Harriet Harman says women are women, or men who are 'certified' women.

"The quality of the discussion in the HoL was excellent and they correctly anticipated the logical consequences that have come to pass."

And yet a majority voted in favour, in spite of the logical consequences being anticipated.

Did those voting in favour not believe the anticipated consequences would come to pass, or did they not care?

The people who brought in the GRA massively fucked up basically.

I disagree. The quality of the discussion in the HoL was excellent and they correctly anticipated the logical consequences that have come to pass.

The present GRA quagmires all result from the implementation of the desiderata of Press for Change et al. It may well be an exemplary case study of the Denton Playbook.

The people who brought in the GRA massively fucked up basically.

We are hand tied and the best outcome for Labour is we don’t talk about it

It is probably one of the top worst pieces of legislation. It’s forced societal change from sex to gender and afaik the public didn’t even vote on it at a GE

The ramifications are massive and hard to challenge and it’s held up with more lies and indoctrination

And gender ideology spread across many western countries at the same time. What were they all thinking?

This.

Openly against women's equality of access. Against the inclusion they once championed for women from BAME and minority cultures and faiths. Against the inclusion of disabled women. Against religious tolerance and multi culturalism. Against the women they once championed who need refuge and rape support services. Against homosexuals. Against child safeguarding. Basically about half of everything the left ever stood for.

Not 'lets provide equality of access for all including male TQ+ people', which yep, all in favour of, but against women, actively standing to remove access to provide what is in hard fact, male supremacism for less than 1% of men.

Yes. I too seriously wonder wtaf they are smoking. As pp said: what this 1% of male people want should be the fringe issue - instead they are arguing that the subordination and discrimination they are championing to put in law against the entire sex class of women is the fringe issue. And gay rights and child safeguarding.

Yes, I think they're on glue.

So if you went to a Let Women Speak event, Harriet (I know, I know!), which side of the barricade would you be standing on?

The other problem is indoctrination in schools making it harder to change

It really is Orwellian at this point

Maybe events will do it, as long as we don’t go down NZ territory of all captured media, we still have that pesky DM and co making problems for gender ideology

Mind you NZ just voted out current gov so will see if it shifts at all

Perhaps there really was some sort of mind washing chip in the covid vaccine. That's why the Labour party were so into it?

I think there is an awful feeling of fatedness about all of this. I think that as a society we are going to have to be woken up the hard way - via the inevitable injustices, outrages, incidents of sexual assault, men winning women's competitions, Eddie Izzard being presented as the first female Labour leader ( I know..that is taking it a step too far and is patently ridiculous); a revolt by muslim populations and others for whom single sex means single sex.

But it also going to take a captured media to actually report on incidents and injustices too. I suspect that even most Labour MPs have not a clue about the true scale and range of fuckwittery that is going on. Do not know what an autogynephile is, and so on.

I think it is as simple as they believe in gender ideology

I think what HH said, is most likely meaning she thinks it's a legal fiction, but there is a good reason for having the legal fiction.

I can kind of understand that position, as in, I can believe that they really believe it.

But wanting to widely extend the fiction and make it "on demand"... makes me doubt how genuine they can be.

I think obviously they don't really believe that "trans women are women", and this is merely the profession of a creed to show their good standing as a member of the left.

Or maybe some people fear looking intellectually unsophisticated and outdated if they don't go with the latest fashionable thinking.

But it is complicated by the fact that it's a real medical issue and many people (correctly) have sympathy for that. Sure it may be right for some people to transition.

But then I also think it's correct to be skeptical of the modern explosion in cases, and correct to be skeptical of parts of the medical profession or others that think this is some settled issue that we need to just affirm people's identities.

You don't see rhetoric from politicians that I would agree with: we shouldn't ban conversion therapy because, actually, on principle, we should be trying to find ways to cure more children and not "affirm" them. Given our lack of knowledge, that's a perfectly reasonable approach, and obviously the healthiest outcome in theory.

Yes, and I'm afraid seeing TW on social media saying that if third spaces existed they wouldn't use them has reduced my appetite to spend a lot of money on providing these things.

TW India Willoughby recently bragged on Twitter about seeing a gender neutral toilet in an airport and going off in search of a female only one instead.

The activists would say that's apartheid, that transwomen would be "lesser" women, when they claim they are 100% women.

I'm afraid it's Grade A batshittery, and your solution which in any sane world would certainly work, is not an option.

I'm afraid luxury beliefs are the order of the day as the West has luxuriated without conflict since 1945.

What you are missing is that a women's toilet without any women in it is just a toilet.

If there are no women in a particular space then using that space does not say anything about you being a woman.

I honestly don't understand why we can't have men, transmen, women and transwomen as gender. Clearly there is a difference between transwomen and women, why the need to throw both in one category? Appreciate transwomen don't want to share spaces with men, equally women may not want to share spaces with transwomen! Especially when there are transwomen who haven't transitioned medically.

Have unisex spaces, one person in at a time if necessary, for all, and men and women changing rooms/toilets to reduce the queue as there are greater numbers of men and women? Am I missing something?

I remember the PIE farrago back in the day; the letters to the Guardian letters page, Patricia Hewitt and HH. Well, I guess they were young and naïve then. Doesn't it give HH any pause for thought to realise that some of those figures behind PIE back then are also the godfathers of the trans right movement (I know there's been stuff about that on MN)?

Fool me once...

‘It doesn’t happen’ - except it does

‘It won’t happen’ - it will

And women stop talking about it we have a GE coming up

I quite agree, but I'm a Bad People

Answer to question 1: "The actual Things are barely relevant, being merely props to signal their Good Righteousness, and thus do not warrant any actual examination or analysis."

Answer to question 2: They're high on their own Righteousness - "This belief is that they are Good People who are on The Right Side of History"

How the fuck do they think that calling female rape survivors bigots for wanting single sex rape crisis support makes them the good guys?

Are they on glue?

You've all got the wrong end of the stick!

I think "they" have a deep, fervent and unshakeable belief.

This belief is that they are Good People who are on The Right Side of History, and Good People all share a Bundle of Good Things.

The Things are Good because they're of the Good People, and the Good People are Good because they have the Things. It's a neat circle.

The next step is: Everything that Good People do, and any means they utilise to achieve those Things, by definition is Good and Right and Must Be Done to bring about The Right Side of History.

The actual Things are barely relevant, being merely props to signal their Good Righteousness, and thus do not warrant any actual examination or analysis.

(All that was needed was for some canny folx to sneak, um, PIEs and stuff into the Bundle).

I'd settle for a system where both nutters and sensible people are represented proportionately to their respective populations.

Yes there are definitely pros and cons to both.

Again I think that, for whatever reason, they just don't care.

It's been made clear in the past that they don't want members who don't believe in gender ideology.

I genuinely believe that they would lose the election over it.

Perhaps that's what they want.

We need a political system which would allow a new party to come along and win, like Macron's party did in France in 2017, so that long established parties such as Labour can be wiped out by the electorate if they become taken over by lunatics.

Agree electoral reform is desperately required.

I live in an area where my vote is literally worthless because of the FPTP system.