The Times Lead Story - Labour Set To Annihilate Women's Rights

But that's part of the problem isn't it - a woman who is directly affected will have to fundraise and go to court. Religious women aren't speaking out about a lot of issues right now. We don;t know if they are free to do so.

I don’t think Labour are pretending to promise even

Just a few on mn

I can see we are going to have more women having to raise money for court cases & tribunals inorder to protect our rights.
It never bloody ends does it .

My understanding is the annulment option in the GRA was to stop the state directly interfering in the human rights of individuals eg to practice their religious beliefs, not to be forced into a same sex marriage without their consent (as this directly conflicts with their right to practise religious belief, marry as they choose, and human rights).

If Labour's change to the spousal exit clause does come about, it would be awfully interesting if a transwidow were to take her case to the EHRC on the grounds that the new process breaches her human rights.

Be fascinated to see the actual evidence you have for your "bet". But I'm betting you just want to chivvy us all into voting Labour while we pipe down and stop making a "fuss" 🙄

I don't want mystical distant promises I want clear, decisive action.

People can promise the earth but it's meaningless without clear policy.

So far all Labours stated policies support gender, to the detriment of women and children.

@dollybird
GRA annulment doesn't impact division of assets in theory but it is very difficult to divide the assets when one partner has changed official name/ gender documents and everything is in different names , and men can keep their wives and children in huge distress and poverty for years dragging it out.

My guess is that one of the reasons Labour plans to end this protection for women is that currently the family court may not issue the final annulment (so dads can get their final GRC ) until they have agreed financial arrangements for the children and division of assets eg the house with their wife. Leaving families in poverty is a long term aim of trans lobbying and the recent CPS proposals had to be amended as a result- domestic abuse including financial and coercive control are primarily sex based crimes , and this doesn't change when a man says he is a woman (whatever trans lobbyists pretend!)
policyexchange.org.uk/publication/the-crown-prosecution-services-approach-to-transgenderism/

My understanding is the annulment option in the GRA was to stop the state directly interfering in the human rights of individuals eg to practice their religious beliefs, not to be forced into a same sex marriage without their consent (as this directly conflicts with their right to practise religious belief, marry as they choose, and human rights).

Oh good! I was planning to switch off when I heard it was Michael Gove and Harriet Harmen.

I'll keep listening now.

HRTFT

Wes Streeting on NF on LBC this morning saying they will simplify it and what you wear is not an indication of your gender. He said his mother, nieces etc don't wear dresses and we shouldn't use dress as a way of confirming someone is trans.

So they are saying that it really is just feelings. So you can get a new birth certificate, driving licence, passport etc without changing anything about the way you look as that doesn't prove you are 'living as the opposite gender'. Frankly nothing proves you are living as the other gender because we all live how we want within our sexed bodies.

Can they not see what they are doing?

A transwoman called in and repeated about all the 'lower' surgery and how they had all been documents changed and how difficult it was. NF then asked if still had to have prostate checked - of course!

The only way this will work is if it's acknowledged that gender is completely different to sex and having a different gender does not give you access to the other sexed spaces/orisons/sports etc,

The Guardian calling it a 'reiteration'. It can't honestly be described in that way though, due to the stalling and obfuscation they've indulged in for years.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/24/labour-gender-transition-recognition-process-trans

Really?

They're keeping awful quiet about it.

Helen Joyce will be on Times radio with Andrew Neil after 1. He did a stonking interview with Rosie Duffield last week. He’s doing good work in this area.

Will they let us know this perfectly sensible approach before the GE?

If it they can why don’t they let us know about it

Can you think what it might be?

They’ve had years to come up with such a policy while in opposition but haven’t. What makes you think they’ll suddenly magic one up once they’re in government?

What a shame they didn't put it in their manifesto then.

My bet is that Labour will come up with a perfectly sensible policy that recognises trans rights but protects children, protects women's safe spaces, and also protects the position of women in sport etc. And all this fuss will thump to earth like a damp squib.

And if the new government will make it easier for people to find happiness then good for them.

Unfortunately, transitioning, in whatever form doesn't always lead to lasting happiness. One of the reasons for not rushing the process and having appropriate checks along is to make sure underlying issues are considered and treated where appropriate.

Easier, faster transition doesn't actually benefit transpeople.

No-one is born with both sets of reproductive organs.

It's a once in several years globally event that a baby will be born with partially-formed reproductive organs of one sex and partially- or fully-formed reproductive organs of the other sex, as a consequence of opposite sexed fraternal twins fusing in utero. But the conflicting hormones required for each type of gonad to work mean that only one sex's gonad can work, usually the male one.

The hermaphrodite of Greek legends, with complete sets of each, is a myth.

I was referring to the post directly above mine @Kai125

I think you spend most of your time shirtless and burp a lot.

@Daffodilsugar

Sexual dimorphism.

In humans this means that males (small gamete producing sex) have an average of 90% more upper body and 60% lower body than the females (large-gamete producing sex)

There is currently no good quality evidence that demonstrates when a male takes female HRT that they lose as much strength that would make them
comparable to females. There is also no evidence that trans-men could match men with their HRT. This could change.

In addition to this societally males are responsible for most of the violence to women, and most of that happens behind closed doors. This is why the risk to women is higher when they attend to personal business and why they need a safe space to do so.

Having said that Transwomen are also at an increased risk. As they are less strong and more likely to be assaulted by men.

Surely if they were mutilating and sterilising kids, the government would say something?

Oh no, hang on, it took Keira Bell a single female taking the Tavistock through the courts for the government to even start a review. Which then took 4 years to produce a final report. And what was all this medical knowledge based on? Absolutely nothing. No evidence, no studies, no results. Just activists. Many of them also involved in Eunach Based Fetishes.

Short termism on Labour's part.

The European Parliament elections showed us what happens when left and centre left parties are not willing or able to improve voters' lives and concentrate on identity politics.

They start losing.

"At least they're not the Tories" can very quickly become "At least they're not Labour".

If a marriage is annulled rather than divorce, after say, 20 years of marriage, does that affect the division of assets etc?

I'd like to know what it means to 'live as the opposite sex', especially if you are a male changing your gender to female.
Though I guess this also applies the other way around, but as I'm a female, I wouldn't know what it means to live as a male.