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"

Starmer and Dodds could sort this out in a heartbeat if they chose, for example a statement along the lines of: 'When we passed the GRA and EQA it was with the best of intentions, but it was never envisaged that we would see rapists referred to as 'she' and sent to women's prisons, or men competing in women's sport. This was not what we intended and we will fix it.'

Even now it's not too late.

And no amount of scolding from you is going to change that.

The scolding has had one impact, I previously spoilt my vote, I won’t be doing that anymore.

Why do you find it so hard to get your head around the fact that the answer to that question is YES.

Lots of us ARE going to vote Tory because we feel Sunak, Badenoch etc know what a woman is and we believe we have a better chance with them than with Starmer and co. And no amount of scolding from you is going to change that.

Labour don’t want our votes Adam how many times does it need to be said

What is the point of worrying about women in poverty when the sex class is about to cease to have any meaning or be identifiable either? We won't be able to identify the group or the need, it'll just be a virtue signal back at the old days when that was possible. If you doubt it, look at the shit show of the census which might as well have been written by Roald Dahl at this point. (Would have been cheaper.) And I can't imagine a government that has no fucks to give about vulnerable women losing services, resources, being raped in prisons and on hospital wards yada yada is suddenly going to have a rush of compassion for women in poverty. Doesn't add up, does it?

Schools are under no illusion things would be better under Labour, Labour have said, there is no more money. CAMHS actually working and doing their job successfully, many additional SEND schools and units staffed with experienced staff, people actually wanting to work in schools instead of living to escape from them, waiting lists for referrals being weeks instead of years and leading to actual action, kids having the funded support needed in schools..... it's much of the root of the crisis and a few shiny documents and initiatives and glossy packs sent out will make fuck all difference. The only thing that would change it now is massive, massive increases in funding.

The UK will remain on the bones of its arse however you vote. Which is why all the parties have to talk about is gender crap. You can have foot dragging insanity or yippee charge that iceberg at full speed insanity.

I’m going to vote for the party that I believe will be the least bad for women and children and that isnt Labour

So you are terrified about those things, but you are going to vote for them on the basis Sunak says women don't have penises?

I’m terrified about all the same things you are Adam as are many women here except that I don’t see Labour talking about how they are going to handle any of those. All I see is more and more talk about the T and how they are going to remove women’s rights to same sex protection anywhere. And how they are hoping to make things like misgendering an offence which will make teachers lives completely intolerable and they will leave in droves - it’s the major issue female teaches I know talk about and they are scared for the children and scared for what will happen to them if they make a mistake on a preferred pronoun.

What I won’t do is vote for a party that holds me and my views in contempt. They have frequently stated they don’t want women who don’t believe a woman can have a penis to vote for them. So thats easy I won’t. I even voted Labour when Corbyn was in charge because I vote Labour. I’ve been spoiling my vote but that isnt registering with Labour.

This time I’ll be voting Tory in a Tory seat the LibDems have a chance of winning because Labour terrify me more than Tory.

Absolutely. Lawyers and lawyerly types talking amongst themselves and/or formal legal documents? Knock yourself out with the legal wrangling and clever turns of phrase.

But that’s absolutely not how politics should be conducted because it excludes everyone else who doesn’t know how to interpret the legalese. Communication should be clear, not an unending exercise in untangling what someone meant from what they said. If you think politicians are bad for this, they’ve got nothing on a lawyer…

Yep great if you’re a lawyer being paid by the minutes to decipher language

Everyone else - they need to try some plain English

Has any figures ever been published for how many certificate applications have been rejected?

"1.8% of all decisions led to an application being refused"

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition-certificate-applications-and-outcomes#:~:text=1.8%25%20of%20all%20decisions%20led%20to%20an%20application%20being%20refused

SidewaysOtter · Today 15:40

So if that makes me “right wing” in your book well, I guess I’ll just have to find a way to live with your disapproval.

Wanna borrow my jackboots? 😃

Somebody upthread posted a story about how he helped women, when heading the CPS, by improving the numbers of rape convictions. Great, bully for him, but what went wrong? It's how he's behaving now, that's relevant.

If he's too cowardly to take on Weremaids and Stonewall, what hope can we have that he'll be bold on social injustice, or the NHS etc etc? He's already told the RW press that he's more or less continue Tory policies on refugees, the economy, cutting benefits.

If it's going to be mostly same shit, different sandwich, what's the point of voting for them?

I doubt that Labour will do another consultation on it. And I suspect they will simply ignore the results from the previous consultation.

There is a rather significant difference from a panel of medical doctors assessing a gender dysphoria diagnosis and one person who may or may not be a medical doctor.

Has any figures ever been published for how many certificate applications have been rejected? I would predict that this number, if there is any, will be significantly lower under such changes.

Again, there is a huge difference between lowering the price and making it a less robust process. We already know that there are male trans people who have stated they have been helped with giving the right answers in any case to get their application approved. And that is with the current panel.

'the requirement to obtain a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.... by one doctor'

Another income stream for gender GP and the like.

The amount of work trying to decipher lawyer responses is ridiculous

Quite.

Who has head space, time and capacity right now to be trying work out the nuances of what might possibly be going on between the ears of a politician and what the word salad might actually mean?

Prove there's some capacity to actually have a clear, accessible, comprehensible plan and to carry it out, ffs. The last thing this country needs is a bit more waffle.

Yeah Dodds wrote about 'the requirement to obtain a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.... by one doctor'(from the same article I linked upthread.)

I've seen it suggested that it could be done by another healthcare or even social care practitioner but to be fair, I don't have a source for that plus Dodds does stipulate 'one doctor'.

I didn't used to be so mistrustful.

That is my recollection too. So, not quite the same as just reducing the cost despite how it is being sold on this thread.

Yes I'm really getting the Brexit vibes with this issue. Like Turkeys voting for Christmas, or you must be stupid wasn't a vote winner in the end was it? Attempting to shame people into voting for something they don't agree with, doesn't sit well with the electorate.

Rather than address the valid concerns of women it's easier to pretend to be righteous because 'left wing'. I used to vote Labour anyway because they were not Tory. I'm not doing that again.

I see it more as Conservative listened to people's concerns, took notice of responses to the consultation. That is what a government should do.

With Labour it feels like a done (backroom) deal, when they talk about this there is no mention of consultation, no mention of talks with women's groups even within their own party.

And no, I can not trust a man who has stood by and done nothing about the abuse faced by Rosie Duffield. He doesnt even have to agree with her, just offer some support. That tells me a lot about the person he is.

Re moderniding the GRC process...

The latest I can find is Starmer and Didds saying last July that thr process would involve a diagnosis od dysphoria provided by one doctor instead of teo with approval from a registrar instead of a medical panel, and no mention of "living as the acquired gender".

Also I can't find any mention of changing the current situation where official ID documents like driving licence and passports can have sex markers chsnged without a GRC. In the absence of any pronouncements, I will presume Labour will let this continue.

@AdamRyan Yes he's a lawyer - so he can say some people with a penis are legally female as they have a gender recognition certificate. When he just says some women have a penis he's not being a lawyer, he's being a fool.

To me it's not a question of voting Tory but of keeping Starmer out because this policy is dangerous to children. I want to vote for the support of public services. But this issue is too important, I would vote Tory to keep him out.