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’

You just point me towards where I said they would? or perhaps engage in the actual conversation.

Oh you. No nothing to add for you

I’m appreciating @lifeturnsonadime and others patience though against insults and rudeness. Top drawer

Who are protecting single sex spaces?

Factual statement: Labour are the only party who have committed to protecting spaces for biological women only.

They are the only party who have said anything in policy about protecting them. You don't believe it or think its sleight of hand/legal jiggery poker. That doesn't change reality, which is they are the only party that said they are committing to it

I am not saying that though, I've never said that.

This thread is not (as some posters have tried hard to make out) 'everyone vote Tory, at least they know what a woman is!' This thread is 'Labour could so easily gain my vote, but they would rather obfuscate and hope neither women nor TRAs notice '.

I want to believe in Labour, I did believe in Labour. Realising how easily the left would give away women's rights because in the end, male wants matter more than women's needs, was a bitter pill for me to swallow. I really thought that when the harms of self ID became clear, when women were denied single sex rape support and locked in prison with penis owners and forced to accept intimate care from males without being able to object, Labour would say 'right we get it, we were trying to be kind to people we thought needed it but this isn't what we intended, this isn't ok'. They didn't. That's on them.

What do you think about the fact the Conservatives put male offenders in womens prisons and male patients on women's wards? Yet haven't made any move to repeal the GRA?

Which party is it that has damaged women most over the past 14 years? I thought that was established firmly hours ago on this thread. Keir and his 🍺? Jeremy Corbyn 🚩 ? Oddly, not them. Let's blame them anyway, for the past and for the future.

I'm politically homeless, so have nobody to vote for.

All Labour has to do is make point 2 true is by saying they'll either repeal the GRA or amend the EA re ensuring sex means biological sex. They're pledging something they can't actually do which means they either don't understand their own legislation (bad) or they're lying (worse).

Kemi.

Labour could unequivocally pledge to fix the problems. But they haven't. So we have to wonder why that is (which is why many of us don't trust them, even though we wish we could).

This thread is not (as some posters have tried hard to make out) 'everyone vote Tory, at least they know what a woman is!' This thread is 'Labour could so easily gain my vote, but they would rather obfuscate and hope neither women nor TRAs notice '.

This.

In this respect, it's apathy that has allowed women's rights to be eroded under Tory rule - the NHS changing its wording/guidance/policies and third party organisations like Stonewall being given too much freedom to train and influence schools in a subject that the government didn't really give a shit about either way. They were just happy that no one was bothering them with it.

Labour isn't apathetic in this area though.

Apathy isn't any better but all the people who are saying Labour will protect women's rights - Labour are saying that they don't know what a woman is. If they don't know what something is, can't recognise it and can't name it, how can they protect its rights?

FFS over and over and over again.

Point to where I've said the Tories have done right by women/ they're great/I want to vote for them. I've repeatedly said otherwise, but you cannot stand anyone pointing out Labour's failure to deal with this problem, without jumping up and down shouting 'the Tories are shit too!'

I know the Tories are shit. Labour are also shit. Why are you so unable to bear anyone pointing out where Labour have let women down? Because they have. If we lived in a one-party state, with no alternative but to vote Labour, then would you be able to acknowledge that Labour have failed women on this issue?

Have you read anything posted upthread? have you heard what Kier said? They're using meaningless definitions of woman, biological, safe, protecting. It's air.

Labour are the only party who have committed to protecting spaces for biological women only.

Biological woman does not have any basis in laws created by the Labour Party.

Recent case law has confirmed that Sex under the Equality Act 2010, includes both people of the female sex and people with a GRC giving them a status of legal females.

This is what the EHRC had to say about it - “This means we have a duty to make sure the law is interpreted clearly and correctly, particularly – as in this case – the Equality Act 2010. The law concerning matters of sex and gender can be complex, and clarity is essential for the public bodies, employers, service providers and people across the country who rely on it.
“We welcome this judgment which confirms that the effect of a Gender Recognition Certificate is to change a person’s legal sex, including for the purposes of the Equality Act.

Starmer is a human rights lawyer by profession he KNOWs that the concept of a biological woman has no basis in law. He knows that single sex under the Act enacted by the Labour Party in 2010 includes people with a GRC, yet rather than ensure that women have protection he is taking steps to make it easier for a man to obtain a GRC.

So Adam this statement has more holes than Swiss Cheese.

I don't believe the Labour Party will protect women. The reasons for that are clearly set out.

That ardent Labour supporters are ignoring them and won't put the burden on the Labour Party to answer questions about this demonstrates to me that either people are point blank refusing to read or take on board the points I am making in my posts or have read them and simply don't care.

Single sex exemptions under the Equality Act use the Equality Act definition of SEX which includes both people of the sex (biological) PLUS people with a GRC the legal SEX. No it doesn't. Where are you getting this stuff?

So the CURRENT legal position which the Labour Party does not intend to change states that single sex provisions for women are for WOMEN and MEN WITH A GRC THAT STATE THAT THEY ARE LEGAL WOMEN. Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish.

"There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not."

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/guidance-separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-equality-act-sex-and-gender-reassignment-exceptions.pdf

Exception allowing single sex services to discriminate because of gender re-assignment
The third exception (Schedule 3, paragraph 28) allows providers of separate or single-sex services to provide a different service to, or to exclude, someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This includes those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as well as someone who does not have a GRC but otherwise meets the definition under the Equality Act 2010.
Application of this exception must be objectively justified as a means of achieving a legitimate aim. An example given in the explanatory notes to the Act is that of a group counselling service for female victims of sexual assault where the organisers could exclude a woman with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they judge that clients would be unlikely to attend the session if she was there.
Schedule 23, paragraph 3 of the Equality Act 2010 also allows a service provider to exclude a person from dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation, and to refuse services connected to providing this accommodation on grounds of sex or gender reassignment. As with paragraph 28 and other exceptions under the Equality Act, such exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/147010.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/apr/04/trans-people-can-be-excluded-single-sex-services-if-justifiable-says-ehrc

And AS LABOUR HAVE SAID, they have no plans to change this to allow trans women with a GRC to access these spaces.

👏👏👏

Exactly this.

This exemplifies the whole problem.

Starter has pledged to protect women only spaces. Great!

However, no so great when you realise that definition also includes people formerly knows as Men.

This.

I will put this excellent Sex Matters document on the wide reaching implications of the Haldene judgement here.
https://sex-matters.org/posts/single-sex-services/was-sex-ended-in-2004/

The Equality Act does not use the words biological woman.

The Equality Act purported to allow service users to discriminate. Even Rape Crisis Centres and prisons have failed to do so.

The Haldene Judgement casts doubt of the legality of those exemptions as can be seen in the table in the link i have provided.

Boy am I glad MN didn't pull this thread before we got to the actual facts about this.

To humour you I read the first page of your document which is forced to admit that this (Lady Haldane) judgment of the Scottish Court of Session is not binding in the rest of the UK.

Could you link to the definition that Labour is going to use? I wasn't aware it had been published. Thanks.

The Equality Act purported to allow service users to discriminate. Even Rape Crisis Centres and prisons have failed to do so.

Then blame the government of the last 14 years for not enforcing the legislation, ffs. The Act provides exactly what you want.

GC posters trying desperately to find something to support their entirely made up claims

Perhaps you will read this one, from an impartial barristers chambers. It is not as straight forward as you are claiming.

https://www.blackstonechambers.com/documents/Transgender_Issues_in_the_Law_-_2023_in_Review.pdf

On your point about impact on UK laws.

The UK courts must follow it unless there is a 'sufficiently compellling reason not to.

4. The term “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 has recently been subject to authoritative interpretation by the Inner House of the Court of Session (the Scottish Court of Appeal) in For Women Scotland Limited v the Scottish Ministers [2023] CSIH 37, upholding a decision of Lady Haldane.v While not binding on courts in England and Wales, a decision of the Inner House interpreting a UK-wide statute should be followed unless there is a “sufficiently compelling reason” not to do so, meaning the Inner House’s decision is “clearly wrong”. vi

On single sex spaces -

Not as straight forward as you now state due to the fact that the PC of sex as well as gender reassignment applies.

15. Finally, one commentator has argued that the Inner House’s decision underscores the potential practical importance, for transgender people, of acquiring a GRC: “the consequence of having a GRC following [the Inner House’s decision] is a prima facie right to use the services of the sex which has been confirmed by the GRC … the practical effect of the judgment is that the principles and presumptions where a trans-person is excluded from a single-sex space will differ depending on whether they have a GRC. A trans-person without a GRC excluded from a single-sex service or space is being treated differently because of their sex … However, if a trans-person with a GRC is excluded from a service provided for those with the sex confirmed by their GRC, they are being treated differently because of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This is where the Court held that there is a prima facie right of access. In practice, it may be that exclusion is presumptively justified in the former case, but unjustified in the latter.” xi