Janice Turner on Labour u-turn

You can't be serious, this is window dressing.

They have told us clearly that the spousal exit clause will go on their watch.

Nothing has changed.

Thirding everything in BettyFilous post.
Demedicalisation takes any seriousness or urgency for public assistance out of this whole thing. It kills off the vestigial ‘born in the wrong body’ beliefs on which the current non evidence based invasive ‘treatments’ are based. It removes any sense of gender identity as being an innate thing or anything but an irrational social construct or for some people an escape from other problems or simply for others a sexual fetish.

Sadly, gender related distress and anxiety and body dysmorphia, which are all awful to live with, will probably be deprioritised for professional NHS support as well in the demedicalisation, which does those suffering from those things no good at all.

All the American-inspired protests about ‘trans healthcare now’ will have to fall away, which is a nonsense that make it sound like in the UK people are being turned away from A&E or their GP for gender reasons, and gives an impression of terrible discrimination when actual special services are being argued for.

If it’s not a medical issue, it’s a lifestyle choice
^^
why we’re giving teen girls double mastectomies on the NHS for lifestyle reasons when women with breast cancer are having long waits for post surgery reconstruction
^^
making single sex services needed by vulnerable or religious groups mixed sex and upending safeguarding to accommodate the lifestyle choice of a vanishingly small subset of the population

This.

Rebranding it as demedicalisation will come back to bite the TRAs

I'm not sure that's true, since self-ID already entailed demedicalisation, and all the questions you raise should already have had purchase when selfID was the branding.

One frightening thing is that the retention of a 'medical model' without adequate robustness will just create a new cottage industry for clinicians, like the ADHD 'diagnoses' exposed byPanorama amonth or two ago. Quick Zoom call and a bank transfer and you're good to go..

Rebranding it as demedicalisation will come back to bite the TRAs and Labour on the arse. If it’s not a medical issue, it’s a lifestyle choice and that opens a whole can of worms about why, for example, we’re giving teen girls double mastectomies on the NHS for lifestyle reasons when women with breast cancer are having long waits for post surgery reconstruction and most women needing breast reduction for medical reasons have to go private. That, and reordering society, making single sex services needed by vulnerable or religious groups mixed sex and upending safeguarding to accommodate the lifestyle choice of a vanishingly small subset of the population. Most marginalised? Hardly. Public attitudes and acceptance will harden. This is not a smart move by Labour or the TRAs.

Yes, but still a fringe event.

And this.

This. Still, at opened a door for us to continue to press our case.

Yes, that really is positive. If we can be heard, we will win.

To me this is the biggest sign of meaningful change. The policy statements are welcome and much clearer than before but actions speak louder than words.

We need to get rid of GRA to make sense of any of it.

Well, I guess it’s better than what we had before. But I am deeply suspicious that this is a way to get self ID whilst pretending there is not self Id. If someone can get a GRC by paying a gender ideologue GP then that is self ID. If female means someone with a GRC then makes can be adult human females. I am concerned KS really means this

And we already have self ID in most services. What we need is a move away from that.

I always though no to self ID in law was a symbolic victory as it made progress against ‘in practice’ self ID in services impossible. But we still need to make progress there.

If they ever get to question them

Labour are pathetically absent on direct questions

Hope they get grilled.

We're going to be dependent on journalists to expose the "having their cake and eating it" aren't we? If labour have been pacifying the anti women brigade (Bradshaw, Russel whotsit, Cashman etc) with their " nothing to see here, all superficial, men will always be prioritised over child safeguarding and women's rights to safety", then it'll be journalists who expose the hypocrisy.

Because Labour are sticking to their self-ID policy but re-branding it as de-medicalisation. Presumably.

So that they can say that they've made it easier.

They are still desperately trying to have their cake and eat it.

Why then reduce the amount of medical intervention from two doctors to one, and reduce the panel size to a single person?

Does anyone know the source for Nandy 'rowing back'?

The last articles I can find are her saying 13 year olds should be taken seriously if they want to change gender.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/01/19/labours-lisa-nandy-suggests-13-year-olds-should-able-change/

And a reminder that she recognised it was to expel women over their views, but decided to back that anyway:

'The pledge calls on candidates in the Labour leadership race to back the expulsion of party members who hold “bigoted, transphobic views”.
It also describes Woman’s Place UK, a group that backs biological sex to be acknowledged as part of maintaining women’s rights, as a “trans-exclusionist hate group”.
Speaking on Sky News’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme, Nandy said the call for those who support organisations such as Woman’s Place to be kicked out of the party had given her pause before signing the pledge.
“I have to say, that was the part of the pledge that gave me pause for thought about whether to sign it,” said Nandy. “I decided to sign it in the end because I think that the sentiment of the pledge about protecting trans rights and about accepting that trans men are men and trans women are women is really important'

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/23/lisa-nandy-wording-trans-rights-pledge-labour-leadership

And arguing for males in women's sports:

Not nrtft yet, but has starmer come up with any reason why he too could not see or state the bloody obvious?
Presumably he too was unduly influenced by something or someone?
Which then begs the question, if he ever makes it as leader of the country, can we trust that he wont be unduly influenced into leading us into something terrible?
I realise we do have to let people walk over that rainbow bridge back to sanity and biology, but do we just ignore completely how influenced they were and how stupid they were and are they really leader material?

Agree nandy should just quit politics now, but to my mind so should half or more of the current labour lot.

Oh and to add, I want the gra gone. Whichever party gets closest to repealing that act is the one I will vote for.

I think any moves I make, emails, cards in person, will all be to repeal the gra.

Indeed, but it’s opened up the topic for discussion and public scrutiny, in the run up to an election and, as slothtoes said in her post this morning, now is the time to capitalise on that by pressing them on the obvious inconsistencies and obfuscations.

Is she, aye?

So she is open to being 'unduly swayed' by anyone talking shite with conviction? Doesnt' really inspire confidence.

Why did the Tories reduce the admin charge to £5?

I think that was to stop TRAs saying the GRC process was lengthy, burdensome, intrusive and costly. Once the Tories had made it so cheap, they were able to bat away the other arguments for self-ID by saying the process offers an important safeguard for society and the applicants.

It was obvious that the reason for the absensce of comment from the most prominent TRA activists ( Whittome, Nandy, Bradshaw, Cashman etc) is down to the fact they have been given re-assurances that they will still, in effect, get what they want - which is effectvely no change - apart from making far easier for peopel to GRCs.

It is all smoke and mirrors.

Some..