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"

If Starmer and Annaliese "Brains" Dodds wanted to be clear and unequivocal, they could be, as pp have pointed out. This Jesuitical talk of 'safe spaces' is designed to be deliberately vague. Gaslighting the public. Again.

I'll repeat myself - politicans created the law that allow men to become women, then state that they have no choice but to refer to men as women.

Are they pretending that they didnt make the laws? Are they trying to say that they have no power to change the law?

What are we paying them to do?

Kemi Badenoch is clear on this

When she’s gone who from Labour will do the same?

Labour destroy anyone trying to get close. But who are people relying on?

Any names?

I don't think many here are under the illusion that the conservatives have been anything other than a mess around this issue. Think back to everytime a clueless Equalities minister came on here and couldnt answer even a basic question. We know there are gender ideologues in the tory party.

But this is a thread about labour and what starmers intentions are.

Labour has never critised the government for any of the gender ideology they were trying to push. They arent critising the government stance now.

The only difference between the two parties on this issue is their ability to let MPs speak freely against gender ideology. Even now, its clear to hear how managed the language is when Labour MPs speak.

But it's not accurate in, y'know, life. No one asked Starmer for a legal obfuscation. And whether it would be defensible in court is an interesting question which I don't think has really been tested yet - the breath or limits of the 'legal fiction' that something we all know is a lie in real life but is 'true' under the law. It will probably have to be pinned down at some point (or much better, the bad law repealed).

Are there any other ridiculous laws we should assume politicians are talking about when asked questions with real life answers? If asked whether pub landlords should be arrested for allowing customers to be drunk, would Starmer say yes? (Technically they are breaking the law). If asked whether it's ok to carry a plank of wood on a pavement, would he say no (also against the law)? Or would he answer with a real world answer?

Where ‘reasonable’

No list from anyone

Meaningless

To make the protected characteristic of sex in the EqA denote biological sex only and not fictional legal sex.

This from the Guardian explains it:

A significant change to the 2010 Equality Act is being pursued by the government, which would redefine “sex” to refer specifically to a person’s sex at birth. That would be designed to make it legal for those who are transgender to be banned from single-sex spaces and events, such as book groups and hospital wards.

Currently, trans people can have their identity formally recognised by applying for a gender recognition certificate. This affirms their gender change in law, allowing them to update their birth or adoption certificate and have their gender recognised on a marriage or death certificate.

That process is not expected to change, but the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, wants to make a clearer distinction in law between those who are born a particular sex and those who transition or identify as a gender different from their birth one.

What are the Tories proposing that makes you think they are "truly serious"?
I never get an answer to this question 🦃🌽🎅🌲

Odd definition when a "lie" is a legally accurate statement that would be fully defensible in court

I think Sunak is bending the truth more when he says "a man is a man and a woman is a woman" knowing there are legal women with penises, and knowing he has no intention of doing anything about that. Each to their own though

Labour policy is to overhaul the GRA and "make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act"

So no change to the EqA definition of sex being biological sex only. The single sex exemptions as we have seen are being rode roughshod over due to the wording of them and the wording of the Gender Reassignment protected characteristic.

If they are truly serious regarding reforming the GRA they would remove the ridiculous clause that shrouds a GRC in secrecy to start with.

Labour policy is to overhaul the GRA and "make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act"

That doesn't fully sound like standing by the GRA

What are the conservatives proposing?

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/24/labour-vows-to-modernise-simplify-and-reform-gender-recognition-act

The problem is gail that under a legal definition some women do have a penis, so Starmer is in a cleft stick of either lying or getting pilloried for saying some women have a penis. He choice the opposite pathway to Sunak is all. I prefer politicians that don't lie, even if the truth is unpalatable.

Oh come on. He didn't say 'well the legal definition is x', he said 99% of women don't have penises. He'd also previously said that 'only women have a cervix' is something that shouldn't be said, that a literal biological truth shouldn't be uttered - that's not about a legal definition is it, that's just plain biology, and he bottled it.

I don't understand how you can say you prefer politicians who don't lie, then back Starmer who has clearly and demonstrably lied on this issue.

Starmer and Dodds have clearly said they will protect single sex spaces ("spaces for biological women only") to quote Dodds

Where and when? So far all I've heard them say is they will protect safe spaces without any detail of what those are. If they want to protect single sex spaces ALL of them on the basis of biological sex only then I have not heard them explicitly confirm this and they are already twitching about the amendments to the EqA to do just that.

The GRA is about who is legally defined as a woman.
Allowing trans rapists into female prison is nothing to do with the GRA and happened on the Conservatives watch.
Ipso reporting guidelines on gender happened in 2016, which means trans sex and violent offenders are called "she" and "her" are is nothing to do with the GRA and happened on the Conservatives watch.
The government consultation about "gender equality" in 2015 that didnt consult any women and recommended moving to self ID was led by a Conservative minister and happened on their watch.
The "Big Society" idea that led to education being decentralised and farmed out to charities, leading to questionable content from LGBTQ charities was David Camerons brainchild and happened on the Conservatives watch.

There is a pattern here you know

What are the conservatives doing about it? They are in power and have had a fat majority for 5 years. Its almost like they don't want to sort it out.....if they thought it was that much of a threat to society surely they would have fixed it?

Starmer and Dodds have clearly said they will protect single sex spaces ("spaces for biological women only") to quote Dodds. Fine, don't believe them but I personally am not going to get too het up about it until I see what's in their manifestos. Otherwise I'll take it on face value and continue to believe the Conservatives have no intention of doing anything other than spouting empty rhetoric.

Labour did get us here

The GRA was their policy

Idiocy but there you go

sorry, are you implying labour got us here despite not being in power for 13 years???
That's a bit odd.

Has Labour ever stated exactly how The Conservative party implement the GRA and the EqA incorrectly? What would they do differently?

Starmer stands by the GRA, then uses the law to state that a woman can have a penis. If he said that the law forces him to say that a woman can have a penis, this is obviously wrong, and the law needs changing, I could begin to trust him. But he supports the law that makes a man become a woman.

I thought she was pretty unhappy about the race aspect, the idea women can claim discrimination on the basis of pesky female things like menopause, and the risk of "positive discrimination" (which is a phrase that up until now I've only heard MRAs getting in a flap about).So I thought she was providing "stronger advice" across a range of topics.

She also wants to get us out of the European Court of Human Rights (along with various other Conservative MPs like Braverman).

Similar to how posters on here don't trust Labour, I don't trust the Tories on anything to do with legislation. That's the consequence of 8 years of Brexshit.

Has this been answered?

Plus which spaces Labour think are ‘reasonable’

The problem is gail that under a legal definition some women do have a penis, so Starmer is in a cleft stick of either lying or getting pilloried for saying some women have a penis.
He choice the opposite pathway to Sunak is all. I prefer politicians that don't lie, even if the truth is unpalatable.

To all intents and purposes at the moment Labour and the Conservatives have the same policy: strengthen the law to protect single sex spaces whilst also streamlining the GRC process to "be kinder" (to use Truss terminology).

It's your right not to trust them of course, I just object to the politically motivated misrepresentation that goes on.

Has Labour been clear about how exactly the government has implemented the GRA and EqA incorrectly?

Did labour, as the opposition party, speak up when the NHS switched sex for gender identiy on the databases? Have labour actually explicit said that men, even ones with a GRC should not be in womens prisons, on hosptal wards? Has labour spoken about gender identity taught in schools?

As far as im aware, labour were quiet and their current stance is to say the GRA needs modernising and they want to increase protections of SSE in the EqA. Great, but thats like saying that they want to increase growth and reduce inflation - its a woolly aim, not a fully formed plan or a clear statement about what is meant by the aims.

If the GRA and EqA are good laws, but implement poorly by the Conservatives, why dont they just state what has gone wrong? And why do we need to modernise and increase protection if both are good laws?

When labour get in, id rather they left everything alone, because i dont trust them to develop and implement laws that protect women and children. Too many within the party are gender ideologues who would prioritise the wants of men into law at the expense of women and children.

Does anyone truly believe that starmer has it in him to define a woman without the inclusion of some men?

Face it @AdamRyan Labour have NO intention of securing women's rights to single sex male free spaces, their Leader believes some women have a penis fgs.

They will fudge and obfuscate and bring out all the tropes of most oppressed, tiny number, how proud they are of the misogynistic, sexist, homophobic GRA which opened the door to the current shit show and of course the EqA with its unclear, obfuscating language around sex and gender reassignment.

You trust them if you want to, I fucking don't.

They would be a shit opposition if they agreed to support the government without seeing the details of what was proposed!

Kemi Badenoch asked and received views from the EHRC regarding the proposal for amending sex to mean biological sex in the EqA, Labour have seen this document and I recall a female Labour MP, I believe it is the one who holds the Shadow Equalities brief, poo-pooing the idea of the change on Politics Live on the BBC stating just how proud Labour are of the EqA and won't be altering it.

It's a shame Labour MPs don't represent women's rights as well easily
"Trans my butch lesbian aunt ". Yep certainly
"Could we have single sex spaces, because trans women are biologically men" - BIGOT