Will Labour introduce Self ID & curb free speech?

Well to me it's not "watered down" GC. I became gender critical when self ID was a real threat, when the widely accepted political position of all parties was "trans women are women" and was called a transphobe for disagreeing with that.

I see being "gender critical" as being critical of the idea gender trumps sex, not as completely rejecting the idea of gender altogether. I see "gender" as like God - important to others not me.

My version of "gender critical" is common, in fact maybe the majority position in the real world.

Asking me questions when you well know what my answer is going to be is not good faith.

Since GC is fundamentally a rejection of the assertion that mental gender is meaningful, interchangeable with and takes precedence over sex, painting that position as "ultra GC" is misleading. It is GC - anything watered down from that position even just to be courteous is not GC.

By the same token, a position that accepts gender as interchangable with sex in limited circumstances or accepts the appropriation of female language to label males who meet some criteria of "womanlyness" even just as a courtesy can't really be considered GC given that GC analysis wouldn't recognise a non-sex-based criteria for womanlyness in the first place, so I think rather than "lite" your position is better characterised as being partially GC and partially gender-over-sex-accepting.

I personally consider that a contradictory position (being a bit GC is like being a bit pregnant - you either believe in mental gender and that female people don't need exclusive female-only language, or you don't) but if that is your position partially GC describes it better than GC lite, so let's go for GC and partly GC as the neutral shorthand.

To be clear, none of this means we can't find common ground. Simply that common ground is easier to find if you don't misrepresent the people you wish to work with.

I find the fact that you 'don't believe I'm posting in good faith' interesting Adam.

You have absolutely no basis for that belief.

I maintain the position that it is entirely inconsistent for any party to say that there is a difference between a biological woman and a gender woman, yet make it easier for males to become the legal sex of woman through a GRC.

There is no legal basis to keep any male who has the status legal woman out of a woman's single sex space.

If it were the intention of the Labour Party to keep all males who identify as women whether they are gender women or legal woman out of single sex spaces they could be explicit that this is their intention. So why aren't they? All they are doing is talking about the distinction between biological and gender women and are ignoring the elephant in the room which is the GRC which they are going to make easier to obtain.

I know that you think that the GRC is necessary because you said so upthread (I have asked you why because other than to give additional rights I don't think it is) and that legal women should be in single sex spaces for women because you have said so on other threads. Many women disagree with this and for them this is a reason that they won't vote for Labour. I'm not the only person who says this but I think I am the only one you are accusing of voting in bad faith.

I'm using Janice Turners shorthand because I think there is a difference between the position you outline and other gender critical feminists like myself, who will use preferred pronouns in some circumstances, who do recognise the need for a GRC and can see why its offensive to trans men to be called women, and trans women to be called men.

"Ultra" and "lite" work for me.

If you want a different shorthand term for the position let me know, but otherwise I'm going to keep using it

Because there are people out there who have lived as the opposite sex for many years, are known as that sex by people around them. To suddenly say they have to declare their birth sex, be referred to as the correct pronouns seems completely unfair on them.

There are also people whose gender dysphoria is relieved by transition; I think those people should be supported (with adequate medical/psychological gatekeeping)

Adam why is there a need for a GRC?

Why does any male who says he has woman gender need his documents to be falsified to indicate the wrong sex?

Well you know, because it has been pointed out many many times, that without amendments to the Equality Act the Sex woman includes males with a GRC that means that their sex is legally females.

If Labour does intend to exclude males with a GRC then they could very easily do so and probably wouldn't be so gung ho about their plans to 'simplify the process'.

We've seen a lot of word salad on here. It is very difficult to see how, at law, men can be excluded without specific amendments to the Equality Act which the Labour Party claim are not necessary.

In the meantime women are being harmed by men in what are now mixed sex spaces.

Come on Labour, you can do better than this. We know that Jess Phillips gets it. Why else draw the distinction at all between woman sex and woman gender? And then why make it easier to obtain a GRC which gives men the status of woman sex under a simplified process?

Please don't characterise people who do not believe it's acceotable to play along with the conceit that men can be women as "Ultra". It is not an extreme position.

I realise that in many controversial topics the reasionable compromise is somewhere between the two ends.

That is not the case for gender ideology.

There is not a reasonable half-way position where some men can be a little bit of a woman in limited circumstances, because as soon as you accept the idea that something in a man's mind makes him more like a woman than he is a man, you have unavoidably redefined womanhood as a mental characteristic rather than a physical reality. And when you do that, you unavoidably unwrite the real world expereinces and history of womanhood, both physical and social, as a thing that is expereinced by the physically female. That is not a reasonable compromise, that is an Ultra Gender position.

The actual reasonable, rational and compassionate position is to recognise that most people who identify as trans are labelling something genuine they feel, but also that this is a projection of their own beliefs about their own and the opposite sex rather than an actual meaningful commonality with the opposite sex, and rather than arguing for where to place trans people along some putative 2 dimensional line running between "a woman" and "a man", we shoudl be looking for an entirely separate way to understand what they are experiencing and give them appropriate support without appropriating female (or male) resources, narratives or lived experiences.

If you can't identify what a woman is, you'll fail to deal with women's issues.

The massive misogyny that underlies so much of the shit that is going on (eg the trashing of women's sports, to give but one example) is the issue we have to tackle.

Please don't characterise people who do not believe it's acceotable to play along with the conceit that men can be women as "Ultra". It is not an extreme position.

I realise that in many controversial topics the reasionable compromise is somewhere between the two ends.

That is not the case for gender ideology.

There is not a reasonable half-way position where some men can be a little bit of a woman in limited circumstances, because as soon as you accept the idea that something in a man's mind makes him more like a woman than he is a man, you have unavoidably redefined womanhood as a mental characteristic rather than a physical reality. And when you do that, you unavoidably unwrite the real world expereinces and history of womanhood, both physical and social, as a thing that is expereinced by the physically female. That is not a reasonable compromise, that is an Ultra Gender position.

The actual reasonable, rational and compassionate position is to recognise that most people who identify as trans are labelling something genuine they feel, but also that this is a projection of their own beliefs about their own and the opposite sex rather than an actual meaningful commonality with the opposite sex, and rather than arguing for where to place trans people along some putative 2 dimensional line running between "a woman" and "a man", we shoudl be looking for an entirely separate way to understand what they are experiencing and give them appropriate support without appropriating female (or male) resources, narratives or lived experiences.

"But the Tories"

Is the limit and depth of discussion we can have on Labour and Free Speech.

Which in itself is an attempt to shame and close down speech. And very ironic given this thread's subject. I think it highlights a lot of the very fears women on FWR have.

I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for any of the main parties this time round. This isn't a situation I've felt to this extent before. I've been dissatisfied but not felt tried with such utter contempt by all.

If you can't identify what a woman is, you'll fail to deal with women's issues.

The massive misogyny that underlies so much of the shit that is going on (eg the trashing of women's sports, to give but one example) is the issue we have to tackle.

A pp claimed that posting on here requires that "regular posters recognise you as "one of them" and 2) you're not saying anything controversial".

Women on here have had many years of identifying posters spouting nonsense. When posters claim to work with children in schools, state they're education consultants, experts in midwifery or safeguarding, share the mad Sisters Uncut mantra about abolishing the prisons & the police, reframe criticism of some schools failing to adhere to their legal requirement to be politically neutral as an aspect of "fascist thinking" and more, posters on here who are "experts" and qualified or have thought about these issues in detail will engage in critical thinking & respond. As has happened on this thread.

As Mumsnet repeatedly warn us, it is not possible to know that people on here are who they say they are on here. All we can do is evaluate the ideas expressed & respond. Posting countless posts on a thread that then fall apart when exposed to critical analysis is not being "excluded" by those pointing out flaws.

People might be encouraged to trust Annaliese Dodds more if she was less Jesuitical in tone.

You know what they've said, we've discussed it before. But for the lurkers:

"We need to recognise that sex and gender are different – as the Equality Act does. We will make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. 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."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/24/labour-will-lead-on-reform-of-transgender-rights-and-we-wont-take-lectures-from-the-divisive-tories

That is the official Labour policy. You can choose not to believe them. Equally I can choose to vote based on what parties say, rather than speculation about what I think they mean.

I'm not responding on this again because we've been round the loop too many times so neither of us will get anything new from the conversation.

Missing the point? or a difference of opinion?

For me, it boils down to priorities: Wayne Cousins, the Mets response to the protest, Police Whatsapp groups, maternity deaths of women and babies, cancer treatments, lack of DV refuges... VS Toilets and Park run results.

mmmmmmm tricky one i agree.

We have as an electorate, decided to vote in Govts that prioritise spending cuts over improvements in public services, all so we can save a few hundred in tax.
The Tories could change the legislation on loos and men in female sport in a heart beat.... but they wont.

Poster after poster is saying I"'ll be voting Tory because Labour don't know what a woman is....." its blatant BS and has far more to do with an upcoming election than Womens Rights.

Please don't characterise people who do not believe it's acceotable to play along with the conceit that men can be women as "Ultra". It is not an extreme position.

I realise that in many controversial topics the reasionable compromise is somewhere between the two ends.

That is not the case for gender ideology.

There is not a reasonable half-way position where some men can be a little bit of a woman in limited circumstances, because as soon as you accept the idea that something in a man's mind makes him more like a woman than he is a man, you have unavoidably redefined womanhood as a mental characteristic rather than a physical reality. And when you do that, you unavoidably unwrite the real world expereinces and history of womanhood, both physical and social, as a thing that is expereinced by the physically female. That is not a reasonable compromise, that is an Ultra Gender position.

The actual reasonable, rational and compassionate position is to recognise that most people who identify as trans are labelling something genuine they feel, but also that this is a projection of their own beliefs about their own and the opposite sex rather than an actual meaningful commonality with the opposite sex, and rather than arguing for where to place trans people along some putative 2 dimensional line running between "a woman" and "a man", we shoudl be looking for an entirely separate way to understand what they are experiencing and give them appropriate support without appropriating female (or male) resources, narratives or lived experiences.

Good lord RTB you are really on the party line aren't you.

All parties have had an issue with not being inclusive of ordinary people with moderate, nuanced views. Instead we are stuck with a party who have a problem acknowledging racism, a party who have a problem with anti semitism and parties with a problem identified how we reproduce as humans cos not one of them can tell the fucking truth

The Conservatives have a problem with racism, not a problem with acknowledging racism. What Anderson/Braverman/Truss etc have said this week is a lot more blatantly racist than the antisemitic racism that gets people kicked out of Labour.

"Moderate, nuanced views" are not what is being expressed by GC Ultras (by which I mean people who refuse to use pronouns in any circumstances and insist on referring to trans people as their birth sex at all times). "Absolutist views" are what GC Ultras are insisting on, and at the root of the "I'm voting Conservative, at least they know what a woman is" nonsense.

Now c'mon admit it RTB, you are and always have been a Tory party activist who would vote for a housebrick if it was painted blue! In fact, you're worse than that, you are a Far Right Nazi-adjacent goose-stepper. Also, you and I are both sock puppets of each other.

You know the Righteous can see right through your our tissue of lies

"But the Tories"

Is the limit and depth of discussion we can have on Labour and Free Speech.

Which in itself is an attempt to shame and close down speech. And very ironic given this thread's subject. I think it highlights a lot of the very fears women on FWR have.

I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for any of the main parties this time round. This isn't a situation I've felt to this extent before. I've been dissatisfied but not felt tried with such utter contempt by all.