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"

Tell Labour to sort itself out, then. It's their choice. They can only change themselves, & only they can change themselves.

If Labour makes itself unpopular, you can't just tell people they shouldn't mind & should vote for them anyway. If nobody wants what Labour are offering, it's Labour's fault for not laying out a better offer.

This is how Boris Johnson won his election. I spent months on MN being told he was a good prime minister because he wasn't Corbyn.

I said then, and I say now, a political party and its leader should have qualities and policies to offer beyond political bed-blocking.

If it's all about keeping the other lot out, may I offer one of my cats as a prospective prime minister? She can do the job twice as well, because she'll keep the Tories and Labour out at the same time!

This for me.

Totally politically homeless and doubt there’s any independent running in my area. Never would I have ever ever thought I’d even remotely vote Tory in my life. But I am contemplating it for the first time. But for this damaging madness, I’d be voting Greens.

It wouldn’t have been hard to have said from the beginning, of course we’ll support you, look to provide third spaces, campaign to protect you from discrimination, but no you can’t change sex and we’re going to ensure sex-based right are also protected. What would’ve been so controversial about that? But once the genie escapes, impossible to put back.

I am so sick of hearing 'the right' is lost in a culture war for votes when the 'the left' is blatantly pushing this for votes.

Thank you!

I was searching for something like that as I could remember I had seen similar idiocy somewhere.

I am aware that this is parody, and thus intentional, but I can distinctly recall seeing footage of a council meeting posted online where (IIRC) some sh1twit identified "as a woman who identified as a man who identified as a woman who identified etc" apparently ad infinitum. The expression s on the faces of the other council members were priceless - but not one of them dared say anything.

Lammy was there at the time pushing for it

Maybe we can ask him twenty years later as he wheels around again to call us rights hoarding dinosaurs

Didn't it strike anyone at the time that once you enshrine the right in law for (some) men to be regarded as women, you're in for a whole raft of problems?

It did to a couple of people in parliament, but no one listened to them. It was only supposed to affect a tiny number of people, apparently.

The more I read about it, the more I'm amazed that the GRA ever got passed. Didn't it strike anyone at the time that once you enshrine the right in law for (some) men to be regarded as women, you're in for a whole raft of problems? Eh, Annaliese? Frankly, saying how proud you are of it makes you sound a bit of a fuckwit.

Indeed. And if that's not correct then why won't Anneliese 'let me be clear' Dodds clarify?

If they won't clarify then it looks like I'll be forced to conclude that a) they don't want to and b) they've calculated they can get away with it.

They've still got time to prove me wrong.

I think that's pretty obvious.

Single sex spaces will be for :

-women +
-Men with a GRC with the F sex marker (the process that they are going to make simpler meaning that there will likely be more of them)
-Any other men who claim to be women in reality because service providers (with very limited exceptions) are not allowed to ask for proof of GRC.

So all spaces (potentially with some very limited exceptions) will be open for everyone.

And they get around this because they introduced the legislation which allows MEN to be legally female.

I think we know the answer to that!

One has to wonder why they won't.

I am confident they could clarify this if they so wished.

Indeed they could.

To be fair, Labour have now started talking about 'single sex services' and 'single sex exemptions'. What I've not seen them explain is whether they intend for their 'modernised' (easier to obtain) GRC to give the holder access to single sex services.

I am confident they could clarify this if they so wished.

If Labour get in, it's game over.

And if Labour and willing to destroy women's fundamental rights and the safeguarding of children in the pursuit of men's feelings (because we all know this is not about transmen), why is anyone convinced they will give a shit about working class women, poor women, prostituted women, disabled women, women that are victims of male violence, women that are victims of rape, the mental health of our children, the education and empowerment of our daughters, the societal inequalities of the two sexes...

I think Starmer believes us silly women will be placated with his twisty words and his ambiguous definition of 'women', he thinks we will fall for the 'safe spaces' spiel and hope that he means 'single-sex'. I think Starmer doesn't actually think much of women, thinks we are not that smart - or maybe that we are all too busy holding society together or that we will put everyone else before us as usual. I hope he has underestimated women.

Labour don't want my vote because i am a woman that has never had a penis and i don't believe that by having a little chat with the Doctor means that a man can become a woman. I have too many Granddaughters and Nieces to vote for Labour.

I think you'll find that biotrans are the most marginalised and vulnerable™....

https://www.heterodorx.com/podcast/episode-55-biotrans-with-kikomi/

I've never voted tory and can't see myself ever doing so. They've spent their time in power destroying public services, the economy and international relations.
They now claim their priorities are to undo the damage they have done: 'Halve inflation', 'Grow the economy', 'Reduce debt', 'Cut waiting lists', 'Stop the boats'.
I'm very much struggling with who to vote for. If my Labour MP showed any signs of wanting to protect women's rights I would vote for her, but she seems to be keeping quiet on the subject. I think I need to write to her in an attempt to find out where she actually stands.

coasting on brand recognition established by the policies of previous leaders.

100%

coasting on brand recognition established by the policies of previous leaders.

The main message is "we're not the other lot".

No doubt hoping people will add the factory quoted above in their own heads

coasting on brand recognition established by the policies of previous leaders.

This is very acute.

There is only so many times you can distract everyone with another chorus of the red flag before you have to actually do some socialism.

I think I might start Self IDing as a transwoman.

After all your gender is just a feeling and I'm starting to feel like they get the better end of the stick over women. So, yes. I think I'll be a transwoman.

Let's see them try and say I can't be because I have a 'natal vagina....'

The irony.

This is very true. Labour also haven't said they'll remove the benefits cap and for the life of me, I cannot understand why that doesn't enrage the Labour base.

Labour seem to have inspired such absolute, unqualified trust in some of their voters, that voters simply assume Labour will remove the benefits cap. I suppose Labour are coasting on brand recognition established by the policies of previous leaders.

Improving the lives of poor people is simply not a priority for the current crop of Labour front-benchers

Assuming that they need our votes, they've made it crystal clear that they'd rather not be in power than compromise on their trans policies. If they cared about working for the benefit of the wider public they wouldn't be willing to set that ultimatum.

Imagine for a moment that a non-resident father told his ex that he would only see his kids over the summer holidays if he was allowed to take them on holiday abroad with his girlfriend of a month, to stay with her parents that the children had never met. He would have made his priorities very clear when he set that ultimatum, surely?

Would anyone really expect that he'd ensure the children had a happy and safe time on holiday with him, when he didn't care enough about his children to want to see them if he couldn't get his way about the holiday? If he cared about doing his best by his children, he wouldn't have set such an ultimatum, would he? He'd want to spend time with them whatever, even if he couldn't go abroad with them. He'd care how much it would hurt his kids if he refused to see them for the entire summer holidays!

The kids might have a nice time on holiday, depending on what his girlfriend and girlfriend's parents are like. However, it would be foolish to expect their father to ensure it, because he would have already demonstrated how little he cared for his children's emotions.

Similarly, I might be economically better off under a Labour government, but there's no need to kid myself that the Labour party has any great commitment to making that happen.

If anyone wants to achieve more votes for Labour then I suggest tearing Starmer a new arsehole instead of haranguing women who are at the end of their tether.

Maybe start by asking him why he won't commit his party to the proposal to clarify the definition of 'sex' in the Equality Act.

Starmer has got a major internal problem from the off...because he supports Israel, and many in his own party absolutely do not. They will claim that any other war front that opens up is primarily down to Israel and the West's support of its right to exist and defend itself.

Many in the Labour party ( especially the still devoted Corbynites) actively hate their own country and the West by extension. They have bought into american identity politics and the politics of oppression. Trump is most likley to be elected again at the end of the year as a result, partly, of the excesses of Critical Race theory, intersectionalism and Queer Theory in the U.S. Things are pretty crazy there - and it is gradually going that way here too.

Trump is so unpredictable, that whoever is leader here is going to have to take a very strong and determined lead because we'll not be able to rely on the U.S coming to the rescue.