor can I see any evidence whatsoever that there is one.
And after the multi-debacle of the last few weeks I'd have expected at least one of these MPs to break ranks.

I'm not sure why people think voting for tories is better, they're in power now and although self ID isn't law in practice it is happening and they aren't stopping it.

I normally vote for a 'left' party but they're all captured annoyingly. Nothing can convince me to vote Conservative though, they have been rubbish on many things and are also rubbish on this. I'm not sure why some of you pretend otherwise?

I suspect Keir will try to avoid doing much of anything with gender stuff, as I think it's becoming more obvious it's unpopular with the general population but there is a very vocal youth population who will kick off if he suggests they'll drop it, which would lose them votes. It's lose-lose.

I don't know who I'll vote for or even if I'll vote at next elections, there's still plenty of time for further developments

I completely agree SinnerBoy

Even there, the most senior MPs often do not post a single word; they know exactly what’s at stake and not many of them want to be me. So for now, they mostly remain silent.’

I had wondered if that may have been the case. They're not stupid, they've seen the damage that the TRA zealot propaganda machine is capable of doing to people. All the more plaudits for Rosie's bravery, in my book.

Obviously there’s been no vote to test the PLP on any specific question so actually nobody knows any numbers publicly. I have zero insider knowledge here. I have no idea how many MPs would call themselves ‘gender critical’ or would be happy to define the sexes accurately (..which for all I know may be seen politically as different questions..) but Labour backbenchers (in previous govt) suggested there were up to 40 GC MPs which to me does suggests a split.

amp.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/01/gay-and-trans-rights-issues-divide-both-tories-and-labour

I would love to know the proportion now after the SNP debacle. Rosie Duffield referred to ‘many’ in an article that should have Kier Starmer absolutely burning with shame:

^‘And I know I’m not the only MP in the party who thinks this — I’m just the only one who feels I have nothing to lose by speaking out. After all, there’s no front-bench job offer for the only Labour MP in my county.
Many of us know that self-identifying as a woman does not make a person a biological woman who shares our lived experience.
But for obvious reasons, these views are not voiced outside of closed rooms or private and secret WhatsApp groups.
Even there, the most senior MPs often do not post a single word; they know exactly what’s at stake and not many of them want to be me. So for now, they mostly remain silent.’^

unherd.com/2023/01/the-labour-party-has-a-woman-problem/

So yes, they all need to find their long overdue anti-sexist, anti-homophobic reality-based backbone and nobody’s disputing that.
But I don’t think it’s fair to assume there isn’t an internal struggle going on over this. Especially since the SNP have shown up clearly that huge swathes of the public disagree with them about this issue. I’d imagine several party leaders are desperately trying to listen to what has been going on and to get back in touch with the public on this issue.

If there is a split it's a closeted one.

My apologies to Tonia.

Is 2 MPs a split? If there were 2 MPs saying we should legalise all drugs or prostitution, or lower the age of consent for example, that would not be called a split. They'd be regarded as fringe, and not representing party policy.

And Tonia Antoniazzi. We've definitely got 2.

That's how it looks to me too JanesLittleGirl. If I've missed something I'd genuinely like to see it but I need more than assurances that the shadow cabinet is stuffed with GC members who are too chicken shit scared to say so.

The evidence of a split is very clear. On one side there is Rosie Duffield and on the other is the rest of the PLP.

Is there any evidence to suggest Westminster Labour is split on this issue?
Anything at all?
Because I'm not prepared to take it on trust.