Re: Starmer

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.

I'm pretty sure that that's incorrect.

This is a response from KS office to one of the automated emails I sent.

“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.

We know that many xxxxx have strong feelings about these matters, often due to their personal experiences. Keir believes that we need to work through these issues with respect and sensitivity.

To be clear on Keir’s position, we are providing anyone who has written to us on these matters with the same response.

Labour is the party of equality. We want trans people to be treated fairly and we also support the protection of certain spaces that are for biological women.

That’s why Labour supports modernisation of the Gender Recognition Act and the protection of the Equality Act, including its provision for single-sex spaces.

It’s right that we consider how to include trans people fairly in ways that do not disadvantage biological women.

Labour believes that the current process to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate is out-of-date. 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.

All the political parties agreed that the process needed modernising, but the Conservatives dropped their plans, and now seem to be playing political games with it. Meanwhile, trans people still face discrimination and are still faced with the same outdated process.

A future Labour government would address this with a better process to support people who identify as a gender that’s different to the one they were born in.

We would also uphold the Equality Act that allows for certain spaces for biological women. 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. The Equality Act makes provision for this when it is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.

Labour is steadfast in our commitment to tackle violence against women and girls and advocate for women’s rights. We created the law that protects single-sex spaces for biological women - and we will always keep those protections.

For example, it’s right that women leaving domestic violence are able to seek safety and security in a women-only refuge - and this is recognised in law.

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.

Best wishes,”

I live in a Liverpool constituenecy that was once represented by Labour MP Louise Ellman. I'm also a now ex Labour party member. She was bullied out of that constituency by some people with very big axes to grind, and deep hatred of the fact that she was a 'Friend of Israel'. She was replaced with a Momentum shoe-in in the form of Kim Johnson. Louise Ellman was just one victim of the local CLP purges that went on under Corbyn.

The moment my views on Corbyn changed came as a result of watching clips of some local CLP meetings, at which he was present, in which MPs were publicly abused and humiliated. I waited for a swift rsponse and rebuttal from him, which sadly never came. He over-saw, stood by and watched, as hard working local MPs were hounded and bullied, and he said nothing.

And then you've got Joan Smith (not sure of her connection with LWD but she always retweets them) barely disguising her contempt when she talks about Starmer and posting more and more photos of birds and the river, almost visibly trying to calm herself down.

These women aren't keyboard gobshites, they've given years of service to Labour and if even they're starting to lose their cool then I think things could get interesting.

Is it me or are even the Labour Women's Declaration beginning to lose patience? I've not seen them say anything outright rebellious yet but their retweets are getting more and more interesting e.g. Decca Aitkenhead's interview with Angela Rayner (Sunday Times today) that very politely and even regretfully skewers Rayner to the floor. I don't think LWD would have posted that a year ago.

I think it would be better named Starmer and Gender.

TBH I think people are continuously amazed that he continues on the same course. With each thing, you imagine, well, now he must see the issue. But he keeps on with the same stuff. The fact that he seems like a reasonably intelligent, nice person makes it more remarkable.

Seeing as this board is called “Feminism: sex and gender” it’s a bit rich to accuse us of “going on and on about gender”. If Starmer wasn’t so disappointing on self ID the discussions on here would be very different.

I know, I know, the point of going on and on about gender is to try and bash Starmer in some way, but it is all rather transparent.

You are definitely scraping the barrel here. Women care about our rights, our dignity and our privacy and many will not vote for a party which has self id as a policy. Men are not women no matter what some privileged idiots think. It is as simple as that.

I’m not seeing much difference from Labour policy. A few policies that have low benefit other than sounding appealing. Nothing drastic on Brexit. Not sure about wealth tax.

Labour also know that alienating the well off doesn’t really help, probably why Blair did well he managed to avoid doing that (although PFI wasn’t great, or war / crash). But he did get that you’ve got to keep people on all levels onside.

This Labour will face same issues with funding and although they just repeat we’ll fund more getting a few billion out of Nom Doms before they leave for more attractive countries won’t help much.

Well I don't love current Tory economic policy, but I think this idea that many people on the left have that it is directed excusivly to enriching the already rich is quite mistaken. That's not the goal, any more than it is the goal of the Labour Party.

Now, there are exploiters in both parties, out for their own benefit, the LP is as big on global capitalism as the Torys and arguable have lost most of their interest in the working classes. But their main argument is how to build a robust economy. The left tend to see the right as forgetting supports for those with less, to give them a leg up, the right sees the left as wanting to placate those same people with social programs while undermining the economic growth that creates the funds for said social programs.

Imagining the other side to simply have evil motives is convenient but self-indulgent.

And the current incarnation of the labour party is behaving very, very cruelly towards everyone because ultimately no-one wins when you pretend men are women, act like a dictator towards those who can see that the emperor is not wearing any clothes and do you very, very best to dismantle all female protections. An unequal society, is not in anyone's best interests - I expect you'd agree with this. The Tories at least pretend they believe that bringing the rich up brings everyone up. KS appears to just not give a shit what happens to some of the most vulnerable people in society (women and children).

In a two party system, which is what we have in the UK, it is not unreasonable to consider the only alternative and what they may do. Especially given the alternative also happen to be the government who have introduced many of the things some posters on this thread are deeply concerned that Starmer might do.
I know, I know, the point of going on and on about gender is to try and bash Starmer in some way, but it is all rather transparent.

Unfortunately Starmer as leader of the opposition is responsible for both prisons and education in this country and so I think you are right, any review will not be satisfactory.

It's going to be another decade before more evidence is gathered and policy within medicine is better before it will influence schools. And more detransitioners speak up. Under either party.

The DofE is supposed to be consulting on "gender identity" guidance for schools this year.

I wouldn't hold your breath there; a few are quite concerned about the level of bias within the dept and that the guidance won't be clear enough or go far enough.

The Tories are shit.

Labour is shit.

They're shit for different reasons.

The point is that the thread is about Starmer and the LP, not how 'cruel' you think the Tory party is.

@twitterexile If there is anything factually inaccurate in my post, or anything I have posted about that you would like to discuss to feel free to have a discussion. I think it is the point of a discussion board.

And once again the irritating anti-Tory rants when the party under discussion is the LP and Starmer. 🙄

Well we disagree on that. Shutting Sure Start centres was a very bad move.

Pretending that women are not a sex class and all the consequences that come with that is on a whole other level.

This is a very important point @DemiColon thank you for raising it.

The current incarnation of the Tory party specialise in harming everyone whose income isn't in the top 1%. They are cruel to almost everyone, some people they are more cruel to than others, but their cruelty is fairly consistent.

Investing in the NHS is an important discussion, and it's about all people who need healthcare, which is to say everyone. What the Tories have done, and plan to do, and what Labour might plan to do, is worth considering.

It's not really revealing about the views of either party on sex and gender or women specifically.

Less harm than was done by shutting Sure Start centres.

And how much harm will be done by the LP when the definition of the word woman includes fetishistic men? When the words woman and girl are completely meaningless? You cannot protect what you cannot define.