Voting to "Get the Tories Out" part 2

[AdamRyan]

Follow on to this thread to continue discussion

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4978642-voting-to-get-the-tories-out?page=40&reply=132044464

I guess I am curious to know; would there be men willing to fully transition to point of full gender reassignment (long term hormone therapy and genital reassignment) just in order to access women's spaces and be predatory?

@Firefly2009 just tried to quote you on other thread. You don’t need to have modifications or even have a GRC to enter a female space as no one can check for the latter

I think this is why I support the status quo. It is almost intentionally vague so that trans people can go about their daily lives but males being predatory/behaving inappropriately can be removed.
Self ID is a green light for any old pervert to get access to womens spaces by saying they "feel like a woman". More draconian definitions of sex based spaces and access means trans people won't be able to participate in life as fully as they do now. That seems unfair to me, especially for those who have been living in their acquired gender for many years.

My point is, it is easy to recognise a man who has not fully transitioned. However, I take your point - that they are able to access women's spaces regardless.

How are you limiting this?

Males can access female spaces without a GRC or modification

You know the answer to that.

To me, the trans issue & womens safety is a red herring, men don't need to dress up as a woman to attack women and girls.

The real issue is why nothing is being done about 3 women a week murdered by partners/former partners and DV in general, including stalking.

I'm at a loss why no one cares.

@AdamRyan Yes I agree. This is where we need some middle ground. Women and trans people both need protecting and both have rights.

This is why I don't see how this will be part of a political party manifesto. It means taking one side or another, which is obviously disadvantaging another group. I don't think any political party is ever going to do that.

Referring to the last thread, the Equality Act already says sex and the most recent government update is they see no need for further definition.

In its response to the petition, provided on 26 January 2023, the Government said: “Under the Equality Act 2010, providers are already able to restrict the use of spaces/services on the basis of sex and/or gender reassignment where justified. Further clarification is not necessary.”

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/326/petitions-committee/news/195562/the-definition-of-sex-in-the-equality-act-2010-to-be-debated-by-mps/

A summary of a recent debate on it in parliament is here:

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/mps-debate-changing-legal-definition-of-sex-under-the-equality-act/

This is why I think anyone who believes the Conservatives will do anything about the current position are having wool pulled over their eyes. Every time the Government make a statement on public record they commit to making the GRC process easier and keeping the EA. It's hardly consistent with a party that are "protecting women's sex based rights" in the way so many pro-Conservative posters believe.

@jasflowers Yes I completely agree. I said many pages ago that this is a red herring. It's not that the trans debate isn't important; I think it is, except that it is important for both sides. There are SO many other societal issues, including some much more detrimental ones involving women. And it is so interesting how little concern anyone has for those. Red herring indeed.

I think lots of people do care, I certainly do and was extremely happy to see labour putting it front and centre of policy.

@AdamRyan excellent post and good point well made.

That doesn’t tally with more recent 11/23

On 21 February 2023, the Minister for Women and Equalities (MfWE) sought advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on the benefits or otherwise of an amendment to the Equality Act 2010 on the current definition of 'sex', as she was concerned that the Equality Act may not be sufficiently clear in the balance it strikes between the interests of people with different protected characteristics, particularly in the case of the protected characteristics of ‘sex’ and ‘gender reassignment’.

Having received that advice, the Minister for Women and Equalities has asked officials to undertake detailed policy and legal analysis, as per the EHRC’s request, to understand the impact of its advice on various protected groups and related issues arising.

I don’t see why not, many women are speaking up

That's a bit disingenuous. The text you quote is a holding answer to a question in October and says nothing about their policy- it's a good example of the aforementioned hot air.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-10-19/203548

This from a recent article on Labour's overall stance on gender issues:

Allies of Keir Starmer claim he has the backing of Labour’s grassroots over his stance on sex- and gender-based rights after a new poll of members suggested they support the party’s updated position on the issue.
The party shifted its stance in the summer, abandoning its support for self-identification – which would allow people to legally change gender without a medical diagnosis. It announced the move alongside support for making the process of obtaining a gender recognition certificate far simpler and less invasive, as well as continuing to ensure some single-sex services and places could only be accessed by biological women.

While the issue remains a controversial one within the party, Labour Together, a group closely associated with Starmer, said a new YouGov poll of Labour members it commissioned showed broad support for the leadership’s new line.

You could be right. I don't see it becoming a part of a party manifesto though.

The email was 11/2023 and Badenoch has written to the EHRC

I understand a post was created to deal with it, someone linked on FWR I guess we’ll see if it progresses before a GE

I actually hope that no political party makes it part of a manifesto, one way or the other. To me it would be too extremist and I hope our country does not go that way - in either direction.

Does this mean you don’t want women to be effective or you do but people shouldn’t vote on it?

If the latter and no vote how would it happen?

@EasternStandard youll need to be more precise, sorry, I don’t know what you’re asking me?

It was hard to say 😬

Would you like women to be effective but get the law changed another way other than a vote?

Or no vote and no change at all

How do you propose people should be checked?
Should one be checked everytime before entering single sex spaces?

C&P’ing because I’d love some reassurance that the side effects from what GC feminists are suggesting have taken into consideration what policing their demands could looks like.

++++

Cornettoninja · Today 18:34

Desecratedcoconut · Today 18:19

Oh please, do we have to play that game were we all pretend you can't tell the difference? Come on.
Yes we do because it’s already happened. I don’t know why you think it’s only trans women who would be under suspicion.

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/semenya-offered-show-her-body-officials-prove-she-was-female-2022-05-24/

No proposal to check I prefer the EqA option

I’ll be voting to Gtto as its of utmost importance to the future of our country that the most venal, corrupt and amoral government (by quite a large margin) is ousted at the GE.

Im also aware that it’s of the utmost importance that any discussion about the many issues we all face are ignored, and drowned out by a single issue, the Tory party have pretty much admitted this will be their strategy, so it’s unsurprising that the previous threads have been drowned out by… well, a single issue.

Following closely, thank you OP.