To not vote Labour because of their abhorrent views on the female sex?

[Lion400]

Starmer cannot represent women, he can’t even define us. Questioning a trans person is a hate crime, but misogyny is not. Sorry Labour, you’ve lost my vote. Have they lost anyone else’s??

‘On trans ideology, the vast majority of voters, and certainly a majority of traditional Labour voters from working class backgrounds, tend to cast a sceptical eye on the tenets of an ideological movement that asserts that biological men must be accepted as women – and be offered similar rights and access to women’s spaces and sports as women – simply by asserting their new status’

Misgendering is a hate crime.

Women have been sacked from their jobs for stating that sex is real.

When hate crime is defined as saying transwomen are men, then yes it is a bad thing.

Hardly! I just correct it. It's not "getting shirty". I find it entertaining but feel I need to correct as men get short shrift on FWR or feminist threads.

I can't believe male cleaners are supposed to be an argument against single sex toilets, surely that's not meant to be a real comment?

Anyway - I think it is fair enough to consider that realistically, it will be Labour or the Tories governing.

But it's very foolish to believe on the basis of their self-identifying as nice that a Labour government will deal with the monetary and social issues that we see under the Conservatives.

If it's a matter of balancing advantages and harms, and the claim is that Labour will do certain things, then there needs to be some reason to think that will actually happen.

The fact is that most of their policies are going to be the same, they have said so. And they do not have more money to invest in things like education or the NHS. (Past Labour governments have spent more by borrowing and kicking the can down the road - this has hobbled the NHS even today, so it's wrong to blame the current state of health care solely on the Tories. They have been locked into the deals Labour made.)

This is the reason they are being reduced to trying to shore their "nice-guy" creds with largely useless social policies. Charging tax on private education, which will add no real money, quite possibly stress state funded schools. This completely imaginary idea that they will somehow halve DV, which I can't imagine even they believe will work. And supporting gender ideology. With no serious economic options, all they can do is offer a few cheap trappings.

That's the trade-off that's being offered, not proper funding of the NHS.

Actually that's underplaying it, women have been questioned by the police for saying that men can't be women or similar.

Do you really think that this is a good use of police time?

What Labour are saying is they will use more types of "hate" as an aggravating factor in crime.
E.g. if you beat a black person up because you are racist, when you are sentenced it will be more severe because of the "aggravating factor"

It is possible to read what they wrote as an indication they will make misogynistic hate an aggravating factor, which would be great news for women as it means there is potential for domestic abusers and rapists to be punished more harshly.

There is nowhere they have even vaguely indicated this is about "misgendering". That's unfounded scaremongering

You asked how it would be possible to keep males out of women's toilets, citing male cleaners and children as examples. As though the human race hadn't had many years of self-policing this by social contract and common sense.

I've told this story many times, but I repeat it because it's pertinent: my male partner once accidentally ended up in the women's toilet in an unfamiliar work branch. He panicked because a) he knew it was wrong and b) he was terrified of being seen. There is no need for the "genital inspection police"; just a critical mass of decently behaved men respecting women's boundaries.

I want political leadership that acknowledges single sex spaces are important. Not one that attracts Eddie Izzard, who openly transgresses this.

And now they are all winning legal cases which means employers are going to stop doing that pronto. Honestly. You are a few years out of date. The tide has turned. Being GC has been proven to be a protected legal position.

Misgendering is a hate crime.

And yet.. misogyny is not.

What a funny old state of affairs. If people tell us who they are, and Labour have done that, we should believe them.

In which case it doesn’t matter which way you vote, does it?

Splitting hairs here Adam.

And the poster did go on to confirm she thought posters who raise these issues are hysterical.

Do you think we are hysterical women Adam?

I always wonder what some posters on here would do if they discovered their own son realised that they had gender identity issues. Would they automatically think that child saw it as a sexual kink or a means of intimidating women ? I suspect they think most trans women are 50 year old men in poor wigs, figures of mockery.

What I said: "And I maintain it's hysterical to see every trans woman as a potential lurker, harasser or rapist. Or to put this 'issue' above every other pressing societal issue that people are having to endure right now."

No. I do think you are unreasonably extrapolating Labour's position and spending a lot of time arguing about a conspiracy theory (and trying to recruit others to it) but then I'm enabling it by arguing back.
I'm going to have a cuppa and suggest you do the same.

@BIossomtoes it was a call to arms. We’ve not had a labour bashing thread for a while.

I mean really, there is a simple solution with male cleaners in toilets. They have a little sign they put on the door, "male cleaner in toilet" and then they take it down again when they leave. Opposite for female cleaners in male toilets. If a woman is very uncomfortable going in, and there are no other options, he can step out while she is there. But the fact that he is there for a real, legitimate purpose, and has been vetted by the people employing him, tends to make him less threatening anyway.

If it's a matter of legislating, this is simple stuff to account for, as are ages for taking kids in to opposite sex bathrooms. Writing good legislation is always about taking care to do good work and sometimes it can be complex and time consuming, but this is not complicated stuff.

Hot you have used misogynistic language throughout this thread and accused posters of implying that all trans women are lurkers rapists or harassers when we have not.

Conspiracy theory lol?

I've quoted Starmers own words.

Enjoy your cuppa Adam.

Yes. And then you added a load of made up bollocks to it to make it appear he said something he didn't.
I'm not sure why you would do that to be honest, it's a bit reminiscent of brexit unicorns

We’re going to get zillions of them as election day approaches. Hopefully we won’t have months of it.

I ask again, when talking to the LGBTQ community and promising them that he would simplify the GRC process what did Starmer mean, if it wasn't that it would make it easier for men to legally become women (or women to legally become men).

Was Starmer lying to them?

Otherwise what precisely am I saying about this being an attack on women's rights that is a 'made of load up bollocks'?

Or are you projecting Adam?

It is possible to consider several things important; abeit at different levels and in different ways. Some issues are temporal and transient; others more profound and longer lasting, with more fundamental impact.

Not wanting men in women only spaces is not "hysterical". I've encountered enough men presenting as women to know that what motivates many is indeed sexual or voyeuristic.

I’m voting Tory and I bloody hope they get in. And I can’t actually believe I’ve just typed that!! I wouldn’t confess to friends irl and I’m imagining that many other people will be voting Tory and keeping quiet about it. This is one of the two main reasons I’m not voting Labour.

What Labour intends to do to simplify the GRC process:

But now, in 2023, we have a much better understanding of the barriers trans people face. That is why Labour has committed to modernising the Gender Recognition Act. Changing gender is not a decision anyone makes lightly. The process is intrusive, outdated and humiliating. So we will modernise, simplify and reform the gender recognition law to a new process. We will remove invasive bureaucracy and simplify the process.
However, the law must also protect legitimate applications. Last year, the Scottish National party’s cavalier approach to reforming gender recognition laws seemed to be more about picking a fight with Westminster than bringing about meaningful change. The safeguards that were proposed to protect women and girls from predators who might abuse the system were simply not up to scratch. As a result, the Scottish government is still picking up the pieces, with trans rights no further forward.
We will not make the same mistakes. The requirement to obtain a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria remains an important part of accessing a gender recognition certificate. That’s especially the case now that gender dysphoria is no longer classified – and stigmatised – as a psychiatric disorder. It can help refer trans people into the NHS for support services – nearly a quarter of trans people don’t know how to access transition-related healthcare. Requiring a diagnosis upholds legitimacy of applications and confidence in the system.
The current process also requires a panel of anonymous doctors to decide something of momentous significance, based on reams of intrusive medical paperwork and evidence of any surgery. This is demeaning for trans people and meaningless in practice. A diagnosis provided by one doctor, with a registrar instead of a panel, should be enough.

@RebelliousCow @hotinhereandthere
I loathe misogynistic language. Women are not being “hysterical” or “shrill” or “over emotional”. Ffs.