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

I’m beginning to align more to the train of thought that KS has a more personal investment in this debate. Be it a close friend or family member, he is too far down this rabbit hole for it merely to be about votes.

If you’re waiting for your approved Guardian article you’ll be waiting an age

I don’t understand how brazen Labour are being in centring men over women. If you remove the spousal exit clause, then you are effectively changing a biological woman’s sexual identity. Not very kind is it? The wife is no longer a straight woman who married a man, she is now in a ‘lesbian’ relationship with another ‘woman’. And she can’t get out. What utter gaslighting.

As for a PP implying that the wrangle over single-sex spaces is a big fuss over nothing, well how about this? If it’s no big deal for women to share their spaces with transwomen, then by the same token it should be no big deal for men to share their spaces with transwomen. Come on, men, be kind. Transwomen are a subset of the male sex class. They are men who wish they were women. Nobody literally changes sex. They’ve changed gender, which is a social construct. Most transwomen keep their penises. Men need to budge up and be kind to other men who opt out of masculinity. And transwomen need to understand that it’s not the job of women to validate their gender identity.

Why are Labour so stupid? This is the question I keep asking. They bang on about protecting women's single-sex spaces and then come up with this shit.

Starmer is a lawyer. You'd expect him to understand that if you enshrine a lie into law, then it will have consequences. You can't simply declare that men can be women without that having an impact in very many areas, from data gathering to sports to prisons. It's a bit like declaring that from now on, 2 +2 = 5, and imagining that that won't affect anyone.

I cannot agree.
(I) Trans identifying males have the same offending patterns as typical men, so if it is appropriate safeguarding to exclude typical men from single sex spaces it is appropriate to exclude trans identifying males.
(Ii) trans identifying males in prison are significantly more likely to be sex offenders than the general male prison population. Either trans identifying males are in fact more dangerous than typical men, or the ‘trans loophole’ is being systematically abused by predatory men (cf. Adam ‘Isla’ Bryson). Given this evidence that men can and will abuse ‘trans rights’ to gain access to vulnerable women (and children) it is appropriate safeguarding to close that loophole.
(iii) I live in an area where there are quite a lot of trans identifying males. They are very easily identifiable as men, regardless of the clothing and makeup. The trans rights movements also argues for the right of ‘trans women’ to wear beards etc (which of course is right, they should present as they choose). Normalising the unchallenged admission of clearly male people into women’s spaces makes those spaces mixed sex. Acts of sexual assault and voyeurism are much more common in mixed sex facilities than single sex ones, so this policy makes women significantly more vulnerable.
(Iv) some religious and ethnic groups do not allow disrobing by women in the presence of men. These religious and ethnic groups do not necessarily accept trans ideology. Therefore, allowing trans identifying males into single sex spaces effectively excludes these already marginalised women (as well as those who have suffered male violence and may be traumatised.
That’s why I disagree with you.

I have never, ever trusted Wes following that @AlisonDonut - I wasn't on "the list" but I was a Labour member at the time and I saw it when Madigan and friends had it as a public access document. I also saw the group.

I stand corrected. The Times obviously has no agenda.

By reporting actual manifesto content? That’s hardly whipping up fear. The actual headline in the paper is about as neutral as you can get.

They rolled Wes out because he is the one that lies best.

Changed his tune my arse. He was the one that had a list of women to oust from the party who thought the wrong thoughts. And it even included women who weren't even in the party.

Jess Phillips wrote the bloody manifesto to get rid of the Spousal Veto. They aren't going to drop any of this.

I would like just one of them to ask the questions - What is gender? What can a man who has a woman gender certificate under a Labour government do with it in practice?

Tootsweets23
They said they'd listen, they said they'd moderate their position. They roll out Wes Streeting and you have some hope they aren't totally ridiculous

I wouldn't bank on Wes Streeting. He was spouting some ridiculous nonsense on LBC ten minutes ago about women not having to wear dresses or being tied to the kitchen sink (with a reference to his mum and sister) - and yes, he was answering a question on Labour's gender recognition plans.

Do you disbelieve Labour’s own words in quotes?

And where do you want to see this The Guardian?

Just watched Sky News where the reporter is stating that today Starmer will be having to respond to questions re “trans and gender rights” . Do some proper research you idiots!!!!

Well, point me to where the Guardian has dealt with this then

Errrr it was leaked from inside the Labour camp to The Times...

The paper is quoting the Labour party's own words and drawing attention to them.

So no, not whipping up fear.

Blowing the whistle. Sounding a warning.

Do you think Labour won't do any of this? It's in their manifesto.

Is the Times neutral? I thought they were a Tory paper. Do you think that before an election they might be trying to whip up fear?

Trying not to derail but...

No human is born with both sets of reproductive organs.

There is no such thing as "intersex" - there are people with DSDs, disorders of/differences in sexual development, who are all either male or female but whose sexual development differs from the usual path.

Anyway, back to Labour ...

My understanding is that yes, it does. Your marriage certificate will have his new name out on it and it will legally be a same sex marriage. I have read elsewhere that it will also make it more difficult for women to extricate themselves financially from marriages before their trans husbands-now-wives have spent significant sums on gender reassignment surgeries, treatments, and accessories such as women’s clothing.

Sorry, for picking up on your comments again.

No-one is born with both sets of reproductive organs. There is no genuine record of a Human Being, being able to produce both ova and sperm. There are either males with DSDs, or females with DSDs. If you know what DSD someone has, you know if they are male or female.

'Intersex' is outdated, inaccurate and confusing (and I highly suspect that the inaccurate and confusing aspects are why TRAs like the term so much).

And the whole 'uncomfortable in my body' nonsense.
So what, as an old, overweight woman I feel uncomfortable in my body too.

I assume there is going to be a public consultation on this?

What is the purpose of men being able to change their official documentation such as driving licence and birth certificate to say female?

Exactly. We know that the GRA was brought in to avoid the issue of same sex marriage, but that isn't an issue anymore. If a GRC doesn't get access to single sex spaces what's the point (we know men with a GRC, hell even ones without, will still demand access to women's spaces)

Again, taking them on face value about single sex spaces remaining so, what message are they trying to give to people who want a GRC?

If they mean what they say then this certificate is the equivalent of one of those websites where you can buy a star or a pretend Lordship. You can hang the certificate on your wall but it doesn't mean anything in practice.

Personally I think this is the opposite of being supportive. They need to be honest, nobody can change sex so it shouldn't be a thing in law. Giving people a certificate that has no meaning isn't kind.

I think he's just a weak man who doesn't want to take on the TRAs, doesn't understand the issues and doesn't care about what many women think. He knows that this issue isn't what the election is going to be won on. He thinks it's largely an irrelevance.