Did Rachel Reeves change anyone's mind re Labour?

The fact that Starmer has even sent the letter is an interesting shift. So many posters on here have said over many years that they emailed him as constituents and got no reply.

The date of the LWD update implies that it’s a recent thing. Wonder how long he’s been sending this out for? Does anyone know?

Two interesting things: he comes closer than he ever has in public to saying what “modernising” the GRA means (ending the spousal veto, seemingly). And he gave an interview about a week ago saying that GRA reform was not a priority. I wonder if that’s a further development since he started sending the letter. If so he is responding rapidly to the discovery that the issue has no salience until the moment at which it has a lot of salience, which for many people was when they realised Bryson was far from an isolated case.

Labour need to find a solution, because even if they are elected the problems just dont magically disappear.

Its a big risk to assume they arent going to have to deal with a safeguarding risk involving a transwoman perpetrator. It'll be worse because starmer has been ignoring concerns and MPs like Nandy support male rapists accessing womens spaces. At this point they cant talk about unintended consequences, its starmer ignored consequences.

The manipulative male supremacist wants women to shut up with his latest gaslighting scam whilst pretending he isn't gaslighting.

I don't know why women aren't enraged, clearly it works, so no wonder they continue.

But RR isn’t in charge. And Starmer still hasn’t recanted. So it’s a no from me.

I stand by my previous post about what Streeting said.

He doesn't say the women were right. He implies by the words "in good faith" that women are genuine but wrong.

And the "challenges" he speaks of. Labour will barge ahead with self ID making tiny tweaks here and there in order to say they are dealing with the bits the public finds unpalatable enough to make an electorally damaging fuss about.

Every other genderist nonsense, they'll enable.

Yeah @LizzieSiddal it's a really interesting implicit acknowledgement that a) there are some conflicts between greater trans rights (as in, the agenda set out by stonewall etc - not fundamental human rights) and women's rights; and b) that the stonewall crowd have not been fighting fairly.

I find Streeting fascinating. He reminds me of Blair, in good ways and bad ways!

I think the fundamental divide here is between people like me, who need someone like Streeting (and Cooper and Reeves) to take away the bad taste of Lammy so that we can start supporting Labour again, and people who are so utterly fed up with labour that they don't want to support them again (and people who never supported labour in the first place). The latter groups won't be convinced by anything other than a full reversal, which is a legitimate viewpoint but will simply never happen IMO.

“I think that the Scottish case provides an opportunity for us to all pause and take stock. I acknowledge that women who have been raising the alarm about this have done so in good faith. We need to stop gaslighting women, stop silencing women and stop pretending that there aren’t challenges, because this male rapist in Scotland has proved that there is a challenge.”

This reads as if Bryson was the first transwoman rapist in a british prison.

Is streeting misinformed? Or 'gaslighting'?

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4517347-Wes-Streeting

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4447315-Wes-Streeting-on-trans-rights

Yep. Streeting is as untrustworthy as all the others. Sleekit.

I too think Streeting’s statement is a clear shift. It’s the first time I’ve heard acknowledgment of the “gaslighting of women”.

I love Alexei Sayle - don't agree with all his politics but he is bang on the money there.

If it is true he wants to 'pass on the leadership' to WS then that just goes to show what BS their democratic values are.

Starmer wants to pass the leadership on to Wes Streeting ' who looks like his son except made out of margarine ' - according to Alexei Sayle.

they stand for and safeguard dangerous men

Yes exactly. The people who are least in need of safeguarding have it, those who most need safeguarding, children, dont.
Fucked up world.

Just three that jumped out at me....

Grooming gangs.. ultimately a lack of Police Action.

Female leader? All them a total mess for women.

Many Union leaders are Women, inc a recent head of the TUC... how many heads of business have been women?

No party is perfect but if anyone still has faith in the Tories after 13 years of the gradual removal of womens rights... more fool them.

I'll hold judgement until i read Labours manifesto.

To repeal the GRA and work out a better way. It was a mistake in the way the law was written.
www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4688427-repeal-the-gra

Rosie has suffered much abuse for her position

From within the labour party as much as anywhere else. Not just from
men in balaclavas, from fellow MPs.

I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that sex means different things in different situations. Or rather, i dont trust the government to be able to legislate for two meanings for the same word - bological, birth, legal, aquired sex. When would the different sex be used, how can we differentiate between them? Isnt that what we have now, and it doesnt work?

We know the GRA is a bad law because politicians are doing their best not to talk about it in a clear, honest way.

Sorry I should have said cabinet ministers and shadow cabinet ministers.

No, I am all out of sympathy for MPs and especially for cabinet ministers. They were elected to represent us.

Watching here too and hoping, but very very cautious after years of trans-activist-dogma within the Labour party.

However, I sympathise with those who have failed to stand-up with Rosie Diffield.

Rosie has suffered much abuse for her position - she is in harm's way and certainly not safe from those balaclavad men of trans-activism. You can see why the less brave might not speak out - it would take much courage and that would be spread over years rather than just for a speech or a day's protest.

Jess Phillips adding a man to the Counting Dead Women list - and not even a man with a GRC - was the point I stopped spoiling my ballot and will allow myself to vote Conservative. The Labour Party is lost to women.

Street if is clever enough to understand the issues if he tried. So he is a weasel.

If they fulfil their promise to bring in self/ID for GRCs, then, as it stands, they cannot protect women’s sex based spaces using the exceptions in the Equality Act.

This is because the original 2010 intentions in the act as to what ‘Sex’ means has become muddied.

GRCs say that a person has changed sex. Even though this is not physically possible, this has created a legal situation where it would be discriminatory to exclude a man who says he is a woman from a woman’s sex based (biological) space.

Lady Haldane’s judgement in Scotland has just made this clear. She said that if in the Equality Act characteristic ‘Sex’ meant biological sex it would have said so.

So if you think Labour means this, and you have a Labour MP, why not write to them to urge them to give their support to the petition started by Sex-Matters to update the Equality Act to make clear the protected characteristic “Sex” is biological and not sex as modified by a GRC?

To write to your MP:
sex-matters.org/take-action/write-to-your-mp-about-the-petition/

To sign the petition to update the Equality Act:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3

Times article
for better explanation:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mps-to-debate-gender-petition-backed-by-jk-rowling-qh0h0bctk
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4534821c-bf89-11ed-b52d-512231a0c9aa?shareToken=a2be6368ec3ec1a7a1e413545f54b9d9

I am glad that the UK doesn't have unhelpful religious people like in the US where they are insisting that gender is sex

The gender recognition act allows someone to change their sex marker on their birth certificate.

Our government is insisting that gender is sex.