If we have to vote this year or the next, women who will not vote Labour due to the GRA raise your hand

[TerraNovaTwo]

As above

Moi 🤚

This thread has only convinced me that the answer to combating purity politics is not just a different form of purity politics. Still, it’s the continuation of a long history of a certain strand of left-wing politics.

It's exactly the same "We are right and morally good and if you don't agree with us you are thick bigots" attitude that has cost Labour working class votes.

See also: SNP

We're talking about the rights of women and girls, Dotty.

Fundamental, basic rights that, if and/or when revoked by law to include anyone of the male sex who wants to be included, will leave you (unless of course you're male) totally and utterly unable to live a free life where your wants and needs are as important as anyone else's.

I'm interpreting your contribution to this thread as a sign that you believe that this is okay, you're fine with that and it's less important to you than other things. That is your right. Other people have different priorities.

I'm interpreting your contribution to this thread as a sign that you believe that this is okay, you're fine with that and it's less important to you than other things

Well you’ve misinterpreted me then

How so?

@DottyDoge

This thread has only convinced me that the answer to combating purity politics is not just a different form of purity politics. Still, it’s the continuation of a long history of a certain strand of left-wing politics.

Why do you think defending women's hard won rights, which are under sustained attack, is purity politics? Don't you think women's rights, over half the population, are worth defending? There's not many people who would vote for their own erasure really. Not knowingly anyway.

Yes, that's the thing about this issue. In a society where both legally and culturally self-ID exists and basically any male can claim to be a woman, either on paper or out in society, then women's rights are finished. Because you can't have rights for a specific group of people, if you can't define that specific group of people. For example how can you have female only provision, if that provision is actually mixed sex, because any man can be female? How would maternity or reproductive rights be 'women's rights' when that group includes males?

We have already been told, by males, that 'centering reproductive rights in a women's march is reductive and exclusionary'. That has already happened, where does it end?

And, as TRAs so often point out, no one checks your birth certificate when you use a public toilet, so in a culture of self-ID, where everyone is aware that anyone can legally change the sex on their birth certificate with the swipe of a pen, any man could go into a female toilet and claim that he is legally a woman and has every right to be there, and no one could challenge him.

That is the problem. Its not about 'trans', its about women's rights.

Harold, because I don’t agree with your premise. I don’t believe that your fear is likely to come to pass. I’ve said it before, you might be right and the sky is falling and I’m might be naive. But so far, I’ve not been convinced the sky is falling.

If the fact that the definition of women includes men in for example every mainstream political party woman’s group doesn’t give you pause for thought then I can’t think of any evidence you’d accept

No, I would not vote for Labour under any circumstances. More - I would happily ho to my nearest Labour-held marginal and campaign against them. This is not purity politics, saying women have rights, women have a cervix and male criminals don't get to choose to go into women's prisons is basic.

But after everything how could we trust the party again? Could it ever be fixed? How do we get back from a leader who says on telly it's not right to say women have a cervix, a deputy leader who both employed a thug who attacked a women's meeting and got caught up with a transactivist who was later alleged to be a sex pest, ignoring all concerns raised? Or a front bencher who says women shouldn't be allowed any spaces away from males even if those spaces are for undressing etc as if women are just property rather than equal human beings? Fine, we can get rid of the politicians who say that but what about the internal party views and processes that allow them to even stand for office? I don't believe that level of hatred for women can ever be fixed.

@DottyDoge

Harold, because I don’t agree with your premise. I don’t believe that your fear is likely to come to pass. I’ve said it before, you might be right and the sky is falling and I’m might be naive. But so far, I’ve not been convinced the sky is falling.

The victims of Karen White and others prove the sky has long since fallen down.

@DottyDoge

Harold, because I don’t agree with your premise. I don’t believe that your fear is likely to come to pass. I’ve said it before, you might be right and the sky is falling and I’m might be naive. But so far, I’ve not been convinced the sky is falling.

Well if your head is buried in the sand then it's hard to see the sky.

Maybe look up.

So what DO you think the Self ID legislation, if and/or when passed, will lead to?

This is where I am.
There's a load of evidence that states, quite clearly, that some males are already abusing self ID principles to get into spaces that we can, technically currently legally gatekeep. It's already happening. Do you think it becoming a legal entitlement will stop it?

Shop changing rooms marked for women are now mixed sex in many cases, because the shops have been told (wrongly) that they can't not allow males in.
Swimming pools and sports centres now say they can't stop a male from going into the changing rooms marked female, despite the law saying otherwise. Do you think the law changing will make this less or more common?
How about schools, and Girl Guides and the safety of our female children? Shared toilets for 14 year olds, with boys sniggering outside the cubicle or trying to look over, whilst the girls try to change tampons.

How about female sports, which are being crushed under the weight of male physiology. Look up Lia Thomas. Yes, it's in the USA, but give me any reason why it wouldn't happen here. Or what about the male sexed rugby player with a place on the women's team, "folding" the opposition "like deckchairs"? What concerns do you have for the female players? How about the male cricket player who plays on the mens AND women's teams, and who has set records that no female will ever beat.

How about the census? How, if people are allowed to use their gender identity rather than their sex, will that census mean anything? How do you allocate resources or plan for the future for sex-based services if you've no idea how many people you have in each sex in the area concerned?

How are crime statistics being skewed? How many "women" are now rapists who used their penises to sexually destroy a female victim?

How about being in court to see your rapist on trial, and being forced, as their victim, to call them "she" and use terms like "her penis"?

Tara Wolf's victim was forced, in court, by the judge to refer to Tara using female pronouns, or the victim would face contempt of court charges. They were in court - where you're told you HAVE to tell the truth, and Maria MacLachlan was obligated to LIE under oath as part of the trial. Forced to lie. In court.

Where's your humanity?

For those who want to vote Labour but dont agree with genderism, you might like to have a look at this:
labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/

Thank you to whoever posted the statement from the greens re: self-ID. I just showed it to my OH. He has voted green for over 20 years. They just lost his vote.

@Omicrone

Yes, that's the thing about this issue. In a society where both legally and culturally self-ID exists and basically any male can claim to be a woman, either on paper or out in society, then women's rights are finished. Because you can't have rights for a specific group of people, if you can't define that specific group of people. For example how can you have female only provision, if that provision is actually mixed sex, because any man can be female? How would maternity or reproductive rights be 'women's rights' when that group includes males?

We have already been told, by males, that 'centering reproductive rights in a women's march is reductive and exclusionary'. That has already happened, where does it end?

And, as TRAs so often point out, no one checks your birth certificate when you use a public toilet, so in a culture of self-ID, where everyone is aware that anyone can legally change the sex on their birth certificate with the swipe of a pen, any man could go into a female toilet and claim that he is legally a woman and has every right to be there, and no one could challenge him.

That is the problem. Its not about 'trans', its about women's rights.

Yep.

Less than 1000 of you, bet Starmer is shitting his pants at that

He absolutely should be.

Keir Starmer is failing to convert Red Wall Tories as focus group suggests some voters are not convinced by Labour leader.

Sir Keir Starmer appears struggling to convince Tory voters in Red Wall seats

Focus group in Northumberland saw him as 'millionaire' who's 'not done much'

Northumberland voted Tory for the first time in 2019 with margin of 712 votes

All eight participants did not believe PM was telling the truth over Partygate

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10425233/amp/Keir-Starmer-failing-convert-Red-Wall-Tories-focus-group-suggests-voters-not-convinced.html

And before anyone starts on "only 8 participants", please be aware of the difference between a poll and a focus group.

[quote Blessex]@Notonthestairs look I am with you. Issue is. If women lose this battle we will never get it back. Now we need to dig in over this issue. Then once we have it we can then go back to dealing with the other shit. We cannot let this one be lost or it will be lost forever.[/quote]
Exactly that!!

We need to protect who/what we ARE before we can defend our rights!

Hand raised here.

A lot of GC views ARE in line with far right views. Why not think about it instead of just blindly dismissing?

What do you mean by 'a lot of GC views are in line with far right views though? What are 'GC views', aside from the belief that a person's sex is biological and immutable, and that gender is a bunch of stereotypes? None of that sounds very far right to me. The last bit sounds very very far from far right, since it means rejecting the need for traditional gender roles and stereotypes.

There are undoubtedly lots of far right people who think you can't change sex and that a man is a biological male and a woman is a biological female. But that's not very surprising, since almost everyone who's ever existed in the world thinks/thought that, regardless of their political leanings!

Keir Starmer has the drive and personality of a boiled haddock. Nobody's impressed with him because he's totally unimpressive.

He's a cowardly weasel as well. What was it he was asked... "Is it true or false that only women have a cervix?" (something like that). And he answered "Well it's something we shouldn't say". In other words "Yes of course it's true, but I'm not going to tell the truth, because otherwise the wokerati will flane ne and not vote for me!"

I’d likely vote for Labour again if they were as they were at their last landslide win

Sadly they are far from that

A lot of GC views ARE in line with far right views.

''In line with far right views'' is such a disengenious way to say that most people know sex exists.