Page 2 | Labour party plan to ensure women's posts are for women only.

ArabellaScott · 2025-05-19T21:06:26+00:00

And activists are not happy. 'The proposals to restrict trans members’ engagement in internal democratic procedures - including by blocking trans women from standing in All Women’s Shortlists, excluding them from National Women’s Conferences, and preventing them standing as Women’s Officers' https://www.prideinlabour.org.uk/post/joint-statement-in-response-to-leaked-nec-paper

YourAmplePlumPoster · 20/05/2025 20:10

From what I saw of the LP Conference in 2019, it was just a weird cult of trans and Palestinian activists.

YourAmplePlumPoster · 20/05/2025 20:07

So funny how lefty progressives demand "safe spaces" and spaces for "people of colour only" but don't think safe spaces for women are needed or relevant.

Original poster

ArabellaScott · 20/05/2025 20:04

EasternStandard · 20/05/2025 19:17

So violence = legal challenge in that tweet?

Or are they pretending there’s another challenge to avoid violence

Show quote history

They are pretending the Good Law.Project might sue them? I mean, they might.

OP posts:

YourAmplePlumPoster · 20/05/2025 20:03

They simply don't want the TV and press cameras trained on a Conference Centre where weird cross dressing men are protesting outside. Especially as they are trying to look like a grown up Government.

eatfigs · 20/05/2025 20:00

https://x.com/janeclarejones/status/1924740367401787856

One of the greatest ironies of the capture of civil society is that people have managed to simultaneously believe they are defending the most vulnerable people on earth while being too scared to stand up to them.

https://x.com/janeclarejones/status/1924740367401787856

EasternStandard · 20/05/2025 19:17

nauticant · 20/05/2025 19:12

Because if they comply with the Supreme Court judgment, violent men might kick off, so naturally they'd operate contrary to the judgment to avoid that.

So violence = legal challenge in that tweet?

Or are they pretending there’s another challenge to avoid violence

nauticant · 20/05/2025 19:12

Because if they comply with the Supreme Court judgment, violent men might kick off, so naturally they'd operate contrary to the judgment to avoid that.

EasternStandard · 20/05/2025 19:06

Why does the Supreme Court ruling mean a legal challenge?

SionnachRuadh · 20/05/2025 19:03

If violent TRAs kicked off outside conference, it would be an illuminating experience for lots of voters.

Labour members, maybe not so much. They've got quite a capacity for unseeing inconvenient things.

YourAmplePlumPoster · 20/05/2025 19:01

They clearly don't want the embarrassment of violent TRAs kicking off outside the Conference as they've so actively supported it.

Original poster

ArabellaScott · 20/05/2025 18:30

For the men. Not for you.

OP posts:

Original poster

ArabellaScott · 20/05/2025 18:29

Fucksake.

https://x.com/Tony_Diver/status/1924878575804481925

'New: Labour's NEC has voted to cancel the party's women's conference over concerns that it would lead to a legal challenge because of the Supreme Court trans ruling. The motion passed with a large majority. The main factor was legal risk and the NEC hopes it will be back in 2026'

https://x.com/Tony_Diver/status/1924878575804481925

OP posts:

EasternStandard · 20/05/2025 18:24

So they cancel it. Great.

YourAmplePlumPoster · 20/05/2025 18:05

A disgraceful decision by the Labour Party to cancel the Women's Conference where matters affecting women are debated. They are doing this because the male trans activists will cause enormous disruption. As for the "Heather" person. I remember him being present at the 2019 Brighton Conference and dominating all the debates. I decided to quit the Labour Party after that.

YourAmplePlumPoster · 20/05/2025 16:41

https://x.com/suzanne_moore/status/1924738436168122716

sweetsardineface · 20/05/2025 15:58

Labour’s response to the conference is another example of fence sitting/not dealing with something until it hopefully goes away. It’s almost unbelievable. Almost.

HobnobsChoice · 20/05/2025 15:13

SionnachRuadh · 20/05/2025 10:38

All we need is one enterprising Unison member to put in a complaint to the Certification Officer. The CO's job is literally to ensure that unions comply with the law, and they can be hit with pretty hefty fines if they don't.

Show quote history

Well I think there might be a couple of us who can do that. Off to see what that involves

Shortshriftandlethal · 20/05/2025 13:44

PrettyDamnCosmic · 20/05/2025 13:39

The Supreme Court was very clear. You need biological sex to be a protected characteristic otherwise you cannot define the protected characteristics of sexual orientation or gender reassignment.

Show quote history

Stonewall's aim was always to have 'Sex' removed altogether to be replaced by 'Gender Identity'.

And I recall Caroline Nokes, for one, campaigning to have characteristics which are sex based such as menstruation and menopause defined as protected characteristics......and I suspect the reason behind was this so that 'Sex' itself could be removed and only that which defined sexual and biological function and feature would remain. So, women and girls, per se would no longer have automatic protection as females.

Greyskybluesky · 20/05/2025 13:43

YourAmplePlumPoster · 20/05/2025 13:13

Anyone remember this person?
https://www.whatisawoman.uk/HeatherPeto/

Why do you ask? I remember this person. I was fucking furious that this person had the nerve to take up a place on the Jo Cox Women in Leadership Programme. I still am fucking furious about that.

nauticant · 20/05/2025 13:42

Apart from anything else, the optics would be that the Supreme Court tells everyone what they know, that men are men and women are women, and that the Labour government decided in response to pass a law to say the opposite.

(Never mind that a previous Labour government has already done that in 2004.)

Langdale3 · 20/05/2025 13:42

SionnachRuadh · 20/05/2025 12:45

Cancelling would reduce women's conference to... well, where lesbian dating events have been for the past 10 to 15 years. No blokes, no event.

Wasn't there a recent court case about that kind of thing?

Exactly

PrettyDamnCosmic · 20/05/2025 13:39

Shortshriftandlethal · 20/05/2025 13:35

The talk about how easy it would be for Labour to " amend the Law" fails to understand the implications of that ( or maybe they do, but just don't care). In effect they are suggesting removing 'Sex' as a protected characteristic from the Equalities Act, and I really don't think Labour has the appetite to even begin to attempt that.

Edited

Show quote history

The Supreme Court was very clear. You need biological sex to be a protected characteristic otherwise you cannot define the protected characteristics of sexual orientation or gender reassignment.

Shortshriftandlethal · 20/05/2025 13:35

Mmmnotsure · 20/05/2025 13:30

One reaction to the NEC document:

"It needs to be stated repeatedly that the excuse of “we’re complying with the law, we’ll get sued if we don’t” is the most outrageous gaslighting imaginable. Labour are the party of government. They can easily amend the law if they want to. This is a choice. A known evil choice."

Gaslighting, they call it.

The talk about how easy it would be for Labour to " amend the Law" fails to understand the implications of that ( or maybe they do, but just don't care). In effect they are suggesting removing 'Sex' as a protected characteristic from the Equalities Act, and I really don't think Labour has the appetite to even begin to attempt that.

Mmmnotsure · 20/05/2025 13:30

One reaction to the NEC document:

"It needs to be stated repeatedly that the excuse of “we’re complying with the law, we’ll get sued if we don’t” is the most outrageous gaslighting imaginable. Labour are the party of government. They can easily amend the law if they want to. This is a choice. A known evil choice."

Gaslighting, they call it.

nauticant · 20/05/2025 13:17

eatfigs · 20/05/2025 08:49

Leaked paper has been posted here in the replies - https://bsky.app/profile/leftiestats.bsky.social/post/3lpjw66sy722t

Looking at the NEC document presented in screenshots it's striking that for all the talk of the uncertainties of the Supreme Court judgment, the (seemingly rational) people who are advising the NEC seemed to have little trouble setting out in a clear way what the consequences and the preferred courses of action might be.

Seems it wasn't so difficult after all.