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’

Labour are pro self ID. They are pro saying men can become women. That's evident in all of their communications on this matter for the past several years. It started with Corbyn as far as I'm aware who, when asked on the Andrew Marr show if he believed men can become women, and are women if they say they are, said yes.

They haven't now clarified that 'biological women' are different to TW and that TW are men and will be regarded as such. They've just talked about 'women'.

If their definition of women includes men, then that's what it includes.

Crucially, they haven't said their definition of women doesn't include men, which might seem like common sense to most people but it isn't. Not anymore.

That's the whole problem with the obfuscation of language. Once words begin to mean something else, no one knows exactly what they mean. Not me and not you.

I'm taking their words at face value. Because that's all I, and anyone else, can do. And they have stated that women can have penises and its wrong to say that only women have a cervix etc.

So, yes, I want them to explicitly state that when they say women, they mean just and only biological women and not biological women and men-who-say-they-are-women.

No claims have been made up see the link to the thread from Blackstone Chambers.

Labour haven't been able to do anything since 2010 because they haven't been in government. The Tories have and they've spent the last 14 years eroding women's rights and diminishing their circumstances.

lifeturnsonadime

Admit with good grace that you have lost the argument. You tried to present your entirely erroneous claims as facts. I'll draw your and everyone else's attention again to the legal documents stating the facts clearly and correctly.

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

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

Now good night, and good luck!

Anyway, if there are any Single Issue voters on this thread, you have a choice between SDP and Reform UK.

The Tories no more know what a woman is than any other mainstream party. A Tory vote is an anti woman vote.

There was a caller on LBC this afternoon who represented a gender-critical women's group. 'Eleanor' said Starmer was her local MP but he has so far refused to meet with her/and her colleagues to discuss their concerns.

So am I @hotinhereandthere

I didn't think I would need to break down the implications of the Haldene judgement from the point of view of protected characteristics yet here we are.

You are choosing to ignore neutral legal commentary about the impact of the Haldene judgement in favour of the Stonewall influenced EHCR.

That's up to you.

Time will tell. Mark my words single sex spaces are not safe when people with a GRC have the benefit of both the protected characteristic of sex and of gender reassignment.

The fact that you can't even get her name right speaks volumes. I thought you were supposed to be a former legal professional? Blimey.

I know, as they are likely to form the next government I'd like them to be clear on this. I don't believe that this is an unreasonable position.

I'm typing fast whilst cooking dinner, I'm also dyslexic so find spelling a challenge.

Good job that when i was dictating legal documents, I was not cooking dinner & had the benefit of a spell checker and some times a secretary!

But carry on with your rudeness and personal attacks!

Resorting to such childish insults speaks volumes about the substance of your argument.

As is a vote for labour

Maybe the style of my argument but not the substance. I only quote from reliable sources! 😉

The second attachment was published in 2019 before the Haldane judgement so is irrelevant to the impact of that case on matters.

I've not seen any substance. does it include where you refer to the place where labour define who has access to their single aex spaces?

Blackstone Chambers is a reliable source. https://www.blackstonechambers.com/

Or don't you think so?

You appear to have completely ignored their excellent, in depth, legal commentary on these issues.

Let's remind ourselves again that this judgment of the Scottish Court of Session is not binding in the rest of the UK!

You clearly have completely ignored this:

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

1. 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

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

It's been quoted many, many times, but you're too blinkered and biased to accept it.

"Moreover, let me be clear: we are proud of the Equality Act and will oppose any Conservative attempt to undermine it. We will protect and uphold it in government, including both its protected characteristics and its provision for single-sex exemptions.
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."

Clear enough for you?

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."

On single sex spaces and the GRC -

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

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

,Nope. You and fellow TRAs just keep quoting the same bland stuff in which labour done clarify what they mean by woman, biology. Much as you try and obfuacate, we can see the refusal to address this.

lifeturnsonadime you're clutching at straws and desperate. Calm down, all shall be well, the grown ups are nearly back in charge!

Still interested in why you think emminent barristers Blackstone chambers have got these things wrong?

Anyone reading: just read FACTS, not fiction, and you'll be fine!