Starmer in favour of clarifying Equalities Act

^^

That. Anyone waffling away in pretty fig leaf language who in fact means that the group 'women' includes people of both sexes has wholly and entirely missed the point, and is already placing male feelings above female equality and humanity.

And fuck that. I wouldn't vote for that no matter what else was on the manifesto.

Absolutely. Definition is crucial

Didn’t Sturgeon say she was for women, but since she included males in that anyway she just got away with the word meaning both

When a politician deferentiates between a women and biological women, we need to look at all legislation that mentions woman because it obviously doesnt mean adult human female to him.

We need to get politicians to explain when woman means female and when it doesnt. It does make a difference to the meaning of manifesto promises. A pledge aimed at 'women' might advantage males and disadvantage females.

The upper body, arms and waist of an influencer do not look feminine in any way.

Passing seems to be all about the face and implants tbh.

"I do believe that safe spaces for women like a women's refuge for instance, there are very good reasons why that should be for biological women," he said. "I don't think the debate is as polarised as people sometimes imagine. Of course, we need to protect women from those who might seek to abuse them and where that means biological women, yes, it must mean biological women primarily.”'

No Kier. It means biologically women entirely. Or it's not worth the paper it's written on. You admit a male, even one, and it's not a single sex space.

There is an attempt to argue that cosmetic alterations and medication can change a person's sex enough to justify the invasion of female spaces and the right to control biologically female people's boundaries. Yes.

Unfortunately the reality is that a male person who has made cosmetic alterations to their body and taken a lot of hormones their body was not designed for, continues to be a male person who has made cosmetic alterations to their body and has taken a lot of hormones their body was not designed for. They have not changed sex. They have added diversity to maleness.

They met at this point prefer an alternative provision to their sex based one, and their privacy, dignity and safety should absolutely be seriously considered, but that is a problem in its own right with many possible solutions.

None of which justify or necessitate removing single sex provisions from people born unambiguously female, and who want and need those single sex provisions.

Isn’t there a line that taking cross sex hormones effects a “biological” change?

Well it sort of does, but not in the way they interpret it.

if they also agree that biologically female people are allowed their own language

That seems like their line in the sand. They are activitly avoiding having words to describe a persons sex. We can't say woman, or even female, and have that be clear, we have to say 'biological female'.

And tra are going after the word biological now. We are going round in circles trying to appease TRA and weak politicans who do not want women to have language to describle themselves.

It is only relevant that they admit that biologically female women are different to biological male people who identify as women, if they also agree that biologically female people are allowed their own language, spaces, services and resources, and to limit a group, space or service to female only regardless of what legal pieces of paper are involved. Because of this otherwise excluding and harming the equality and access of females.

If they have not got to that bit, they're still enforcing male privilege over female equality. Cos Reasons.

The problem is, while Labour are talking about .1% of women having a penis, and 'biological women' being different to women, its obvious that labour do not see sex as the way we split in every way.

They could change signage and information - 'biological women only' 'women lacking a penis only', but everytime someone says 'woman' it will include the '.1%'. So the question is what is it this group of women have in common that the group of men do not?

*with not when

Sex
We split by sex

I say this as someone who works professionally when EA

Do we split by gender or by sex? It’s a massive deal with so many ramifications as we’re finding out.

If politicians want us to be split by gender, they're going to have to define it and be honest.

Because its not feminine people over here and masculine people over there, its really 'women and girls and whichever men want to be here' and men over there.

These debates always are AFAIK.

https://twitter.com/benwansell/status/1644741199268388866

This is a FASCINATING thread on where political parties sit, and where various groups of the public sit.

The premise and the purpose of the thread is this:

Ben Ansell AT benwansell
But let's be honest. The last week has been all about a 'new woke elite' OUTSIDE of politics but still apparently influential. And their views our counterposed to those of the public. So is this right? 6/n

Its worth reading the whole thread, but there is something super interesting here: the outliers are the political parties themselves.

AND THAT, has implications for Starmer. Significant ones. On the one had he has to keep students happy. But we know that students are unreliable voters. And the most socially liberal are those who earn over £70k - is that a sign of an insulated life?

But in electoral terms most groups who are the economically most likely to be affect by the cost of living, are also much more socially conservative - look at where renters both social and private sit on this. Generally speaking most of these groups identified are more social conservative. And even the Conservative Party aren't THAT socially conservative.

And here's a little thought. Who are Labour's main donors? Same for the LDs. Is THAT why they are taking a TWAW style line, which doesn't reflect the majority of the public? TWAW certainly doesn't look to sit close to the general population in terms of political alignment. Look at how MASSIVELY out of touch with the population students are. (Hence that second government petition looking the way it does on the map....)

Which begs the question for me. Who is 'manufacturing' a culture war? Who are much closer to a similar social position of the general population?

Starmer is going to have to sell policies which are significantly different to the general population AND social policies which are significantly different to the general population if he continues to court the TWAW vote. One or the other might be doable, but both? Thats a harder sell. That really DOES leave things more open to the Conservatives regaining significant ground before a GE, unless Starmer starts to commit. I note that the SNP is MORE socially conservative than the Labour Party according to this too.

The LP will be looking at stuff like this atm and pondering...

This is hardly the stuff of Nazis. Not by a long shot.

I read that the debate on this will be in Westminster Hall, not the House of Commons, why would that be the case? Does anyone know?

No celebrating yet here. We have a chance now but if Labour get in before it changes we’re probably fucked.

If we go fully NZ, Canada etc it’s likely game over.

Suppression and violence to silence.

I suppose one difference is not all the media is captured. The Guardian yes, BBC too but still some upstarts who wouldn’t go along with it.

Plus people said the same of the NI issue and Rishi got the votes when many predicted not, so we’ll see.

I would not celebrate yet. The Tories are people who say and don't do much, so no guarantee they will make the change, and secondly, I don't see given voter ID and boundary changes that a Labour majority in 2024 is a certainty.

There is a significant difference apparent in the comments on the papers, the average person in the street, the consultations and the surveys, to that of Twitter.

Over and over again the polls and consultations come back : no one wants to see TQ+ people suffer, they want them to have freedom from harassment and discrimination, legal protection in employment etc, needed health care,

AND

they want single sex spaces particularly for women, and caution with children.

It's hardly an unreasonable stance.

If it does not go through this time, it will keep on coming back until it does. More and more Isla Bryson incidents will happen, more court cases are in the pipeline, the mob violence is escalating. It will eventually have to be re balanced from the mess that bad law and a lot of nervous faffing and political capture have created. It does not harm any TQ+ male person to accept that female people also have needs and to tolerate them also having accessible provision.

I don’t expect this to be fast though. It’s a huge societal issue.

Do we split by gender or by sex? It’s a massive deal with so many ramifications as we’re finding out.

So I’d expect some one to consider it before proposing changes. But also I expect there’s some testing of public opinion before going ahead. So the Kemi articles are to get a sense of backlash or approval.

It’s a million times better than Starmer 99.9% of people aren’t talking about this. Doofus

Of course people are

But the opinion from the public needs to be gauged and yes it is better to take people on the journey from considering to doing.

I think that was just more Tory lip service, lies and manipulation Marsha.

I thought that was the whole point of Kemi looking into biological sex issue

They’re going in direction of making changes

I don't think there would be a problem getting it through the HoL who have tried to push back the Tory TRA agenda before. I'm well aware that that Tories don't give a shit about women so asking them to vote to restore the rights they ceded to their TRAs, on a matter of conscience wouldn't work.

However, they have a sizable majority. The DUP and some others in the Commons would vote with them and SF abstain on everything. Is Rishi's grasp on the party really that feeble?

And anyway, what about the Conservatives knowing what a woman is? Has the penny finally dropped that they no more know what a woman is than any other party and don't give a shit about us either way?

I must say I thought twice before signing because TRAs are in all kinds of roles where they can access sensitive data eg the TRA intern who leaked Mumsnet data, and we have heard of cases where letters/emails to MPs about women’s rights don’t seem to have been passed on. If the question is about why people might wish to be assured of anonymity, just look at the way women who spoke up have been treated.

You can choose for your name to not be publicly visible on petitions.

I don't see why anyone would be "scared" to sign either petition either way?