To think the article about Angela Raynor demean all women.

[PupInAPram]

I don't care what shade your politics are, you should be disgusted by the Daily Fail article claiming that Angela Raynor 'distracts' Boris Johnson by crossing her legs because her debating skills aren't as good as his.

Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor:

The Equality Act explicitly – and we wouldn’t change that – says that there should be places for people, where necessary, for people of a biological sex.

I’ve posted that for you before. And I’ll keep posting it until it sinks in.

Sorry Blossomtoes I crossposted with you, I couldnt remember who had brought up Rachel Reeves earlier in the thread

It’s cool. It can’t be said too many times.

That does not show what you think it does. Kier Starmer has a commitment to changing the GRA to allow self-ID. Disprove that. Reeves has little influence and her words are clearly open to massive interpretation. Equality act does not dictate which situations should be reserved for biological sexes and Reeves did not clarify what she meant by biological sex and we know that people now, sadly, use made-up definitions of that.

Seriously if you can, disprove that as there are loads of disenchanted ex-labour voters thinking of voting tory who would be delighted to find a political home again.

Don't deviate from this if you're responding to me though as that seems like disingenious obfuscation.

Reeves has little influence

Of course she does. She’s only the shadow chancellor, no influence at all. Alternatively, you could of course prove what you’re saying. No links coming from your direction, I notice.

I've already shared one.

Equality Act 2010

Part 7: Separate and single services.Separate services for the sexes: paragraph 26
Effect
729.This paragraph contains exceptions to the general prohibition of sex discrimination which allow the provision of separate services for men and women.
730.A provider can deliver separate services for men and women where providing a combined service would not be as effective. A provider can deliver separate services for men and women in different ways or to a different extent where providing a combined service would not be as effective and it would not be reasonably practicable to provide the service otherwise than as a separate service provided differently for each sex. In each case such provision has to be justified.

734.Single sex services are permitted where:
only people of that sex require it;

there is joint provision for both sexes but that is not sufficient on its own;

if the service were provided for men and women jointly, it would not be as effective and it is not reasonably practicable to provide separate services for each sex;

they are provided in a hospital or other place where users need special attention (or in parts of such an establishment);

they may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa); or

they may involve physical contact between a user and someone else and that other person may reasonably object if the user is of the opposite sex.

Im starting to think that youve done no research and joined an idealogical cult

But to be fair to Boris, any good looking woman in a skirt crossing her legs within 5 miles would distract him.

The man is an absolute cockmuppet.

Does this mean that you know that she does?

<Intrigued>

Im starting to think that youve done no research and joined an idealogical cult

I'm starting to think you have no idea how the terms 'biological sex' and 'women' are not being re-imagined.

A male can now be a woman and biologically female, so we are told. GI is the cult.

A male can now be a woman and biologically female, so we are told.

Can you provide evidence for the last part of that statement, or is it just your feelz?

A male can now be a woman and biologically female, so we are told

It’s news to me. I certainly haven’t heard anyone connected to the Labour Party say it.

transgenderwoman.home.blog/2019/04/11/are-transgender-women-real-women/

Keir Starmer has said it is “plain common sense” that biology determines sex for the majority of women"

For which people does biology NOT determine sex then?

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

Vote however you choose but please don't be swayed by false information suggesting that labour and tories are on the same page

"The tory policy is no different to the Labour one" is an outright and patent falsehood and you have to wonder what the motivation of of someone who keeps insisting on perpetuating falsehoods

If you think i'm lying, say so!

But the bottom line is the Tories are in power and self ID is alive n kicking, womens spaces removed, rights taken away inc "men" in female sport....all under a Tory Govt.... not to mention the cuts in public services that predominately effect women.

Yet you insist that womens rights are under threat from Labour before they have even published their manifesto but are safer under the Tories... that goes completely against the evidence.

..and whilst we are on "falsehoods" coming out with "Reeve has little say" is a ridiculous thing to state, its the 2nd most powerful job in the Labour front bench! Of course she has a say and very big one in future policy.

Hate to say I told you so but turns out Angela herself was the source of the story. She suggested she likes to cross and uncross her legs and something about giving him a flash.
Nice.

More Tory via DM smear. What an amazing coincidence that this dropped just as they’ve lost the porn watching MP less than a week before the local elections. They must think we’re all as stupid as they are.

So you believe the paper when it said a Tory reported it but not when they say it came from Angela herself? Make up your mind. Do you believe what the Daily Fail reports or not?

You don’t have to believe everything a newspaper reports

I think a lot of people just want a 'right on' excuse to continue voting tory.
I doubt the biological sex issue really influences their vote.

It just sounds more MN friendly than admitting you will vote tory no matter how incompetent and indifferent they are to anyone other than themselves and their rich donors.
Sure, tories care about women, and the disabled, and minorities, and poverty, and the NHS (could cry laughing).

I also love the 'we don't have a viable opposition' line, trotted out in every online discussion since the daily rags told us who to vote for in 2010 (we like to discredit the right wing gutter press for it's benefit bashing and blatant misogyny, but how quickly we jump to obey when they tell us who must win the next general!)

Personally, whilst not a mad fan of Labour, I would vote for fucking anything other than these thieving, lying scum. A change is as good as a rest, eh?

A lot of people don't like politicians or politics in general and will vote for the party that will tax them and interfere with their lives the least. Labour need to give people a reason to trust them. They aren't going to win an election simply by being the Not Tories.

Hahaha if you believe that shite you're an idiot, of course they'd say that.

Not. Never, ever.

Nonsense - yet another desperate Tory smear
twitter.com/martha_gill/status/1520786219982020608?s=21&t=wZld8uQVtWrsixUrwkLOcA

Hate to spoil your fun, but it's been conclusively demonstrated that that's another Tory/Mail lie.

It's fascinating to witness just how wild their accusations and smears are getting as the local elections approach.

They are desperate

Problem is the Fail is the most popular paper in England and most people lack critical thinking skills so will swallow the lies without blinking. God knows what will happen this week