Melanie Field: the former EGRC expert behind Labour's women's rights policy

Yes, it changed the day before yesterday, 27th June.

Now, how do we tell the difference between crossdressers and transwomen in stereotypically women's clothing?

I'm not sure that was the fundamental conflict on the marriage question, although it was obviously a real conflict itself.

In some ways, I think the more important question was more like the definitional question around who is a woman.

The same sex marriage question to some extent came down to, is it legitimate to have a legal institution which is definitionally predicated on the relative reproductive roles of the individuals within it?

There are basically two ways to answer that and still get to SSM. One is, yes, the state can have such an institution or recognize a contract that has sex as a necessary element, but this particular institution isn't about that: or,

No, it's not legitimate to have reproductive role/sex as a relevant element in the definition of any legal institution or contract.

The latter of those could potentially have all kinds of knock on effects on how the state treats certain categories or ideas related to sex.

Thanks. I used to be able to view Linkedin without registering but now I can't.

That's and interesting thought @Ereshkigalangcleg

@SilverElf I'm not sure what you mean? Apparently stonewall have dropped cross dressers from the list of what makes a person transgender. Did you see that?

Interesting that Labour have an adviser dedicated to removing women and girl's boundaries. Given that Keir self identifies as central to a removing VAWG you'd think he'd be keen on having someone expert in safeguarding - especially as Labour's adviser will be ensuring that young girls will also be required to share spaces with "traumatised" men when undressing.

Presumably the removal of cross dressers is so that Keir can avoid the "he identifies as a rapist" mess that Nicola Sturgeon ended up in when trying to unravel the Bryson prison debacle. Any of the male sex offenders who claims to be a woman will simply be labelled as a "cross dresser" and therefore not trans?

I wonder if they will remove the "crossdresser route" to getting a female passport merely by making a self declaration by letter to HM Passport Office, or whether that will quietly remain on the books.

If cross-dressers are no longer trans, then trans are no longer trans… This has not been thought through. I wonder which unworthy group will next be dropped (or added)?

It also brushes over another important point, which is that women are already in a very significantly compromised position . In order to actually balance rights in that way, you would have to consider the original position (no men accepted in women’s spaces) with the currently demanded situation (all men who want to can use women’s spaces).

If you look for a reasonable compromise, that the majority might agree with you would potentially arrive where we were before transactivists moved onto demanding self-ID and numbers ballooned. Women’s spaces were for women and a tiny number of men who, for medical reasons (or so it could be argued) benefited from using women’s spaces to the point where it was something that needed to be balanced against women’s rights to male free spaces.

To reach any reasonable compromise, the current group of male invaders should actually be told they can’t have access. Instead, I imagine the Labour Party will blindly assume compromise will involve women moving further over.

It’s not going to happen and it will never be possible to persuade the majority to that position, because it is so patently unreasonable.

I’m not sure that Stonewall recognises a difference?

Perhaps it assumes that if you make sure women are properly punished for wrongspeak, then you tend to get a less polarised conversation?

How do Stonewall propose that we can tell the difference between a cross dresser and a trans woman I wonder?

The only significant conflict of interest with gay marriage was between those who wanted gay marriage and those who wanted the right not to carry out the ceremony. That was easily adjusted by saying those who didn’t want to carry out the ceremonies on religious grounds had the right to refuse.

The difference between that and demanding that some men can use women’s spaces is massive. There is no comparison.

Giving women who don’t want to share with men (on religious grounds or for any other reason) the right not to use those spaces is no answer as, unlike with a marriage ceremony, where you can simply ask someone else to do it, there is no alternative space.

Women who don’t want to share spaces with men are not in any way equivalent to marriage celebrants who don’t want to marry gay people in this situation. Those women need something themselves, the marriage celebrant doesn’t.

The only thing those two groups have in common is that activists would probably call both groups bigots.

I have never been so scared about a party being elected. They are working hard behind the scenes.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/stonewall-redefines-trans-to-exclude-crossdressers/

Stonewall’s long-standing definition of “trans” changed on 27th June 2024 to drop “crossdresser” from the list.

Thanks op, this is interesting. It's also very plausible but is there anything that specifically links her with Labour and their current policies and statements? (I can't access the Linked-in stuff so apologies if it's there)

Yes, they think that they can get public consent if they massage the message enough and for long enough.

What they continue to misunderstand or deny to themselves, is that the public, and pesky women in particular now understand the problems with self-id of sex and we are not going to go away. Labour may have a majority in the HoC at the end of next week, but there will be an army or people like the wonderful Jane yesterday who will continue to hold their feet to the fire.

Thanks for this thread. I had no idea of this woman's influence.

This is how this stuff becomes policy. Written by civil servants with an agenda.

You get the feeling that they are still driving the car in the direction of self ID, if they have the expected huge maority who know's what they will do.

"The key lesson I took from working on the Equality Act, and later on same-sex marriage legislation, both of which involved complex balancing of competing rights, was the crucial importance of genuinely addressing concerns. That requires carefully listening to, and engaging constructively with, those who are not supportive of change.

The integrity of the equality and human rights framework relies on engaging positively and in good faith with those who fear their own rights may be impacted, understanding their fears and examining – impartially and on the basis of evidence – where those concerns come from and how they should be addressed.

While some of the opposition to same-sex marriage may have been driven by misunderstanding or even prejudice, many objections were rooted in profoundly-held religious or philosophical beliefs. The success of the legislation hung on it demonstrably ensuring strong protection of the right to freedom of religion. That was achieved through carefully-crafted, targeted provisions designed to ensure that the law worked in the way intended in a range of specific circumstances.

I believe it is a model for legislating on contentious socially progressive issues in a way which can secure broad public support"

"Yes, we do. I hope that after the election space will open up for a less polarised public conversation"

And how is that going to be achieved? It does seem to be assumed that if you talk nicely to people and say soothings things then essential disagreements will disappear.

Field says:

"The key lesson I took from working on the Equality Act, and later on same-sex marriage legislation, both of which involved complex balancing of competing rights, was the crucial importance of genuinely addressing concerns. That requires carefully listening to, and engaging constructively with, those who are not supportive of change"

This passage is written with the assumption that the public have to be talked into, or re-assured about changes.....which is excatly what Starmer has been at pains to say in recent days.