Did Rachel Reeves change anyone's mind re Labour?

Saying 'we will protect women's spaces' while quoting the law as it is now is not a guarantee of protection for the future.

When Labour say they intend to 'streamline the GRA applicate process', what do they actually intend to do? If they just wanted to change the GRA, wouldn't they just say that? Do you think there's a risk they could change The Equality Act as well?

It is a small step in the right direction. But I won't trust them (or vote for them) until there is much stronger evidence than this.
Apart from anything else, it will be important for them to admit that they got this wrong.
If they try to maintan that they have always supported sex-based rights - and that hysterical or 'radicalised' women have misinterpreted them and contributed unnecessary toxicity to the debate - then I will see them as still untrustworthy, unrealistic, dishonest, stupid.

I have no time for gender critical Labour MPs who leave Rosie Duffield to take the heat. However I do take my hat off to Labour Women's Declaration. As to whether this will change my mind - I don't know yet. I'm watching but I won't make any decision until I've seen their next manifesto.

Excellent letter.

'In the meantime, we urgently ask you and Labour colleagues to note that EA2010 provides for single-sex exceptions, not “safe spaces” nor “single-sex spaces”. The term “spaces” implies that this provision is only needed in extreme circumstances, for example in prisons or refuges. But the exceptions allow all women the dignity and privacy of single-sex provision in our daily lives, and are an important underpinning for discrimination legislation.'

This is the LWD's response to Starmer. The template that Labour are sending out is below.
I suspect there are some weasel words in it but at least they've been forced to recognise women's single sex spaces (through gritted teeth) . Still silent about unethical medical treatment of children of course.

labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/lwd-response-to-sir-keir-starmers-reply-to-constituents-about-sex-and-gender/

when Justine clarifies to ask if she means a woman on the basis of sex not gender, RR agrees that sex is the operative category!

Glad to hear that Justine asked that question.

I'm afraid I just no longer believe Labour. They'll say that they're going to protect 'safe spaces' for women. This isn't what the EA suggests.

And given that the Haldane judgement seemed to suggest that sex and gender were interchangeable and that a GRC changes ones sex, I am not buying the Sex Fudge.

This petition will help get the subject debated:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3?page=33&reply=124613968

We really need MPs to be pinned down over this. When they say single sex they are often talking about everyone with the same sex on their birth certificate and they also want to bring in rules that mean that anyone can change the sex on their birth certificate. So their single sex is in fact mixed sex bodies with single sex paperwork.

Right under this thread, in the " Similar Threads " section, there is a link to a thread from last July-ish...
They're calling for Rachael Reeves to lose the whip!
To be fair, it seems that she has made similar terfy noises before, however, whether that's game play and just political expediency, who can say but if she wants to be believed, then she should have been stood shoulder to shoulder with Rosie Duffield imo and afaic. Other people might be forgiving that she doesn't stand up to be counted when it matters, i call it abject cowardice, you do you though.
Other than that, i can't stand her anyway, i think her attitude towards those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in need of help, to be far below what i require of a labour party and her robotic voice gets on my nerves!

Someone posted a letter that the party are sending to voters which certainly suggests they've shifted to a more ethical and factual position. It was on the Labour Women's Declaration thread I think?

Presumably the Scottish carnage reinforced that voters were not going to accept Nandy's wishes about male rapists sharing cells with women and they've realised they're on the wrong side of history (but are never going to apologise for their previous anti women / safeguarding fuckwittery so will just quietly retreat)?

But I could be wrong - the male supremacists wield a lot of power in the party.

I suspect most will feel they need something a little more definite than one MP in an interview, given all the messaging in the opposite direction. Many don't trust even their use of words like "sex" because they feel they have been disingenuous so often.