To think this is a vote winner (though not election clincher) from Sunak?

[Lion400]

Thought this was an impressive and clear response to the question, from Rishi. I suppose Labour will likely win by a landslide, because many people don’t care enough about women’s rights. Because I do care very much about women’s rights, I may vote Conservative for the first time ever (cue outrage for Lion). Will I regret it? Possibly. But I’d regret voting for Labour (aka women’s rights removers), even more.

https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1757143443111841900

Demonising and disparaging anyone who expresses a contrary opinion and viewing everything through some idiotic tribal lens is what will unpick this country at the seams, whether it's from the left or right

this

and the ridiculous notion that if you read anything or link to it that it means not only do you agree with it but that you also agree with anything every said by that source

This lot just nicked millions of quid for themselves and their mates during one of the most economically damaging periods we've had in recent history.

Fine if you can't vote for labour but voting for a load of actual corrupt thieves because the other guys are shit is some weird kind of Stockholm syndrome at play

This was debunked in your previous thread. I find it deeply dodgy that you're starting multiple threads spouting these same myths which you know are false.

For everyone else's info:

"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.

When we have Labour saying women can have penises, and when we have Rainbow Labour and Trans Labour saying they will never allow a transwoman to be ousted from womens spaces - who do we believe? ???

Who do we believe?

No it wasn't.

Blackstone Barristers set out well why single sex spaces are not protected by the current wording of the Equality Act in the light of the Haldane Judgement. Which despite @hotinhereandthere 's suggestion MUST be followed in the rest of the UK unless there is compelling reasons not to.

Paragraph 14 & 15

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

Sunak and his ilk do not give a solitary fuck about the rights of women and girls, or any other vulnerable group for that matter. This has been proven time and again by their economic and policy decisions that disproportionately impact the poorest and most vulnerable in our society
Sunak, just like Johnson before him, cares about one thing and one thing only at this stage in the game, and that is desperately trying to cling onto power.

Corrupt and incompetent leaders will always need scapegoats, groups they can steer public and media outrage towards and use as a distraction for their own failings. Sunak's attempts to blame refugees for the economic chaos and dire state of public services wrought by 14 years of Conservative rule has not worked. The majority of UK voters don't support the Rwanda plan, many saw the incessant ranting about "small boats" for the racist dog-whistle that it was. Even the bigots to which the Tories callous foreign policies were designed to appeal don't trust them to carry out those policies with any degree of efficiency. So of course, with depressing inevitability and all the subtlety of a brick to the face, Sunak appears on GB news and professes to be concerned about the sex-based rights of women just days after making a Trans joke in front of the grieving Mother of a murdered Trans teenager.

It beggars belief that anyone, regardless of their stance on this issue, could fail to see this as anything but the desperate straw-clutching that it is, let alone base their vote on this single issue.

‘This was debunked in your previous thread’

No. No it wasn’t.

The Tory faithful have been banging this drum since 2017. Since then the Tories have continued to fuck over the women who voted for them, the women who didnt and the morass of shit has got worse for all of us.

At least the Tories know what a woman is is a Tory lie.🙄 Don't be sucked in.

However we know with certainty that Labour will make it worse for women. Biological men will be allowed in to domestic violence shelters, rape crises centres, women’s prisons, women’s and girls changing rooms, girls toilets, women’s sport

So we are supposed to vote Tory due to the UNCERTAINTY of where they stand on such issues? It's insanity these are our options.

What a fucking Hellish situation we are in. As a woman and a mother of two young daughters, I truly despair.

Same. Why don’t Labour declare that biological sex matters and therefore women’s safe spaces, sports, prisons etc etc will be for biological women only? It is all they need to do.

They need to commit to amending the Equality Act to give clarity that legal women (trans women with GRCs) will not be allowed to enter single sex spaces reserved for women.

Biological woman is not defined in the Act.

Kemi Badenoch seems to have some understanding of these issues and is looking to make amendments.

The Labour Party is currently pretending there isn't an issue. When legal commentary makes it clear that there is.

@Lion400 have you seen Kemi Badenoch’s other beliefs ? She’s not squeaky clean either.

And that you and your fellow GC posters continue to pretend that Kemi Badenoch is any kind of saviour and champion of women. Let's remind ourselves of a few choice facts about KB:

She said: "I don't care about colonialism."

She has reportedly mocked gay marriage and abstained from the vote to extend same-sex marriage rights to NI.

She hacked Harriet Harman's website.

She made a cheap political jibe at Tulip Siddiq who delayed her planned caesarian in order to attend a House of Commons vote on Brexit.

She harassed journalist Nadine White.

She spoke out against teaching more Black history in schools.

She described net zero targets as "unilateral economic disarmament".

I've left out her abhorrent views on trans people because I know a lot of people on MN don't care about them.

And here's some picks from her voting record:

Generally voted against laws to promote equality and human rights.

Has never voted on equal gay rights.

Has never voted on allowing marriage between two people of same sex.

Generally voted against more powers for local councils.

Voted against a more proportional system for electing MPs.

Almost always voted against a right to remain for EU nationals already in living in the UK.

Generally voted against measures to prevent climate change.

Voted against financial incentives for low carbon emission electricity generation methods.

Generally voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability.

Consistently voted for restricting the scope of legal aid.

Almost always voted against higher taxes on banks.

Consistently voted for more restrictive regulation of trade union activity.

Consistently voted for increasing the rate of VAT.

So careful what you wish for...

@hotinhereandthere I asked you who do we believe. Regardless of how bad Kemi Badenoch's views are (and they are bad) on immigration and such, who do we believe? Starmer, or Rainbow Labour and Trans Labour?

On what?

Interesting thread op. I didn’t see the clip but I welcome more on this

Each party / leader should state their position clearly

Sunak appears on GB news and professes to be concerned about the sex-based rights of women just days after making a Trans joke in front of the grieving Mother of a murdered Trans teenager

Just to correct your version of events here:

Esther Ghey was not in the chamber at the time (not that this should make a jot of difference - parliamentary debate must never be influenced by who is sitting in the public gallery)

Sunak did not make a 'trans joke', he was ridiculing Starmer's refusal to state that women are adult human females NONE of whom have penises - which is a position worthy of ridicule, no?

Starmer was the one to hear the word 'woman' and leap straight to the word 'trans' and bring up a poor murdered teenager and their mother to deflect from the fact that he is slippery on this and cannot be trusted.

Starmer's remarks were in such very poor taste. Awful actually.

And let's not forget Kemi Badenoch refuses to outlaw menopause discrimination.

Yes, incredibly childish and thoroughly unproductive. It dumbs down the debate and injects a feverish nastiness that helps nobody. Yet those who operate on this way seem very pleased with themselves, blind to its drawbacks and utterly convinced of their own virtue. It’s quite depressing.

Each party / leader should state their position clearly

I agree and think that the tv debates will be very interesting - how will Labour, the Greens, Lib Dems navigate this without looking like scientifically illiterate fools because they are all on the same page...

I know. But she's right about the Equality Act.

Isn't it amazing that people can have some views we despise and others that are right?

Just wish Starmer would commit to making the necessary amendments then I wouldn't have to mention Badenoch!

The fact that you base your voting intentions on Rishi Sunak's cheap soundbite in GB News (!) says it all really.

And that apparently it doesn't matter where you get your 'information' from, and for many here it seems to increasingly be Daily Mail, GB News, Twitter or heavily biased GC websites.

Raise your standards. Do better.

And let's not forget Kemi Badenoch refuses to outlaw menopause discrimination

Well this is covered by the protected characteristic of sex isn't it?

No one is wishing for Badenoch, well i'm not and I can only speak for me.

I just wish that Starmer would commit to amending the Equality Act, if he wanted to ensure that women could have single sex spaces he would do that.

Instead he's fudging the issue, presumably for fear of pissing off the TRAs.