Did Keir Starmer just say

It's not stupid, just insufficiently cynical.

Lots of people feel uncomfortable in hospital, for a variety of reasons. They don't demand that other patients be deployed as their protection.

The idea that we can't say no to these entitled men is difficult to shift.

@Sloejelly sorry can I check, are you replying to me in those comments?

A trans patient may feel uncomfortable being placed on the ward of their sex, a patient in clinical need may die if placed on a ward.

Hospital wards are allocated by sex and specialism. Males placed anywhere other than on male wards of the appropriate specialism are being placed at increase risk of inappropriate treatment. Ditto females. It is impossible to change sex; males ranges and physiology remain male ranges and physiology. Don’t be fooled by heavily filtered internet pictures of men who identify as women; in real life they look like men. There is absolutely no excuse for them for be destroying the privacy, dignity and safety of women. Nor is there any reason for them to take side wards from those with clinical need for them.

I must be honest that I have empathy for some trans-identified people in regards to this situation. I can see how a person who has taken cross sex hormones and had surgery could be put in a difficult situation by placement on a ward with others of their sex. Particularly for trans-identified females as the effects of testosterone are so potent. I think it could also be an alarming experience for other women, who will not know that the other patient is actually female. I have seen some users proffer the solution that staff simply tell the other patients. However, I don’t believe that is workable due to their right to confidentiality regarding medical matters, which ‘gender reassignment’ is classed as.

Not all trans-identified people are gender ideologues or TRAs. I think it a little unfair to treat attempts to protect both their dignity and that of women and men as providing preferential treatment. No one should have to ‘lose’ in this situation, barring the abusers who will accept no less than the right to violate female single sex spaces. I do agree with others that side rooms are scarce and needed for other things so a proper solution is required. But I wouldn’t be opposed to separate provision for trans-identified people who no longer resemble their sex. Or the provision of additional side rooms on sexed wards such as gynaecology, where transmen may require treatment.

Labour have been trumpeting fully costed with a straight face and IFS said manifesto is a conspiracy of silence over tax rises and spending cuts

Basically the numbers don’t add up

The amount of times I saw fully costed posted here plus that biological sex statement constantly

Anyone questioning either shouted down. Both lawyerly lies

Farcical. Maybe it’s Starmer’s pale stale male ability to lie

@EasternStandard
It’s the whole “fully costed” bollocks they’ve repeated over and over until the IFS said hang on

What's happened?

It’s not just this

It’s the whole “fully costed” bollocks they’ve repeated over and over until the IFS said hang on

And the gang stuff is likely another one

It’s weird how compelling they are when lying. Something to do with their manner

Same here.

We have really got to stop being coy about this, there's 8 days. And no, there's no epiphany coming, just a hope of conning you long enough.

Yeah. They've been fucking lying. Outright blatant lying.

Awww me too @theilltemperedclavecinist

I fell for it, when they said they would protect single-sex spaces for biological women. I feel so stupid. 😪

Not expecting an miraculous epiphany before the election! Whatever made you think I did!

I think the reality is Labour is still totally TWAW.

Thanks to relentless campaigning, and more lately JKR the media (who I dont think care either way) are now using the issue to challenge Labour.

So everything is about not alienation the trans community because that is Labour's priority.

Hence the wiffle waffle nonsense.

If they cared about women they could easily by now have put together a straight forward position. But the cant and wont, because prioritising women is not a priority for them.

(IMO Labour uses Safe Spaces rather than Single Sex, because in correctly referring the SSE by using the word sex, meants that they acknowledge sex is real, which they cant do because of TRAs Using the euphamisism Safe Spaces means that they recognise the law as currently written, but aren't openly saying sex is a real biological fact.)

It's this. Anything else is fanciful thinking, very sadly.

there's 8 days. And no, there's no epiphany coming, just a hope of conning you long enough

This

I have to say I do feel they are on the crisp of an epiphany moment on it. They think they can just be nice about it, but haven't really thought it through in full.

I really am now at the point of 'Labour, are you seriously this thick, or are you very shy about your male supremacism?'

Because let's stop beating about the bush, this is what it is. In fact, in truth. Male humans matter and female humans don't. Male humans should have more rights and privileges that females are not entitled to equality with. And female humans are resources for male humans and should not be allowed to withhold consent.

It's that straight forward.

Seriously. If they can try and lie and pretty-word their way around removing a woman's right to leave her marriage when a man unilaterally changes the contract and even the person she chose to marry? And call that removing 'spousal consent' because poor bloke? It's a natural extension to removing the marital rape prohibition. Which is also some uppity bloody woman wanting consent and equality of humanity while poor bloke with rights.

We have really got to stop being coy about this, there's 8 days. And no, there's no epiphany coming, just a hope of conning you long enough.

Something occurred to me about letting more people into women's toilets: we're going to need considerably bigger toilets blocks for women.

Women currently have to queue while men don't (see 'Invisible Women') & women need more toilet provision right now, just to give them equality of service. But we never seem to get it. Funny, that.

Now take some users out of the Gents & put them in the Ladies. Far fewer users will migrate from the Ladies to the Gents, I assume, though I know some already have. Result? Toilet provision skewed even more in favour of users of the Gents.

What are Labour's proposals for dealing with this inequality?

She seems to think all men who apply to GRCs have had genital surgery - how can she not know this isn’t the case?

I should stress that unacceptable behaviour it's just being a sex offender.

Having disrespect for others (women) and huge entitlement that ignores the concerns and dignity of others (women) also crosses a line.

Exactly.

The conflict between the desire to be nice and what reality is, is a really difficult want to wrap your head around.

I've been through the process of this. I get it inside out.

Ultimately it comes down to behaviour and what you would normally otherwise find unacceptable.

Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

But it frustrates me no end this narrative that GC don't care and hate. The opposite is true in the majority of cases. The difference is we can see that you can't just make excuses for someone based on identity or if you are related to them because there is a recipient of unacceptable behaviour.

It's a religious belief, and as unreasonable as any other religion in its demands on women.

They haven't understood it's not a war about culture.

It's a battle between ideology belief and practical issues and reality.

Ideology can be exceptionally powerful yet fragile at the same time. It tends to collapse under the weight of its own bullshit.

I have to say I do feel they are on the crisp of an epiphany moment on it. They think they can just be nice about it, but haven't really thought it through in full.

Whether we can push them over that edge one by one remains to be seen.

They want to appear nice and the trouble is this conversation isn't about being nice to everyone. It's about what is legally coherent and what is legally practical and workable.

This is the exact issue with Brexit which has gradually hit the wall of reality.

That's the only thing that gives me some hope, combined with fallout in Canada likely to hit soon, legal rulings and other outside political changes influencing the landscape of this.

It's all about timing and priorities now.

If this is a shit show subject for Labour both publicly and internally they are likely to deprioritise. That buys time for fallout and research dropping (which I think we have a fair idea in terms of direction of travel).

We WANT to force this. Buy time. Buy as much as we can. It gives us the most chance of retaining the rights we should legally have now.

Fight starts 5th July. Not before imho.