Re: Starmer

That is terrifying.

Do you know what else is fucking terrifying?

The fact that getting a GRC essentially creates a new person. Your old identity is dead in the eyes of the state.

The person you were before your GRC the person who paid national insurance, and tax, and had medical records no longer exists. There's no link between you and that person. So you can't access any of that information, and neither can the state.

All the NI payments, the medical records, the pension details, and tax records in the name of that former identity are gone.

I know a TW with a GRC who is having huge, unsolvable, problems because 30 years of their NI payments now belong, in terms of the state, to "another person" (their deadname identity), which has massive implications for any welfare claims and their state pension, and so do over fifty years worth of their medical records.

It is akin to being registered, mistakenly, as dead. You can't undo it.

"It asks people to go through a very arduous process and obtain the consent of their husband or wife (if they have one) to change gender."

It asks people to do for 2 years what they want to do for life; and as the change is so drastic it insists their spouse must be permitted to exit the marriage while the legal documents still exist that allow them to disentangle their financial and legal affairs. They can obtain an interim GRA while they wait for the divorce to be finalised.
The law shouldn't be able to prevent someone divorcing after one partner makes such a life changing decision. People who can't grasp this haven't understood the situation at all.

The fact that a political party led by a lawyer haven't grasped the legal ramifications is fucking terrifying.

FFS. That letter.

"It asks people to go through a very arduous process and obtain the consent of their husband or wife (if they have one) to change gender."

Of course it does! You are talking about changing a key marker on an identity documents, a marker that governs how the state and civic institutions perceive and process someone across a range of activities, data banks, statistics, policies and provisions. It's not like changing your bloody name. If I suddenly call myself Mary, it doesn't mean I drop off a smear recall list or my low levels of testosterone mean I'm at risk of heart disease.

And of course, it affects a legal spouse! Would they expect a gay man to go through a possibly contested divorce process if his male spouse suddenly decided he wanted to be perceived as female and undergo GRS, but still demanded to be with their male partner in a new, shiny heterosexual relationship?!

"The vast majority of the time, trans women are rightly treated with respect and compassion as women. However, the law rightly protects some spaces for biological women, and allows for trans women to be excluded from those spaces in specific circumstances."

So what is the point of all this then? That transwomen are women, except when they aren't? So when are they women then? Just on bits of paper that don't actually mean anything, but will just screw up data and statistics and specifically targetted policies -- and make your party look like utter loons for claiming 2+2=Eleventy-Orange-Bubbles-Squiggle-NouNou?

FFS.

Going on and on about gender, aka going o n and on about women and children's rights, is really the sort of thing only a male supremacist would say. It's like saying "going on and on about racism" or 'going on and in about fgm' or 'going on and on about poverty'. Best to ignore people who so proudly display their isms in my opinion.

Of course you can. I would share all my words if it meant the end to this. Even the sweary ones.

@CryInToYourCornflakesNicola may I take your response as the basis for my reply…?

The bit I couldn’t BEAR was the “let’s be grownups” part. I’m trying. And grown ups vote. I delivered your leaflets Keir.

This still smacks of after the revolution babe, now go make the tea. Theres a love.

It mentions trans still have issues, fair enough. Doesnt mention women still have issues, many issues.

Calls us biological women, what other kind is their? Probably should say born women as we all know at least one biological woman who isnt. Hint IW.

Says it's still really really hard to get a GRC, it's not any more. It's a fiver. Not going to put anyone off. Like its supposed to.

Other problems with it, too numerous to bother with.

And finally it doesnt go far enough.
I require laws to be made that those single sex spaces are unassailable now. No fudging, no going around, simply single sex only. Defined in law. I'm not having future women go through all this shit I've been through since 2004. It is frankly ridiculous that its taken almost 20 years and we are still no further forward. If this kind of single sex space grabbing ever happens again I think we should ask every single woman in the country if they want this. And if one woman says no, that is the end of the matter.

I will campaign for these laws until the day I die with whichever party is in power.

What's the point of voting for them in a forlorn hope they'll change if they get into office when they won't?
I can't speak for anyone else, seahorses, but what I'm doing right now is watching what they say, what they do and who they talk to. I'll make up my mind about voting when they put out their manifesto.
Even if I had decided, there's no way I'd declare my hand this point. I don't see any point in telling them with 18 months to go, 'Whatever you do I'm going to vote for you anyway.' My vote is just about the only bargaining chip I've got.

ThisIsMyGCname I misread your post last night and thought you'd talked to LWD at the Labour event in Scotland, not at the WPUK conference, so my reply was a bit nonsense, sorry!

Thank you for your recent email. Our office has received a large number of emails on trans rights and legislation in the Scottish Parliament to update their Gender Recognition Act in recent weeks

And there's the problem that will never be fixed. Women are contacting Starmer's office about women's rights but are totally erased from the conversation. Despite a bit of lip service in an attempt to shut us up, we are not a consideration at all. Only one issue matters to Labour. I have no idea why anyone is giving them the benefit of the doubt. What's the point of voting for them in a forlorn hope they'll change if they get into office when they won't?

It also says that trans people are still facing discrimination but fails to state that so are women.

This is how I feel too

Nah - on second thoughts, forget I asked that. It's time to have a little self respect.

Although does that mean they were allowed at the event this time? (Hopeful)

I honestly don't know how they stand it.

I spoke to the Labour Women’s Declaration at the WPUK conference a few weekends back. They said KS had said he didn’t know they existed?!

Engaging with groups in His Own Bloody Party would be quite a good start.

Yup. The day he does that is the day I'll start taking serious notice.

That's not the worst response I've seen.

He's going to need to do more to actually support women's rights, rather than just 'ceasing to shit on us', though.

Engaging with groups in His Own Bloody Party would be quite a good start.

Thanks for posting that email response ThisIsMyGCname. Do I detect a slight shift in tone around single sex spaces? Which is welcome as far as it goes but what I'm really looking for is some action e.g. talking in public to the Labour Women's Declaration - does anyone know if they were invited to the event at the weekend?

Oh please. You campaign for a different candidate and expect to remain in your own party. In what universe does that happen?

Imagine if Corbyn just said ' ah well at least they didn't work for the Hunt himself so that's cool'
That would really go down a treat with the local Labour Party.

I agree with you all, Icake, Sinner and Not.

I immediately thought that the marriage part was wrong and that it didn’t mention children. Those bits of dis-misinformation made me doubt the rest.
Although I was glad biological women were mentioned, though I would question what other sort are there?

It also doesn't deal with the issue of child transition - other than an implicit suggestion that they would support it.

Some of that suggests a slight more affirmative shift towards protected categories for biological sex, and other sections are just patronising and dismissive.

"Now is a time when we need to see all politicians behaving in a sensitive and grownup way about these serious issues. We can only find solutions to these issues by bringing people together, not pitting them against each other"

Thanks again for your message.

As I understand it, it protects a non-consenting partner from suddenly being in a same sex marriage.

That was my impression, that a partner can have the marriage annulled, easily, with no fault attached.

There's the spousal exit clause, @tinselangel knows the in and outs of that. If he's suggesting getting rid of that then he's out of order. As I understand it, it protects a non-consenting partner from suddenly being in a same sex marriage.