Starmer in favour of clarifying Equalities Act

This is clearly TWAW not all women are the same in that some are men according to Labour

They need to get their messaging clarified it’s all over the place

Jackie Doyle Price deserves an honorable metion. Her portfolio included teenage mental health, and in the last hour before she was sacked by Boris when he had a clear out of remainers, she announced a review into gender and adolescent health. I don't know if this morphed into Cass, but she was definitely one of the early ones to stick her head above the parapet.

So Labour women/MPs. One day you may be asked where you were during the great gender wars. Momentum is in Rosie's direction but she needs some company.

Not all women are the same? and so it continues....weasel words. Women need an apology from Labour for being called bigots and transphobes.

Jess Phillips has now said she is in favour of clarifying the Equality Act in an interview where she talks about refuges.

"Single-sex spaces should be protected"

Shadow domestic violence and safeguarding minister @jessphillips says not all women are the same and that there should also be "specialist spaces for transgender victims of domestic abuse"
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1643879230093000705?s=20

Yes it is his and 'gender identity ideology's fault that we can no longer trust the commonly accepted meanings of words.

Yes I have tried to piece it all together and come to a similar conclusion. Also that Nikki Da Costa was probably the one advocating for children and women.
I would still argue that very few people realised self-id was a policy in the May manifesto.

Deeds not Words Keir

Article in the Mail on the reform quotes Steve Reed at length on Equality Act reform also quotes from Nadia Whittome who unsurprisingly is against it:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11943519/Labour-war-plan-banish-trans-women-female-spaces.html

LGBT Labour interestingly are silent so far. Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, Anneliese Dodds nothing.

@JanesLittleGirl
True.
Maybe he was just doing a lot of research. For science.

Not necessarily. Just think how many more kids he could have had if he did know exactly what a woman is.

Boris did not have the same problem as Keir, but there were a few (and still are a few) who are very TWAW. Some of these were considered "friends of Carrie" and held quite influential positions within No 10.

His ears were being bent with two sets of views. Presumably sufficiently toxic that Liz' suggestion of GRA reform into the long grass seemed like a good idea. (Keir is close to this now.) Liz deserves some credit. She was women's minister, and then appointed Kemi as her deputy. Some good things were taking place in the background. The Cass report was commissioned, Kishwer Falkner was appointed to the EHRC. It was slow turning the tanker around but it is now gaining momentum.

I’m not sure about Boris (just haven’t looked into it much) but Rishi is being far clearer than Starmer with statements, and now actions.

Given how many kids Boris has, I can only assume that he's known exactly what a woman is for a very long time.

I think Boris was never that in to the Trans Genderwoo, he inherited it from Theresa May and as we saw he and Truss quickly announced that self-id would not go ahead as planned. I voted Conservative in that Theresa May election and had no idea self-id was in the manifesto (as with all the other parties)..it was under the radar somewhat.
Starmer has offended me far more as an ex-Labour party member as he has tried to silence women.

Labour know there is a problem. They are dancing around the issue hoping to find a formula that will please everyone. They won't. Sooner or later Keir will have to take a position.

If you remember, Boris flip flopped a few times, then finally decided that a woman was an adult human female. What was noticeable was how on top of the detail he seemed to be...given he was someone who was rarely on top of the detail.

Keir is on a similar journey.

Yes Actions not words. As I keep saying, there is still nothing from Labour about Tavistock and child-safeguarding. The Labour MSPs in Scotland voted for SNP's GRR. Sarwar didn't have to make them all support it, but he did and they went along with it.
This Law change would be excellent and a great way to undo the damage but it concerns me that it is only the UK showing this political resistance to nonsense anti-science. I know some Republicans in the USA are passing laws to protect kids in school in particular but elsewhere self-id seems to have gone through with little pushback evident. I expect the media has been convinced to go through 'the no debate allowed' stage just like here. Branding people supporting women and children as 'anti-trans' being the method used.

Starmer said very recently he met with Rosie and she was an important member of the party. See appearance here:
https://twitter.com/OkBiology/status/1642953606570602496

I haven't seen Rosie deny this happened which I imagine she would. It definitely looks like Starmer is repositioning. Whether it is enough we shall see.

If there is a vote on a Statutory Instrument on the Equality Act it will indicate more clearly what Labour actually stands for.

It feels to me like a complete fudge.
e.g.
OK to single biological sex spaces
BUT you can identify as the other biological sex

A set of boundaries, where no matter what the boundaries are, the only thing that matters is how you self identify.
The same policy they've had up until now using different words, or the order of the words changed around.
Like a magician using misdirection only everyone can see the trick. Tommy Cooper but not on purpose for laughs like Tommy, genuinely hopelessly bad at it.

Saying biological women, is saying that there's another type of women.

Exactly. The proposal is to clarify that 'sex' means biological sex. Not to create endless cub categories of one sex class.

Literally the Labour position is becoming more GC by the minute (which is a GOOD THING).

It isn't. They are just rearranging words.

Saying biological women, is saying that there's another type of women. Talking about safe spaces, but not sex segregated spaces is ignoring lots of reasons why sex is important other than saftey.

Labour either really dont understand the implications of not having women as a class independent of men, or really don't want that distinction.

I’m not sure why people are certain he’ll stick to any position

I see so many posts re Brexit statements re no SM and many comfortable that in time he’ll just go in the direction he prefers.

Why would this be different. He wants to reform but ‘take the public with him’

I’d rather not give the chance for the duplicity

I'm broadly in agreement with this:
If Keir personally doesn't agree with it but supports it for electoral reasons then...that means the Labour Party is going to stick with it for those reasons. So what does it matter whether he personally agrees with it or not?

I too don't care what his personal views are. I have seen enough of conviction politicians to last me the rest of my life. However I think he's in a vulnerable position and that a lot of the danger comes from within his own party so, as far as I'm concerned, every word he says and everything the manifesto says will need to be dissected for double meanings.

A 'safe space' is an informal arrangement, not something that can be clarified in law. Using terms like 'safe space' makes me think you haven't read the legislation but are relying on a briefing written by an advisor.

Starmer really does seem to think people are stupid. He is so patronising and dismissive that any respect I may once have had for him has since departed.

Labour always use qualifiers like ‘primarily’

They can’t speak plainly because their aim is to obfuscate rather than be clear and honest on the direction they want to go

A load of rubbish indeed