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"

Still (🎶all together now 🎵)...

Nobody Cares About This
There Are More Important Things Than Genderism
Except That Genderism Is Really Important to Being Good
Only 6 Non-Genderists (and Their Socks) In The World So You Are Irrelevant
If You Say You Are Upset with Labour, You Were Always A Tory Voter So You Are Even More Irrelevant Anyway

There’s a thread running currently on AIBU saying about not voting labour because they don’t know what a woman is. It looks pretty similar to this one. I won’t vote labour this time, I’m voting for our independent.

Oh, and I'm a solicitor. If I'm asked what a woman is, I say 'adult human female' because I'm not an utter fuckwit. I don't go around spouting legalese in my every day life (particularly because you're specifically trained at law school to use accurate, easy-to-understand, language in your communication)

Ditto. Now retired. Decades working for the Trades Union and Labour Movement.

Starmer's a professional bullshitter. Snake oil salesman. Doesn't need a lawyer to spot it.

36 pages of Adam saying the same thing over and over and over and over again.

Yawn.

Not good enough.

Perhaps if Adam expended her energy on lobbying the Labour Party to do the right thing by women then we could all stop these circular discussions and actually vote for the party we (mostly speaking) want to vote for!

It's rare anybody recognises its origin!

If Labour has women's backs, how to explain their deafening silence in response to Rosie Duffield, the Edinburgh rape support panjandrum, the illegal bullying of Jo Phoenix, and countless other examples?

The answer is no to that too. Because woman = adult human female.

When you think about his two answers, it clearly shows that men are included in his definition of woman. Because if woman = adult female, but also some women have a penis, he clearly can't be trusted on describing a woman.

Quite @NoWordForFluffy . Love your username btw I have a very close German friend who I tease with that refrain!

That's not what he was asked though. When he was asked that he said "adult female".
He was asked if it was true that women could have penises. Which it is, in certain legal circumstances. Damned if he answered it either way to be honest.

Exactly. Legal lists are often written as 'including but not limited to', so you could have a definitive list, but which isn't exhaustive so it can be added to on a case-by-case basis.

Oh, and I'm a solicitor. If I'm asked what a woman is, I say 'adult human female' because I'm not an utter fuckwit. I don't go around spouting legalese in my every day life (particularly because you're specifically trained at law school to use accurate, easy-to-understand, language in your communication).

Exactly it is no where near ‘unequivocal’ or ‘clear’

This stuff is madness

Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access. Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services.

It is not unequivocal if Labour cannot state what those places are where they consider it reasonable for biological women only to have access.

Neither of your examples refer to a physical place. A list of places that would be strictly biological women only would by and large refer to actual physical spaces such as toilets, changing rooms, prisons, hospital wards, domestic violence refuges, rape crisis.

Let's use another example that we all know: the "reasonable belief in consent" clause as a defense to rape.
Are you supportive of that clause? If not are you demanding a list of all the "reasonable" beliefs vs unreasonable ones?

Or how about libel? Do you think we should get rid of a defence that someone believed what they wrote to be true? Or should we list out all the data sources that are acceptable and all that aren't?

Honestly, lists are just not how the world works.

Is it…

prisons and only sometimes maybe in a blue moon

Is that it?

God people will go with anything

I don't think many here are under the illusion that the conservatives have been anything other than a mess around this issue.

The whole issue is a mess right from the GRA. The wording that a person must be treated as their new gender for all purposes, the constant conflating of sex and gender in the GRA and the EqA. It is no wonder the harms that have happened to women and women's rights have happened and they would have happened whoever was in power.

Lord Falconer said that the Law is not bonkers but this Law brought in by Labour in his day is fucking bonkers, it is deliberately badly written and Labour are oh so proud of this Law.

MPs and the Lords were warned when the GRA was going through, they ignored all warnings, just hand waved them away. After all it was only women who were going to be harmed.

Why not?

Someone will need to say at some point

This is hilarious though - we can’t say

What an absolute farce

Don't be ridiculous. That's not how the law ever works.

Which spaces are included

Could you list them?

This is pretty clear and unequivocal:
Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access. Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services.

Unless you just don't believe them, I which case they cannot say anything to persuade you.

God this stuff

Oppose what exactly in EqA

Reasonable what?

Bloody hell when Starmer said take the public with you they certainly took some wins here

The Conservatives are the politicians with the power to sort this out. Why not ask them?

He is a lawyer so I'd expect he's pretty much certain to use a legal definition in his answer to any question. Lawyers have it drilled into them in training....

I think there are plenty of questions you can ask a lawyer/politician and get a legalese answer. Such as, is Ched Evans a rapist? Why wasn't that acid thrower deported despite being a sex pest? Why do we need loads of border checks between here and France despite having a frictionless border?

Yeah, that's the thing labour said they were supportive of but Kemi seems to be unable to progress.
I had high hopes for the Kings speech but it won't be happening in this term now so let's see if it's in the manifesto.