Starmer: “Gender recognition will not be one of the priorities of the incoming government.”

The latest vibes from Lachlan are pretty revealing.

He got a lot of pushback for his comments about how we better all vote Labour because self-ID being dropped from the manifesto was the best we were going to get and if we didn’t we wanted babies to starve.

Now, suddenly, he’s both sides-ing like a good un, saying these mean GC women have become too extreme in their demands: https://twitter.com/Lachlan_Edi/status/1638428624280748032?s=20

And also saying that he doubts the issue “really” has any salience among Labour voters. Riiiight. That’s why he spent several years trying to persuade the LP to drop self-ID. https://twitter.com/Lachlan_Edi/status/1638428624280748032?s=20

I’ve seem this so many times with Starmerite purportedly GC dudebros. The smallest and most ambiguously expressed “concession” and they say “everything’s fine you have to vote Labour now”.

I have heard of them and cannot believe they have bought into this nonsense. A true Women’s Party would have my vote

Ha ha have you heard of WEP which supports the mantra TWAW?

There are more women then men in the United Kingdom we need our own party.

The only advantages the torys have over labour on this issue is they allow their MPs to speak and speak without being abused, and they didn't write the GRA or the EqA so may not be as protective over its failings.

Any moral politician should be outraged that bills allow men to be in womens prisons and allow men to sue to provide intimate care for girls. If this wasnt the intent of the acts, they should acknowledge whats going wrong and fix it. If it was the intent, they should justify it not just say its something we shouldnt talk about or claim its culture wars.

I get what you're saying but quite honestly I no longer care what his true beliefs are. I don't trust any government of any political colour to take women's wellbeing seriously and I think the only way forward is closer cross party collaboration. So the only belief of Starmer's that I'm interested in is whether or not he believes he can win the next election, and remain in power for at least one term of office, if he remains committed to self ID. It looks as if it might be dawning on him that maybe he can't and I welcome that. I'm not satisfied with what he's said so far but I'll wait and see.

I don't have much faith in politicians in the first place so I don't really care whether he backtracks because he's genuinely changed his mind or because he's realised it's a vote loser. It's the outcome I care about

I agree in principle - it's the outcome that counts. But Starmer's true beliefs do matter because they what will determine what he actually does in office. I defy anyone to read that Twitter thread of quotes from his front bench, and tell me that you trust those people to defend sex-based rights.

I "trust" the Tories in the sense that I trust them to do whatever is in their power to fuck over Labour. While opposing self-ID remains a useful wedge issue for them, they are unlikely to change their minds.

With hindsight, I think Starmer made his position clear when he dodged signing that totally bonkers trans pledge during his leadership campaign - the one that described WPUK as a 'hate group' - but then signed another one that was slightly less defamatory but that included, if I remember correctly, a commitment to gender self- ID.

I think he was just about the only serious leadership contender who didn't sign the first pledge so fair's fair, his lawyer brain won through. But I'm pretty sure he's still on the record as committed to self ID and, if he wants my vote back, then that's what he needs to rectify. And saying it's no longer a priority won't cut it.

I don't have much faith in politicians in the first place so I don't really care whether he backtracks because he's genuinely changed his mind or because he's realised it's a vote loser. It's the outcome I care about.

Yes every man's sexial rights, irrational fashionable luxury belief law going around that harms the vulnerable Labour will bring it in.

cuts to critical public services and welfare, falling most acutely on women and children, and poor women and children at that, over our admittedly still muddled GRR policies, then that's for you to explain, not me."

ooh it's the Blood On Your Hands speech.

There is no point waving the dogwhistle 'women and children' at women when you've informed them they don't exist, no one knows who or what they are and they're a dirty word that can't be talked about. And made it clear that safeguarding children should be conditional on whether doing so may thwart and annoy a male person in their self expressional freedoms.

You cannot have your historically credentials cake when you have oh so wokily eaten it.

I'm not convinced Starmer is an unbeliever within a party dominated with tra. After all, he said nothing about rayner telling GC women not to vote labour, he said nothing when nandy said rapist should be able to self identify into womens prisons and he did say 'only women have cervixes' should not be said. Contrast this with his stance on antisemitism.

So the question is, given he probably is a tra, what is his political strategy?

I think the best we can hope for is that he is not going to want to talk about men identifying as women and all that entails. I very much doubt he'll want to review the GRA and EqA and risk having to explain that mess.

The worse case is that he'll bring in more TRA policies via piggybacking onto other policies - anything with womem and children mentioned (im especially thinking about surrogacy laws) will include men wanting to be women.

I cannot see a scenario where he will actual improve the rights of women and children by clearly defining sex.

What exactly is "non binary" about having your breasts removed?

Surely it would make more sense to just have one of them removed. And maybe take testosterone so you can grow a beard, then shave one half of your face.

@RoyalCorgi yes, you are right, it was the wrong way round.

also right that he’s unprincipled

The other way around, according to yesterday's article in the Mail on Sunday. Kinnock has a daughter who identifies as non-binary, and has had a double mastectomy.

Either way, I don't trust Starmer further than I could throw him. He has shown himself to be utterly unprincipled.

Well said 👏

we'll definitely sort your stuff out once the Big and Serious Things (that men care about) are all done

Even worse we’ll completely ignore your stuff to win and then screw you over anyway.

Top lying but no chance can they be trusted

Well, it would be very unfair to exclude anyone from the shadow cabinet because they happen to have a trans-identifying child.

Starmer's problem is more that he has trapped himself in an extreme TWAW position, and now he cannot row back without scrutiny and protest from the TW lobby and scepticism from women. It's ironic that such an inveterate fence-sitter has adopted a position with no nuance at all.

Stephen Kinnock’s son is now a transwoman and Yvette Cooper’s son is a drag act. Starmer has both of them in his shadow cabinet.

He is not going to do anything to help women.

we'll definitely sort your stuff out once the Big and Serious Things (that men care about) are all done

Exactly. We've been hearing the same line since the birth of feminism in the late 18th century. If we'd listened, we would not have the vote.

...then that's for you to explain, not me."
What a very telling final comment from Lachlan that is.
No Lachlan, if Labour is failing to convince women that they can be trusted then that is for you and for your party to explain.

I dont "prefer" cuts to service, I wont vote for them. But I cant vote for a mysogynistic party that denies reality and believes mens rights are much more important than the safeguarding of children and the rights of biological women. Can someone tell Lachlan you want me to vote for chicken shit in preference to bull shit.

Ugh, I follow Lachlan and quite liked him till I read that.

I thought he got how fundamental this is for many of us, but no. Patpatpat wims, we'll definitely sort your stuff out once the Big and Serious Things (that men care about) are all done.

I think some in the party are hoping it gets dropped according to Stuart Lachlan (former Labour advisor to UK and Scottish governments) who says he was in the room when self-ID was discussed:

https://twitter.com/lachlanedi/status/1637615940484448257?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

The thread of replies ends up with a "well if you don't vote right" kind of finger wag. More disappointment really:

https://twitter.com/lachlanedi/status/1637711194109751297?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

"Yes. I get that. I hope we will see the self ID policy dropped from 2024 manifesto. I dont think it is realistic to hope for more than that. In part, depends on where the affilliated unions are at."

Someone says:

"I wont vote for a party so captured, they pretend to be unable to define what a woman is, who refuse to protect women's language, rights, safeguarding, privacy & dignity. Who will put women at increased risk to appear progressive. 51% of potential voters are women, & we are angry"

This is Lachlan's reply:

"You are entitled to vote for whoever you want to vote for, for whatever reason.

I have worked fairly tirelessly to ensure that people with your views can see Labour as the best bet, and that Labour sees people with your views as legitimately interested.

But if you prefer...

. .. cuts to critical public services and welfare, falling most acutely on women and children, and poor women and children at that, over our admittedly still muddled GRR policies, then that's for you to explain, not me."