Labour Manifesto

Yes and makes me question why the LP made this one of their priorities? We have an engaging youth parliament for children with an interest in politics. I hate being so cynical but I can't help being wary of people calling for children to be treated as little adults. Parental responsibility applies until our children are 18 for good reason.

This is frightening - I have 17 year old twins - not considered old enough to legally buy alcohol, get married and for good reason ...but old enough to vote?

The reason car insurance companies don't drop kids premiums significantly until they are 25 is there is medical evidence to support their brains don't finish developing until then - specifically the decision making part of their brain. While the decision making part of their brain is still developing its in the part of their brain where they make impulsive decisions.

The voting age should stay 18 inline with them becoming legal adults.

Don't agree with votes at 16 either (although the 16 year old me was/would have been all for it). 18 is fine.

Quite simply I don't trust them to do a fraction of the things they say they will. Not with Reeves controlling the purse-strings. Like specialist rape teams and courts. They are also going to recruit 6500 new teachers, apparently, according to the bumf that came through my letterbox this morning. From where? Training up teachers from scratch takes years (and they don't stay in the profession anyway, another problem). The alternative is, get teachers in from abroad. But I don't suppose they like to use the word 'immigration'. Their 'worker's rights' package is another area where I'm very much "I'll believe it when I see it".

Allowing the vote from 16 is utterly disgraceful, you are not legally classified as an adult until 18 and are until then classified as a minor!

NSPCC " In England, a child is defined as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. "

Utterly nonsensical.

I didn’t read it the same way, I read that GRC will be simplified (ie anyone can have one), and medical pathways will require specialist sign off.

Sorry I lost the will to live after the first paragraph. Protecting the rights of women and girls? Does that include the ones with a Penis?

I agree . I have a 17 year old. I don’t think 16/17 is mature enough to make a choice like this.

The happy smiling meetings Labour had with Stonewall et al recently weren't for nothing!

And with Labour in power, public sector services will lurch further towards mixed sex only. The only defence against Labour ideology will be the SEEN groups fighting them on the ground.

They don't want to touch it with a barge pole so all the effort to misrepresent the EA2010 pays off for the extremists when labour make clear they think everything is peachy.

It's like the past 5/10 years has been a fevered dream they are trying to convince themselves & the electorate they don't need to bother about.

I support what is being proposed, and gave one of the (many) reasons why I support it.

Giving 10 year olds the vote is not being proposed.

LGBT+ Labour is cock-a-hoop

x.com/lgbtlabour/status/1801200452446384202?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

'Labour is proud of our Equality Act and the rights and protections it affords women; we will continue to support the implementation of its single-sex exceptions.'

I'm quite taken aback that so far, this is the only reference I've seen to the EA and single sex exemptions. Even last week, when they hit a new low as far as I was concerned, they were talking about issuing new guidance.

Some rape crisis centres use it

For those who aren't clear using 'single sex exceptions' without clarity is weaselly. These exceptions are the provision within the act to allow single-sex services i.e. to 'discriminate' against for example males, by providing a female only domestic violence support unit. At the moment it appears males with a GRC have access to these 'single-sex' female-only services. There is a further exception described as "exception to the general prohibition of gender reassignment discrimination in relation to the provision of separate- and single-sex services". It's this that excludes any transwoman accessing female-only services, and this that is rarely used

You mean just like the law protects women's gender critical / sex realist views but we still keep getting sacked or harassed out of jobs and the lucky few with high enough profiles can crowdfund enough for terrifyingly expensive court cases, which we win, but we still keep on getting sacked and harassed out of our jobs? You mean like that?

Given what is currently going on , what on earth makes you think TRAs will not use this as part of their harassment of anyone not toeing their line?

You are asking an awful lot of therapists to trust that TRAs will suddenly become reasonable people who respect the legal protections of others on this one issue alone.

The word “specialist” is so vague it’s meaningless and afaik there is no gender specialism just a bunch of charlatans following WPATH and making it up as they go along. Also according to the RCGPs GPs are specialists in general practice so it’ll probably just get offloaded onto them to deal with. More 💰💰💰 for Helen Webberley.

The issue for me is not how clued up or switched on some children are. The issue is that they are children.

I thought the same thing! I scannned my kids ones in for the vaccination records etc years ago!

Missing the point entirely, but has the NHS really not managed to digitise the babies' Red Books yet? They seemed old fashioned when DD(16) was born.

Some of them may well have an opinion on what we should prioritise but so will some 10 year olds, should we let 10 year olds vote?

That'll come in once they get their feet under the table, under the vague guise of 'trans rights'.

Saw this on X & it sums it up for me:

"They'll:

• Implement Cass recommendations while making it easier for children to change gender

• Support single sex 'exceptions' while removing 'indignities for trans people'

• Protect gender exploration while banning 'conversion therapy'

The vagueness is a blank cheque"

They are showing their contempt for women with this crap. And making it easier for kids to 'change gender' absolutely flies in the face of the Cass review. Dodds ignorant posts yesterday on X About conversion ban for T prompted a few people asking if she'd even read the report. I think we can surmise it's still a no. For what seems to be the entire leadership & policy development teams in Labour.

If we were back in 2019 then maybe this crap would get a pass. Now? Absolutely no chance.

I agree with @PronounssheRa's earlier post.

It's says

We will also modernise, simplify,
and reform the intrusive and
outdated gender recognition
law to a new process. We will
remove indignities for trans people
who deserve recognition and
acceptance

It lacks any detail and is vague enough to still include ditching the spousal exit clause.

Indeed, I strongly suspect the spousal exit clause will be considered one of the "indignities" and be done away with.