Annaliese Dodds: "sex and gender are different"

If you are living in a country where laws and policy are under attack to force you to enact believing in God and banning you from ever saying otherwise, or to refuse to participate in prayers and communion? Then non believers have absolutely no option but to discuss, in depth, why this is not going to happen, and that to them God does not exist.

Perfectly put. I am never going to believe a male is a woman, because I don't believe "transitioning", however it is defined, is in any way meaningful as to whether one man or another should be able to use women's spaces or participate in things meant for women.

I think we do need to dissect and analyse the whole concept of 'being trans' - because so far it has been wilfully equated with 'being gay' - as if someone has no choice about 'being trans'. That some people just are.

I agree. I think it's important to differentiate the ideology from both reality, and the people saying they follow it. And this is all ideology. I agree with Helen Joyce that "trans" is an empty concept.

Judging by the deletion message it was zapped because presumably it was started by a PBP or similar. Not because it's not a legitimate topic to discuss.

Yes, i'm totally sceptical.

Behind the scenes what i likelys being communicated to the TRA movement/Stonewall is that this is purely a strategic move - a ploy, designed to make it far easier to Self Id. They're being told not to get upset about the change in wording or terminology - that it will still give them what they are after.

Quite.

There is nothing wrong with debating whether or not God exists. If people of faith find that too uncomfortable to participate in, that is their choice but they cannot expect this never to be discussed or considered, or to be protected from awareness that people exist who do not share their faith. And if your faith is so fragile that meeting a doubter is likely to throw you into crisis, that really is an issue for you rather than the blame of the doubter.

If you are living in a country where laws and policy are under attack to force you to enact believing in God and banning you from ever saying otherwise, or to refuse to participate in prayers and communion? Then non believers have absolutely no option but to discuss, in depth, why this is not going to happen, and that to them God does not exist.

If you didn't want to force people to be discourteous to you in blunt truths? Perhaps you shouldn't have pushed them to that point.

BBC coverage is revealing:
Labour drops pledge to introduce self-ID for trans people
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66299705

The LGBT+ Labour group said the party's new position would be a "huge step forward" for trans people over the current government stance.
But it added the party was "signalling a retreat on their policy of de-medicalised self-ID for the trans community at the next general election".
Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle, a patron of the group, told the BBC it would push for further changes, including giving non-medical professionals such as social workers the power to "externally verify" someone's acquired gender.
Rosie Duffield, who had threatened to quit as a Labour MP over the party's previous stance, said she welcomed the retention of medical reports, calling it the "core thing" demanded by women's groups.
Ms Duffield, the MP for Canterbury, has opposed self-ID as a way for trans people to gain access to single sex spaces such as domestic violence refuges and prisons.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, she called for more clarity on the party's position ahead of the general election, expected next year, adding it still included a "bit of confusion and a bit of fence-sitting".

So as expected there will be attempts to water down the safeguarding in the proposals. The GRC panel will be a random guy from reddit if they have their way. We can expect the internal fight to intensify. Hopefully LWD will be gaining more open support as it becomes safer to admit they were always right.

Still no official word on what Scottish/Welsh Labour position will be now.

Jo Bartosch in spiked has an interesting but sceptical take.
Labour’s betrayal of women
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/07/25/labours-betrayal-of-women/

Of course, you can avoid the discussion if you don't like it; but it is not for you to decide whether other people can have that discussion or not.

I disagree with you on that.

I think we do need to dissect and analyse the whole concept of 'being trans' - because so far it has been wilfully equated with 'being gay' - as if someone has no choice about 'being trans'. That some people just are.

Whether of not somneone utilises 'being traans' as a framing device for their sense of self, or 'believes' in gender identity doesn't mean that the concept itself should not be challenged or discussed. In fact, it has to be challenged - and indeed that is what is required if we are to roll back/push back against the impact of gender theory on young people.

They will highlight that their rights are being eroded (eg for 10 years they have done x and now it's being proposed that they can't

Yeah that only works if they equally care that women could once do x, then it was proposed that they couldn't (by TRAs) and for 10 years women have had their rights rolled back. By men with TQ+ identities and their political supporters.

Either this matters for all, and rolling rights back is always a bad thing - in which case, the TRAs started it and owe reparation to those women AND solutions that work equally for all - or it's just yet more 'women are lesser humans who should accept having less rights and importance and lesser treatment in law than men, and accept they exist to be used by men and good women don't argue about this.'

Which, let's face it, is what this really all boils down to. And let's link that to all the girls desperately trying to identify out of this fate into the sex they perceive as having the rights and power and autonomy that service humans are increasingly legally and acceptably denied.

As to WH doing an hour on Transwidows... I can describe the programme now, it doesn't even need to happen. I could bloody perform it for you. There'll be 58 minutes of male people telling sob stories about how they were just innocently living their best lives and their wife only wants to leave because transphobia and a whole lot of head tilting and no actual interviewing or difficult questions from a soft voiced interviewer, and a woman might be allowed two minutes to say something very mild about 'perhaps I ought to be allowed a say in my own marriage please, if I'm very good and ask very nicely and say all the mantras like a good girl'.

Tinsel et al will be allowed nowhere near it on the grounds that the male people involved will all cry and refuse to come on the show . No one at the BBC or any of these male transitioners however will be remotely bothered about how the female women feel at any point in all this. They will not really exist as people in this narrative, merely as failed service units refusing to soldier. The male voices will of course end the programme on touching anecdotes, and absolutely NONE of the issues faced by actual women or these men's children will be mentioned at all. Spin city. Nasty facts vanished. Through tax and through funding the BBC women have had to fund their own oppression and gaslighting.

It's just been zapped by MNHQ for investigation.

I'm glad. I didn't report it but presumably someone did. It was unlikely to lead anywhere: some people believe in gender identity, some people don't so debating whether it's "real" or "possible" to be trans is at best pointless, at worst offensive. A bit like an argument over whether God is real or not. You can't force someone else to accept your belief (GC or gender identity) through debate.

This conversation is far more productive. There does indeed seem to be some interesting movement within Labour. Small steps and no guarantee where it's going. But interesting and positive sounding (based on what I read in the specific thread about the spousal "veto", Dodds just sounded ignorant - presumably the more Labour digs in to the feedback and details on this, the more they will shift their position towards
an increasing understanding about the importance of clarity).

That thread has been deleted

It’s the one entitled “no trans”.

It is a pain, but I'm more than happy to take screenshots, if I am around.

Thank you.

I try my best never to think of Crispin Blunt.

The new politics isn't right or left, tbh. Trans is as much a Left intersectional analysis/post modern thing as it is a Right libertarian personal choice/transhumanist capitalist idea.

There is as much cross party unanimity on TRA as there is on GC.

Brexit itself can also be argued from both a Right and Left standpoint.

The new politics is identity and group interests, and the interaction with woke capitalism and academia.

It certainly is. There are Tories who are TRA on the grounds of Individual Freedom.

It is a pain, but I'm more than happy to take screenshots, if I am around.

That Politico commentary seems to reinforce the idea that this announcement is indeed some kind of progress. I think it will be extremely important to scrutinise labour on this, keep up the pressure and not take the progress for granted as a done deal. But on the other hand it is also important to acknoweldge that there has been a constructive change in the right direction.

Without that acknowledgement (and the associated confidence for the party leaders that this is the right direction of travel in order to win back women's votes) the danger is that they won't see this move towards relative sanity as a vote winner. And we have seen in relation to ulez just how appallingly eager they are to sacrifuce any kind of principle or urgent policy need on the altar of a few more votes.

This is the Brexit of social policy. Cuts across all natural political divides. Thus "GC equals Alt Right" is such a bad take.

Politico EU Playbook for yesterday - which often has internal contacts has this to say on Labour's new position:

"United Labour latest: Labour has officially ditched plans to introduce gender self-ID for trans people, Playbook’s Eleni Courea writes. Keir Starmer had been previously committed to introducing self-ID — which would change the process to allow people to self-identify as their chosen gender without needing to get doctors involved — and reaffirmed this to PinkNews last summer.

But but but: Starmer has moved to a significantly more gender-critical position in the last few months, particularly as the Scottish National Party got into political difficulties over its Gender Recognition Reform Bill.

Fast-forward to now: A Guardian op-ed by Anneliese Dodds was rushed out this morning after the Times reported that self-ID wasn’t included in the final document produced by the National Policy Forum, according to a party official. Dodds’ piece argues that the requirement to get a medical diagnosis to change gender was “important” and “upholds legitimacy of applications and confidence in the system.” Labour aides nervously checking outspoken gender-critical MP Rosie Duffield’s Twitter feed this morning were relieved to see she retweeted a Labour Women’s Declaration welcoming the change."

https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/london-playbook/london-playbook-pm-less-than-net-zero/

There is a bunch of internal Labour politics going on here. We shall see where it ends up, BUT the key take away pro-woman faction in the party is in a way better position than they were before this.

Hence Rosie getting to speak out even more.

Absolutely!

So much is now hinging on the definition of sex in the Equality Act. If Dodds has conceded that sex and gender are different, Badenoch can lead the charge to straighten all this out. Ideally with Rosie Duffield and Miriam Cares at her side to build on everything they have done so far from a non-partisan perspective.

Gender can continue to mean whatever it needs to for those that believe in gender identity.

I would love to see Kemi up against Dodds more. She’d wipe the floor

I can get what she’s saying, no vague gaslighting blurbs

Yes, this was a great Tweet. Very encouraging. She has a fantastic grasp of the issues and a concise way of putting it.

I note that there’s a thread now which seeks to brand as bigots anyone who finds Helen Joyce’s analysis of the term “trans” persuasive.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Anyway, anyone who wants to take a look can do so and decide for themselves.

I'll stick with this discussion instead as I find it more productive.

Thanks for posting screengrabs of Kemi’s tweets @BellsMoon The recent Twitter changes/lock out for non users are a pain in the arse.

Can't be certain, but maybe this one
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4856908-no-trans?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

Where’s that thread please, @LoobiJee ? I looked in this folder but none of the titles seemed likely candidates.