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

Asking for everything ?

Not really, unless you think women's rights to live freely in society is less important than the rights of some males.

Women weren't ever consulted about changes that removed our single sex spaces, they were just taken from us with some absolutely horrific consequences to women, particularly vulnerable women. Women matter as much as males no matter their gender identity.

No debate has only come from one side, that is the side that calls women bigots for even trying to raise these things. That includes some prominent labour MPs.

Sure money helps but staff require people, new applicants to become teachers. OTs SALTS etc and these students with 3 A levels etc have the pick of degree courses, most with earning potential way above a career in the NHS.

Then we need buildings, that needs a planning process, which takes years.

We have allowed the running down of health and childrens services, its taken many years to get to this stage, it will take years to rebuild.

Brexit robbed this country of a cohort of similarly qualified staff, good skills and decent English, why would an EU AHP come to the UK ???

I'll be voting for a new Govt that will at least acknowledge and potentially improve this, atm we have a Govt that will continue the run down of health & womens services (just look at maternity?) in favour of tax cuts.

You are really putting the cart before the horse.

You appear to want to vote in another 5 years of shit services just because you dont agree 100% with Labour.

How many more women and babies do you want to die in our terrible maternity care?

I’ve pointed out several times that Starmer referred to biological women and to tightening up the law to ensure spaces for said biological women were safe. He’s literally done what you ask. You’ve been shown he has. And still you say he hasn’t.

It's up to me where my priorities lay.

Will labour continue to spend money in the NHS on ensuring staff are trained to protect the gender feels of 'birthing parents' or will they focus on recruiting and retaining midwives? How are they going to go about doing that?

The changes to protect women that I am looking from Labour cost barely anything compared to some of the other changes.

If they treated women as equal to men it's a really easy win. Why won't they?

The devil is in the detail.

Biological women is not clearly defined to exclude legal females with a GRC. It needs to be. Starmer is a lawyer and lawyers are known for using legal loopholes.

If Labour wanted to give clarity to appease many women they could. Why won't they.

Biological women clearly means those born women. How could it mean anything else? And he says he’ll tighten up the law to ensure that it means biological.
You really are coming across as someone who is looking for reasons not to vote Labour. You want them to show that not o ly would they be better than Tories for women’s issues (clearly) but they express their views on single sex spaces in exactly the words you want. I’m really beginning to conclude you are a Tory and would prefer them in government.

He can't exclude legal women from any spaces under the current laws.

So males can enter. So easy to commit to changing laws.

You can conclude what you want about me, up to you. Your conclusions are false though.

Labour can put this right. They can treat Rosie Duffield and women who ask questions better. They can commit to putting vulnerable women first.

Cardi has he specifically committed to tightening laws on the definition of woman? I haven't seen that, can you link please?

It's easy to commit to changing laws

You really believe that?

Which. Is. Why. He. Said. The. Law. Needed. Clarifying.
Jesus.

And what about women who are vulnerable for other reasons? Disabled women, single parents in unsafe housing? People on zero hours contracts? Don’t you care about them at all?

Yes. It’s upthread. That’s where I read it. I’m not scrolling back for you. I first started telling you he had right after the article that told me he had. Didn’t you check then? Or were you more committed to wanting him to be wrong?

"We need to recognise that sex and gender are different – as the Equality Act does. We will make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access. Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services"

How much clearer can Labour be on this?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/24/labour-will-lead-on-reform-of-transgender-rights-and-we-wont-take-lectures-from-the-divisive-tories

Where. did. he. say. that?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/25/labour-gender-recognition-anneliese-dodds

This is the link upthread I think you refer to. HE didn't say anything. Annlease Dodd's said something about biological women but not that laws would be tightened.

From the article on this point -

But gender critical feminists don’t get all they wanted, either. Labour will sensibly keep the Equality Act provisions that allow single-sex spaces like domestic violence refuges or rape counselling services to exclude the opposite sex, where that’s a proportionate means to legitimate ends – essentially, when you couldn’t reasonably provide the service otherwise. (Though Labour’s quid pro quo should be cast-iron commitments to properly funded bespoke services for trans people excluded from any mainstream service).

Practically speaking, as Dodds says, that means there will always be places “where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access”. But still, some gender critical campaigners worry that the law isn’t clear enough, with service providers afraid of being called transphobic if they try to use it: there will be pressure for Labour to be more specific about who can compete in women’s sports, say, or how schools should handle trans-identifying pupils, or NHS treatment for trans teenagers. Perhaps Labour is quietly hoping such awkward questions will be resolved by someone else before the next election.

The devil in the detail bit is that the Equality Act (which no one has proposed to tighten up as far as I can) doesn't refer to biological women. Single sex spaces can be allowed under the act but I cannot tell how a male who is a legal woman (through a GRC) can be legally excluded. If the Equality Act used the term biological woman you would, of course, have a point.

Whichever party is closest to the Center will be getting my vote, little to the left or a little to the right matters not to me. I’m honestly done with the extremes.

This judgement in Scotland shows why this is important.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-67289999

Sorry I pressed to soon, it proves that 'woman' under the equality act includes men with a GRC for the purpose of 'single sex' provisions.

It's a false dichotomy
Staff EDI training costs considerably less than recruiting, training and retaining expert staff.
Staff are always going to need training in how to talk to patients, terminology to use etc.
Getting rid of references to "birthing parents" will save tuppence hapenny really in the grand scheme of things. And I think there is so much else covered under "EDI" I wouldn't want it all scrapped.

Really what's happening today is a consequence of Cameron's "big society" pledge where centralised services were scrapped in favour of third sector provision (charities, community groups etc). That's led to really variable quality of services and advice, and also to particular agendas being pushed. Not just LGBT; I can also think of examples in schools in my area of religious charities and mens rights charities saying dubious things in "education".

Thats incorrect. It's a judgement about whether "woman" includes males with a GRC for the purpose of being included on "public boards".
Public boards being somewhere penises are largely irrelevant so probably not spaces with an exemption for biology under the EA.

There were two articles I think. Not looking now but I have read it.
In any case protecting spaces for biological women is directly mentioned in that article. Nobody could imagine that as not meaning those born as women (unless they were bad faith arguments on either side) so if the law requires amendment/clarification to do that then promising to do it is the same as promising to clarify the law to do it.
You don’t want the. To be right.
Back to the vulnerable women in other situations that I mentioned. Do you care about them at all?

It proves that woman doesn't mean 'biological woman'

The Act doesn't have different meanings depending on what the single sex provision you require! How absurd that you are minimising the impact of this judgement which has massive overreaching consequences.

Biological woman does not exist for the purposes of the Equality Act. It needs tightening up. If Labour were serious about giving women single sex provisions, this is an easy fix.

I don't now how we can tell who are biological women when the law doesn't define them?

Anyway of course I care. I'm just not sure how we make provisions when woman is meaningless.

Labour can so easily fix this if they wish.

Well Labour cannot fix anything until they are in government

Agreed but why don't they commit to making these changes? They are important.

In a circumstance where biology doesn't matter.

To be honest I find it infuriating that TW can take places on women's shortlists etc. But that case isn't an example showing that the EA needs changed.