Labour infighting over trans issues reignited by Cass Review

Dodds last year in the Grauniad:

The Gender Recognition Act was passed by Labour in 2004 but Dodds said that “now, in 2023, we have a much better understanding of the barriers trans people face”. She pointed to the legislation passed by Tony Blair’s government, and the 2010 Equality Act under Gordon Brown, as among Labour’s “crowning achievements”

Proud of it?

It's a nonsensical piece of legislation which fails to define any of its terms and conflates sex and gender, which is very similar to other nonsensical legislation in the majority of other western countries, which was enacted over 10 years before most Labour MPs were first elected to parliament.

😂

The GRA is a hideous misogynistic and homophobic piece of legislation and yet the Labour Party and dear Sir KS have stated more than once that they are immensely proud of it.

And the Labour Party have said in the most definite terms that they WILL NOT support or indeed enact any change to the EqA to have sex confirmed as biological.

Bollox it’s not.

An ideology that defines out of existence the class most in need of protection?
An ideology that says women’s rights come second to those of trans people? That sees ‘woman’ as a category to identify in and out of at will? That girls shouldn’t have to be women, and men can be the most sexist image of woman imaginable?

The GRA will be a sad little rump of nothing if sex is confirmed as biological in EQ10 and single sex spaces/services (when undressing or otherwise vulnerable) are made mandatory rather than optional.

No need to repeal the 2004 legislation if subsequent legislation nullifies it. There are loads of old laws that haven’t been specifically repealed but have become irrelevant as society moves on.

I’m sure we have entire threads talking about whether GRA repeal is necessary tho, so I’m going back to catching up on podcasts, radio shows and tv segments re: Cass (great to see Helen Joyce on the BBC at last!)

Why not? What part of this ideology is not misogynistic?

And Kemi Badenovh has been a shero on this. I don’t need her to pipe up immediately, she may feel it’s more appropriate to leave it for her colleagues in health.

I am anti gender ideology. But misogyny is not the right word to use for people who support it.

It's an ideology which says women don't have the right to any single sex spaces, sports, or even a word for themselves. That their safety, dignity and successes are unimportant.

I think the only other explanation for not rejecting it is that you're trying very hard not to think about it.

Dear God. It's no better this morning. I'm going to stop engaging with Adam this morning too. We're just getting a continuation of last nights drunken debacle and it genuinely is starting to feel cruel to let Adam keep digging holes for themself. There's no real points being made anyway. Adam doesn't think denying women as a sex class, and all the associated negative consequences of that is misogynistic. Everyone else does. OK, this is a free world. Adam is entitled to their view even if it convinces no one else.

So you admit that you did say that despite your detailed of that fact this morning. You're still all over the place.

No matter how frantic some posters are with their denials, there can be no doubt that Labour have repeatedly smeared and aggressively bullied women in and out of the Labour party. And the "oh no he's not a misogynist" Starmer has failed to condemn or speak out about any of it. He's had loads of opportunities, but fails every time - as he picked the wrong side of history

So when they come looking for my vote back, unless there's some acknowledgement from Starmer that he got it wrong, ( see Wes Streeting if he's struggling to find the words), I'll treat Labour as I treat all aggressive misogynistic men - avoid them.

The boards are far too small. We keep bumping into the same obstacles.

Let’s redefine all the words so we can shout gotcha at people we disagree. Let’s have our heads so far up our own arses that we can’t see truth when it bites us on that arse. It’s working so well and we’re winning people over to our cause with every sentence. And most importantly, we’re stopping people saying things we don’t like by filling the thread up with blah blah blah. GOTCHA blah blah blah

k?

Except every word you write demonstrates more clearly why I can’t vote Labour. Your twisting and turning to claim the high ground is so manipulative and dishonest, and buys right into the authoritarian handbook. Ironic as that’s your big fear.

I don't follow you at all. Get over yourself! I'd prefer a block user option, if truth be told.

And you're the one who disingenuously asked for examples. Maybe don't ask if you don't want to be told the truth.

Lisa Nandy has been demoted and so is no kind of indication of "what Labour would have done".

They were unelectable when she said that. Any reality where JC was elected is so far away from this world that it is fairly odd to speculate about.

OK. Well thanks for the feedback.

It's bad form to pull stuff across threads and certainly bad form to make implications about people.

I'd say it's "disingenuous at best of you to repeatedly follow me round threads making snide digs". So how about i try even harder to be clear about what people are saying and you try to stop doing that? Win/win.

Bollocks. It's obvious what Labour would've done.

This thread is an example of how we know: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3824781-Lisa-Nandy-says-child-rapists-should-be-in-women-s-prisons-if-they-identify-as-female

Explaining how what you've written doesn't necessarily mean what you think you've written, isn't twisting at all. Maybe it's unintended consequence, but you actually apologised for a similar episode on another thread which maybe you don't remember because you were drunk.

You persistently twist people's posts (and things you've read online). And you're constantly being told you're doing it. I've given you one example a couple of posts back as well.

Bearing in mind how often you're told you're doing it, it's rather disingenuous (at best) of you to now ask for examples of it.

Women have not been "denied rape support" but they have been unable to access single sex rape support in some cases. That's a charity decision, not Labour.
True. Not rude or offensive. Or a "rant".

You can tell the future can you? You have no idea what they would or wouldn't have done.

We know what the Tories have done. Nothing.