Starmer: Almost no-one is talking about trans issues

Labour advocates do seem to use majority argument and no one cares a lot

I don’t think that’s right. The polls ask about ‘trans issues’

I don’t care about those, but I do very much care about women’s rights

Regardless I am happy to put it all to the test in a vote.

I'm sorry, but where is this majority view written down as being evidenced?

All I've seen is a lot of polls which reveal that many women are under the impression that transwomen using female spaces have been somehow checked for whether they are a risk to women and are post surgery.

When it's spelt out that this isn't the case, you get totally different results.

And that highlights a lot of the problem - women can't give consent if they don't fully understand what they are consenting to and it's very easy to fudge the results on surveys of this nature by the question you ask.

I don't believe there is a majority view at all.

Trouble is @AdamRyan you have, whether you meant to or not, set yourself up as a spokesperson for Labour. You continually bang the drum for voting Labour, you tell us that Labour have got it all in hand re the EqA, and they clearly haven't, even your own preferences re the EqA and GRA are not, and I doubt will ever be, Labour Party Policy but you will vote for them knowing this and knowing the impact their current policy has on women and girls and harangue others who won't.

You know that Labour will not and have no intention of doing what the majority of posters on this Board want regarding the EqA and GRA and you are virulent in your condemnation of anything Tory and anyone who dares to say they will vote for them due to Labour's stance on GI. You dismiss anyone saying that Labour's policy re GI is dubious at best.

women already 'compromise' by allowing very young males (boys) into female facilities. So there you go Adam, you can stop trying to force women to erode their boundaries now and we can all get on with the job of telling men that it's their problem to accommodate males of all varieties.

But you do have a tendency not to engage with content when people pick you up on certain points - instead resorting to laughing emojis, name calling, or suggestions that people are 'right wing'. So I don't think it is fair at all for you to suggest that people are not open to debate or discussion, when you do this.

Yes the problem imo is once this kind of tactic stalls there’s a lack of coherence and the arguments don’t stack up.

This is an example of what I refer to.

To be honest, when you enter onto a forum in which you know that you are largely swimming, or pushing, against the general tide of that forum then it can feel like you are permanently embattled or besieged. It goes with that territory.

But you do have a tendency not to engage with content when people pick you up on certain points - instead resorting to laughing emojis, name calling, or suggestions that people are 'right wing'. So I don't think it is fair at all for you to suggest that people are not open to debate or discussion, when you do this.

You know full well this has been the only place, for years, that women have ben able to come and openly discuss their critique of Gender ideology/Queer theory, and the ways it impacts upon women and children, and so on - but then you keep calling it an 'Echo Chamber'. I'm not sure really what you expect.

Most people here are not in agreement with your brand of intersectionalist/'trans friendly' feminism. Why would you expect otherwise? The 'chat' thread was created for people such as yourself who wanted to have those kinds of approaches - free from those of us who do not share them.

I'm not grilling you. It's not a personal attack.

I'm just trying to understand your position because you are constantly on these threads trying to tell women we shouldn't ask questions, particularly on the stance of the Labour Party.

I want to try understand your reasoning for this because I'm interested particularly as there seems to be an incongruence between your personal beliefs and the beliefs of the Labour Party.

‘Compromise’ is just women deal with males there

No thanks

So glad other women aren’t ready to do that

I'm leaving the thread now because I am very upset with the continued grilling as if I'm some sort of official spokesperson. I'm sure the echo chamber will be much more comfortable for everyone.

I write about my personal circumstances because of safeguarding the vulnerable. For example when DC has been hospitalised and been bedridden physically. Depending on which hospital and which ward, you can’t stay overnight with your child from 16 in some places. Wards vary but some are not staffed well (particularly when going through A&E). The people teenagers could be sharing a bay with more often than not will have mental health problems too (dementia/low mood etc). Recent example an alcoholic fixating on my Dd and wanting to touch her when Dd was unable to get off the bed. They didn’t have enough staff for 1-1 nursing of this patient. The hospital was over-run with patients lining cooridors.

There really is not the niceties of having wards for ‘how you feel inside’. It took 24hours to even be allocated a bed last time DC was wheeled in. There were very ill and lying on the floor around us but there is a degree of protection is than someone can see you. And the ambulance staff waiting in the cooridors. Not so much in a toilet or curtained off cubicle.

Medical care=reality based. For safeguarding all patients=single sex wards as soon as possible.

It’s obvious many posters haven’t seen as much/as many hospitals as I have. Seven at the last count. Everyone is one virus or accident away from that though so when people are airy-fairying about with their inner ideals, listen to those who are actually having to deal with mixed sex toilets/ hospital wards when they are incapacitated.

The most important thing you can do if going to A&E is to have someone with you to keep you safe. Give you water. Shout up if you collapse. Fend off other patients. All which I have had to do. Adhering to gender ideology is absolute bollocks compared to the basics needed.

We don’t have a ‘compromise’ and having males in single sex spaces isn’t one either

Women and children are impacted negatively.

It’s only accepted because the narrative is to ignore women

What compromise?

What compromise is there in the Labour Party position when it is de-facto self ID for the reasons set out in my post of 11.12

But that is effectively what Labour's position is.

Biological woman has no legal definition.

Single sex spaces can't be reserved for females because males with a GRC have protected characteristic of both sex (female) and gender reassignment so service providers who exclude these males are likely to face successful legal challenges.

Most service providers can't ask for a copy or declaration of the certificate.

So what is going to keep transwomen without a GRC out, how can we tell?

This results in de facto 'self id'.

I meant what I said. A compromise. A compromise isn't "ignoring for the greater good". A compromise is both sides give up a bit of what they want to reach a position they can agree on. It's kind of how human relationships work

My point isn't about Brexit; my point is that in a democracy everyone lives with things they don't like. And peopleshouldbe able to recognise other points of view without resorting to personal attacks and black and white thinking.

Please point to any personal attack I have made about you?

I agree that sometimes it might come across that I have black and white thinking, it's probably the former lawyer in me that makes me want clarity on meanings of words when it comes to ensuring the rights of 51% of the population are protected.

Today at 11.08
You said about the Labour Party current stance vis a vis your personal feelings.

It doesn't go as far as I'd like but they have to compromise across democracy so that's OK.
My red line is self ID.

I took that as meaning that you were prepared to sacrifice your personal beliefs for what I assume you mean the greater good of having the Labour Party elected into government.

if you didn't mean that then please explain what you did mean?

I wasn't a labour supporter then and have no idea what their position was. I was lib dem.

My point isn't about Brexit; my point is that in a democracy everyone lives with things they don't like. And people should be able to recognise other points of view without resorting to personal attacks and black and white thinking.

Where did I suggest we should "ignore it for the greater good"? Don't misrepresent me please.

Of course it isn’t democratic

It’s a very tiny minority who benefit. Women are clearly seeing the harms more and more so let’s vote on it

That's why I said physical harm.

I do not dispute the harms of Brexit.

Interesting that the Labour Party weren't openly pro-remain, wasn't Corbyn quite keen on the idea of Brexit?

If you want the pre 2004 system great me too

Get rid of the GRA and GRCs and it’s a deal

This is precisely why it is really important that politicians are asked questions about their proposals on matters which impact on women's rights.

Adam's suggestion that we should ignore it for the 'greater good' isn't very democratic. It's just saying that women's rights don't matter enough.

Hmm. I'd say the country going bankrupt, and people losing their jobs and being pushed into poverty is "harm".

Dolatowski is the worst kind of scum and I don't think any legislation would have stopped that attack happening.

It was a system where female included people that GC people think are male. It always has done. Intersex people don’t need gender recognition certificates.

So?

The fact that people with differences of sexual development exist doesn't mean we should open all spaces to all males.