JKR in The Times. Labour have dismissed women like me

SDP for me.

So who are people going to vote for?

I finally resigned myself that voting labour was the best call last night. But this has put me in a spin again. I feel strongly about women’s rights and how the Labour Party have screwed us over. BUT I absolutely can’t vote Tory. Out of all my local candidates I actually like the Labour one, so if not them who…

Independant - seems nice enough, but isn’t going to stand a chance I feel the vote would be wasted
Green - info on candidate is non existent, also greens won’t get anywhere.
Alliance for Democracy and Freedom - Hard no
Reform - are actually building momentum in some parts of the electorate. Could I vote for them hhhmmmm 🤔 Well even if I could I can’t stand the candidate so that’s my answer.
Lib Dems - never really thought much of them.

It’s so hard, there is the line that the shit show has happened under Tory rule so anything they say now to back track is bollox. Labours stance on women and trans issues has been horrendous though, so will it change with Labour, do we give them a chance, how much dose this one issue mean against every other issue on the table, NHS, Education, Economy, Immigration, Policing…. This is my struggle which given my stance is that other women died and fought for my right to vote and have a say so I could never dream of not voting, but it is so hard for me and other women right now to know what’s best.

It's a fair point but I think when push comes to shove, farmers will still vote blue.

Yes this.

You seem to think I'm voting Labour. I'm not. Labour's treatment of Faiza Shaheen, Diane Abbot, Zarah Sultana etc does suggest they have a real problem with women, at least with women on the left. As does the expulsion and suspension of a disproportionate number of leftwing Jewish women. Something JK seems quite happy to ignore.

The Labour right are some of the most contemptible people I've ever encountered and I've had lunch with Tory cabinet ministers.

Electing a government stubbornly sticking to the ridiculous notion that paying down debt by cutting services is going to result in anything other than a disproportionately negative impact on a host of groups, for example, women, is a nonsense.

If we're going to have single sex wards on the NHS, process the asylum claims of vulnerable women & children, fund the judiciary to prosecute cases of sexual violence, fund education to ensure social mobility etc. Voting for Tory economics is never going to deliver it.

Men are our oppressors - who would be stupid enough to think that they WOULDN'T do this?

I've seen green posters in an area of Cheshire normally staunchly blue and has previously had Tory posters.

But in the past we've had the ukip to LD voter be a thing (and vice versa).

Tories have been seen as understanding rural issues in the past with Labour being regarded as city dwellers who had no clue about rural issues.

So actually it doesn't surprise me terribly post Brexit and how it's affected farmers.

Very true.

Staunch Tory land full of farmers so that would be a genuine upset for that area.

Just reading the highlighted bits with all the knowledge we have know shows exactly how militant the trans lobby were from the beginning.

Forcing this on the public in general and women in particular in order to validate themselves was always the goal.

Lord Tebbit back in 2004 identified many issues with the GRA even before the EA. Well worth a read. Be warned it is a long one.

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/2004/jan/29/gender-recognition-bill-hl

The GRA was for homophobic reasons. Stonewall are homophobic. Transition is to trans away the gay, for many. Even Susie Green said it.

Wes Streeting is liable to focus on this rather than women's rights issues in my opinion.

Basically this.

Exactly 👏

Reminder about the history of the GRA. It was created because of a problem with a lack of same sex marriages. It was written for and to be a work around for homophobic principles.

The Equality Act 2010 has sex based exemptions.
It was written AFTER the GRA 2004. .
It was explicit in making gender reassignment a separate characteristic to sex. If they had been the same there would not be a need in law to make separate categories.

They were also explicit in the examples used which refer to some of this which are deemed legitimate.

This was all fine until Stonewall came along and decided to rewrite the law to profit from training courses and then willfully and deliberately misrepresented the law and then started to redefine everything (including the word homosexual).

In law homosexual is same sex attracted.
Stonewall define homosexual as same gender attracted.

There's your problem right there.
Stonewall.

Just emailed my Labour candidate asking him to clarify his position in the light of this morning's development. Proper clarification is exactly what JKR is pushing for.

I shall buy the Times for the first time ever today

Enjoy! It is an excellent read. Sunday Times even better.

Who would have thought trans women would think it OK to use womens changing rooms, rape centres, prisons and chest feed !
The GRA didn’t create this mess.

"Meanwhile as the populist right gets more powerful one of their biggest weapons is going to be the fact is "liberals" are lying about biology. It is a HUGE issue because it undermines everything else. If you lie about women existing you are going to lose people's trust over time".
Quoting @fromorbit's excellent post upthread

How politicians missed this defies belief. And it speaks to their ethics, their values and their intellect - and none of it in a good way.

Bollocks!

After how many years where 'the mandate of the British public' was bandied about by just about every political party in some shape or form, I find myself smashing my head against the table.

So I have read the article, the whole thread, and have made some comments.

There's still confusion and controversy regarding who to vote for.

So why did JKR write this article now? What do people think she hopes to gain?

I'm thinking it's to get Labour to become really honest and clear, and for Starmer to get of the fence and defend women's rights so that we can vote for them. Others seem to have read it and it's making them want to vote for other parties. But all the parties are bad on this. I don't think it's an anti-labour article. It's seems to be a very well presented final request for them to get their act together.

Tbf Stonewall could only act because the GRA created the mess

It’s underpinned by the legislation

Yes, not to derail but he's got that against him too.