Starmer: "trans-inclusive" conversion therapy ban, "modernise" the GRA, all hate crime to be aggravated offences as part of making every child "proud and confident"

I don’t really care why you say it.

I know I find it offensive though

Honestly you lot make me laugh. Its like trying to talk to a 5 year old. "Why? Why? But what does it mean? Why? I don't agree because my friend Ella told me there definitely is one of those. Why?"

Read the context of the question I was answering and consider it like a grown up, rather than knee jerking "you think women should be cervix havers! Why? Why?"

OK, well I take it if I wrote the same thing using the words "woman" and "man" you wouldn't jump me with "but what does that meeeeaaan if you can't define woman?"
😴
Bear in mind I was specifically responding to a poster claiming you have to have words for the policy to make sense. I think the policies will protect women regardless of what definition people use. Implementation of a policy to convict rapists will protect women regardless of if they are called snurgles, if the definition of woman includes males or anything else.

Rejoice that you don't feel despairing or politically homeless and unrepresented: I feel all three.

This. I've only ever voted Labour. I won't be voting for Labour or Conservative.

The TRAs will soon be objecting to the "people with vaginas" designation for WOMEN, since some of them have artificial neo-vaginas.

Exactly I am a woman that’s it, not dehumanising language around a body part

Froodwithatowel · Today 10:36

You can't improve the lives of women (you know, the actual biological half of the population who are female with their specific issues) when all you mean by 'woman' is 'human of either sex'.

Pretty much what I thought - "How can you protect women when you don't know what they are?"

Every woman with half a brain and some self-respect finds it horrifyingly offensive to be labelled by private parts. Just because you're not some slimy dude on the street yelling "nice ass" does not make it any better to go "people with vaginas" , a denigrating term used by incels in the past, on a woman's forum. Shame on you.

This. It's alienating, dehumanising, disrespectful language.

I have the ability to find multiple items "offensive".

I find your language objectionable and unclear ("people with vaginas" when there are a number of TW who claim not only a vagina but a cervix) but that's your choice and preferred method of engagement.

Rejoice that you don't feel despairing or politically homeless and unrepresented: I feel all three.

😬

Every woman with half a brain and some self-respect finds it horrifyingly offensive to be labelled by private parts. Just because you're not some slimy dude on the street yelling "nice ass" does not make it any better to go "people with vaginas" , a denigrating term used by incels in the past, on a woman's forum. Shame on you.

None of these policies will have any effect if the police are too busy arresting people for stickers while ignoring women who get stalked like they are doing right now. The escalating of "hate crimes" will keep the police so busy they will need a lot of extra bodies in the police force.

Also how do we know they wont reverse ferret all these promises like they have done with a lot of others? (scrap private schools charity status, scrap two child limit and benefit cap, scrap tuition fees, increase income tax top 5% earners, nationalisation public services, freedom of movement, green prosperity plan, what is a woman,...)

Promises are meaningless.

The words that carry weight are how they demean and denigrate women every bloody day. They aren't looking to help us, they are looking to control us.

BTW, Labour could do with some competent proofreaders / editors.

Right at the beginning of the page on "A New Deal for Working People", one paragraph reads:

"From day one, a Labour government will strengthen workers’ rights and make Britain work for working for people."

Shame Kier Starmer can't say that. And stand next to Rosie Duffield whilst he's saying it.
Deeds not words.

I personally find it much more offensive to live in a country where government policy had effectively decriminalised rape, and then said government thinks saying "a man is a man and a woman is a woman. No women have penises" is enough to win my vote.

Patronising and infantilising. Yes I know. Now please can you do something about the fact said men are able to use those penises to rape people and get away with it scot free.

Or start to take women reporting an escalating pattern of violence seriously and deal with the men before they murder her (and maybe her children).

Must be the biggest test of gullibility there is.

They have two gimmicks that might bring in 0

See?

My point is the outcome for women of those policies is positive and sex based, regardless of if the definition of woman includes males or not.

Agree

All their policies are costed, as you know.

Links please

Oh god that ‘costed’ line

They have VAT and Nom Dom

The first will probably bring in little as parents move and the second even less when the most attractive to other countries do too

Gimmicks both

If people are relying on that it’s barely a couple of days of NHS alone

Can you not refer to me as 'people with vaginas', thanks. It's unbelievably offensive.

Of course you can.

A policy to better criminalise stalkers so they don't go on to escalate to murder will benefit the victims of stalkers, who are overwhelmingly people with vaginas

A policy to provide more affordable and accessible childcare will benefit people who have given birth.

A policy to increase rape convictions will criminalise rapists, who currently can rape with impunity. Those are all people with penises.

The language doesn't actually affect the outcomes here (which is why I'm being sex based in my language, not using man/woman).

Exactly! We always come back to this

if Labour defines woman as “adult human female plus men with special lady feelings” then they can write woman as much as they like. It still doesn’t mean “adult human female” to them

All their policies are costed, as you know.

Meanwhile the Tories have spaffed unknown hundreds of billions on an unworkable policy to send refugees to Rwanda.

And lost £16bn to covid scheme fraud

And fucked us all over with a completely crazy "mini budget" that ignored any expert input, with the entirely predictable result that the market rejected it, it nearly crashed lots of big financial institutions, required a financial rescue package and now we are all paying ££££ more for housing through increased mortgage costs (and associated rental increases).