I live in Rosie Duffields constituency. Just had local election door knock from labour party

The government does, its called the police service.

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · Today 09:54

Interesting Labour policy docs:

Yes, they say that they want to change the protected characteristic from "gender assignment" to "gender identity."

OOF. I would want hard fucking evidence from him of that disgusting accusation. What a shitty thing to say.

GPWM (good points, well made!).

Interesting Labour policy docs:

twitter.com/female_union/status/1628041548167368704?

These are from 2018, so things may have changed. But some interesting points to question with canvassers and in letters to MPs.

Absolutely, Binturongs.

Changing 'single sex' to 'safe' allows them to: skim over the 'mixed sex' part; skip the other reasons such as privacy, dignity or fairness; and use the 'but you can be attacked in the street' diversion.

But changing 'provision' 'to 'space' is just as dishonest. Doing that makes it all about the we-just-want-to-pee (although fortunately it failed to exclude prisons from the conversation). It completely cuts out things like sport, the sex of the person providing medical and care procedures, all-women shortlists.... Huge amounts of important antidiscrimination legislation erased by making everyone focus on the room itself rather than what is happening in the room.

THIS.

Hilarious intervention from someone who could easily have been the Labour canvasser in the OP. Way to go to make women support the party!

"Safe spaces" is actually obscuring not just 1, but 2 points about what the Equality Act allows.

1. Single sex.

1. Provision.

Changing 'single sex' to 'safe' allows them to: skim over the 'mixed sex' part; skip the other reasons such as privacy, dignity or fairness; and use the 'but you can be attacked in the street' diversion.

But changing 'provision' 'to 'space' is just as dishonest. Doing that makes it all about the we-just-want-to-pee (although fortunately it failed to exclude prisons from the conversation). It completely cuts out things like sport, the sex of the person providing medical and care procedures, all-women shortlists.... Huge amounts of important antidiscrimination legislation erased by making everyone focus on the room itself rather than what is happening in the room.

Thanks, Sazzasez- I think Charlie Falconer's appearance was one of the places that I've heard the "safe spaces" mantra.

I think it was Lord Falconer at the House of Commons select committee who kept mis-stating the Equality Act to talk about “safe spaces”.

You’re right, it’s a bit of linguistic chicanery going on to make us imagine males in women’s spaces can ever be safe for women.

Also plays on the usual TRA claim that they have to put women at risk take refuge from men in women’s spaces for “safety”.

IIRC “safe spaces” were big in educational circles, meaning a space where nothing ever challenged you & you could rely on nobody dating to accurately sex you misgender you.

I would strongly suggest that you email Rosie's official email address and they'll take it from there. 😉[email protected] Disgraceful that a local labour member purportedly campaigning to get Labour elected as the next govt would malign your local Labour MP in this way. Equally disgraceful is that he had the temerity to argue with you on the doorstep. #labourlosingwomen

Please report to Rosie Duffield - [email protected] well Donne for tackling this! They need to give their heads a wobble!

And you think a policy of allowing men to identify into women's spaces isn't at all racist? Nor ablist? When we know this will disproportionately effect Muslim women and Jewish women and disabled women?

I understand your cynicism, but they do mean single sex spaces, but just cant say it. Because to say sex acknowledges that there is a difference between biological females and trans women.

So they are caught between their public stand that TWAW, but on the other hand acknowledging that actual women have their own needs, and they are not the same as and exclude trans women.

So this silly word game is about trying to hold two diametrically opposing positions at the same time, but not having to admit that one undermines the other.

What a shame that they cant just admit one is a lie, instead of trying to make the other not seem what it really is because it exposes the lie.

[T]hey support safe spaces (this is Labour euphamism for single sex spaces at it means they dont have to use the word sex), etc..

I've heard "safe spaces" a lot recently, and I think it's an attempt to avoid referring to the other aspects that are also intrinsic to single-sex spaces, namely privacy and dignity. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I can't help feeling that it's a move towards saying "TW aren't predators, so you're safe and if you disagree then you're a bigot" whereas privacy and dignity are two other very important reasons why no male should be in a female-only space.

Sorry haven't had time to read all comments since I first saw OP's thread earlier today.

What I dont understand is how totally unprofessional, or rather how lazy they are about their politics.

There was Angela Raynor being interviewed by the Sunday Times, (NB the paper isn't the Guardian) and says she is surprised to be asked about trans women.

Now some local canvasser, who must live on twitter, thinks spotting totally unveriviable remarks in response to a query from a potential voter, and patronising her is going to help them win the election. And given whose constituency it is, what planet are they living on? And of course showing disrespect of her opinions, just a silly woman fallen victim to right wing propoganda.

So its not only not trusting them to support women's rights, but knowing they dont think they have to think, or check facts, or at least do a brief scan of newspaper reports.

At least, based on a reply said to be from Keir Starmer / his office, there was some sort of attempt to see it would all be alright, they support safe spaces (this is Labour euphamism for single sex spaces at it means they dont have to use the word sex), etc..

Doesn't Labour central or whatever send out guidelines saying dont get into an arguement just make soothing noises.

Its not only that it makes Labour look totally uncordinated, but maybe worse, thinking everyone hates the Tories so much, we can just say anything, and we will still win.

This is really frightening. We have had the Tories running the country not for the country, but to score points against different groupings in the Tory party, and then we are going to get Labour who think running round saying we aren't Corbyn is what will win them the vote. ie they dont care about us, they just dont want the press to pull them apart.

And without wanting to derail this thread, but the decision about Shamima Begum earlier today effectively said that in legal terms she shouldn't have lost her citizenship, but the relevant cabinet member(s) could take a "political" decision to do that. It may seem far fetched but with Labour in power, and only England among the UK nations holding out against self id, who knows how many of us in the future could be deemed unworthy of citizenship for not toeing the trans line. And with young male idiots like the canvasser who patronised the OP, you can just see how things could get out of control.

(Please, please if anyone wants to discuss the Shamima Begum decision why not start a new thread. I would hate to be the cause of this one being derailed. I am really fearful that UK politics is now in the hands of immature school boys, and find it really frightening.)

I don't think that MPs are equipped to deal with library invasions ! That would be a police matter.

ijclark · Yesterday 23:08

Wild how quickly this thread descended into “I believe in feminism, but not for women of colour

Has it? Has it really? Your Big Ladybird Book of TRA Zealot Arguments is obviously missing the page where you're instructed to misconstrue someone's words.

You're not supposed to just make things up, are you?

By the way, I am astounded that three incidents of Nazis invading a library hasn't even made the local free sheets. Is it a tripartite conspiracy of the Tories, Mail-Telegraph and Fake Feminists?

We need to know!

But still a male with a fully functioning penis. Yes. Let’s put hIm in a female prison because he might be at risk in a male prison. Much better to put the male offender in a female jail.

They know which sex they are and should use the facilities provided for that sex. And sex, not gender.

One violent man off to prison in wig and pink leggings seems to have done more for gender realism than years of women's reasoned arguments .

Why is it so difficult to be heard.

Point me to a post where anyone said that.

You claim that the Tories are racist, and yet they have a prime minister, home secretary, business secretary, and previously three chancellors, who are more diverse than any such office holders under Labour. (The LP hasn't even managed to elect a female leader yet, FFS.) FWIW, I would never vote Tory.

It's good that more people are becoming aware of the bingo and the issues.
My friend's teen was saying they're all talking about it in school. The men in women's prisons - and the politicians pretending they didn't know the sex of the rapist - peaked their entire year group.

@ijclark Think of the mental health of a female student (who may have been raped or sexually assaulted) being alone in a female designated changing room but being faced with a penis. That’s scary.

Sorry, you don’t understand.