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

The gaslighting is so tedious. You have your beliefs, @izimbra. You believe in gendered souls or whatever. Not everyone does. And yes it is invasive for males to use female only spaces.

Cool. Maybe you can suggest some stuff on this thread @lifeturnsonadime.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5003802-what-can-we-do-to-get-the-best-we-can-for-women-from-the-next-government?reply=132887739

Ways to lobby Labour. Ways to lobby any party that might be in coalition. We don't know what the future holds, all we can do is our best. And speak up. When people ask "Where were the feminists?" We can show them that we were here, doing our best and opposing the Tory government.

You are mad unreasonable if you think the tories give a stuff about anyone but rich men.

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

I can’t find it now but someone suggested earlier that this is a thread about ‘..supporting the Tory party in the next GE’.

No. It is a thread about women’s rights and the failing of Labour to stand up for women’s rights. To stand up and say they understand biological fact and won’t let males into female spaces.

I framed it using the clear language Sunak used because that is what I want Labour to do. But they won’t. Why won’t they?

For what it’s worth, I’m not a natural Tory voter. Never have voted for them before. I said I may vote for them this time, I may not. I won’t vote Labour until they sort this out. Why won’t they?

Regardless of why, in reality the fact is they won’t. And once they are in, there are in, and that as they say will be that.

The Tories are more right wing, xenophobic and cruel than they have ever been. Not to mention corrupt. Many of their own supporters can't stomach them.

Why would anyone who is not a natural Tory supporter, choose to vote for them at this point? It makes no sense, unless that voter was previously a supporter of one of the even more right wing parties.

If a male is in a woman's space, they're not just minding their own business. They are hurting women by making them feel unsafe and by opening the door to any male going in, thereby making them unsafe even if they themselves are not directly predatory (I know people do their best to misunderstand comments like this so to be clear I am not saying that TW are all predatory. They have male pattern offending). It should be illegal for people to say a place is single sex and then deliberately let in males (such as IW). Service providers (Inc NHS) should be prosecuted if they knowingly do this. It can be policed in much the same way as something like flashing I guess, though do you want to make that legal because it's hard to police?

@IClaudine "why would anyone who is not a natural tory supporter choose to vote for them at this point?"
This is a whole thread about one reason why. If an issue is hugely important to a voter, and they feel their normal party is against them on that issue, of course they'll reconsider their voting choice. The thread title sums it up pretty well - Tories probably will win some votes over the gender issue, but my guess would be probably not enough to make a big impact on number of seats won.

I'm not sure what you mean. Yes I mean TW. They're male. That's a fact I won't obscure. Pretending males are women is misogynistic and part of thenoppressors language. I won't apologise for not using the oppressor language but I will think people who try and force that are part of the problem.

Not voting for any party that doesn’t protect women’s rights so I think it will be either Party of Women if someone is standing, or a spoiled vote

Or possibly a candidate from any party who works hard and keeps women at the top of their agenda

This.

What a mess - the attacks on lifeturnsonadime from some posters who wilfully tried to misrepresent what she had said - which is very clear when you read the thread through - are appalling. Awful childish gifs. And then a full on TRA turns up at the end to tell women that transwomen are such a harmless, tiny proportion of the population and even hints that they are not really men! You couldn't make it up!

When Labour get in and fuck things over for women in law these are the posters who will be snarky about 'the feminists' and ask where we were and why we did nothing. We are here, we are telling you what's going on but you are so stuck in your 'Labour good, Tory bad' bubble that you cannot see it or critically assess the situation.

No party is good for women at the moment and I wish to god that I could have a Party of Women candidate to vote for.

What are party of women planning to do to protect women's rights? How many candidates are they standing and where?

I've just come back to respond to this.

I have done @TooBigForMyBoots this is what I have posted.

Over from another thread at the request of OP.

I agree with @fromorbit .

When it comes to lobbying on the current position there's a slightly different emphasis because as @TooBigForMyBoots says Also the Tories will lose the next election. We need to target those who will make up the next government.**

There's also a slight difference in the current position as the Tories , via Kemi Badenoch appear to be recommending changes to the Equality Act to protect single sex spaces but the Labour party are saying they are not necessary.
So, when speaking to the Tories about this, emphasis can be on can this be done before Labour potentially win the GE as this will be hard for them to then row back on. Removing rights will be a worse look for Labour than maintaining the status Quo.

On speaking to the Labour Party the emphasis needs to be how can we ensure single sex spaces without amending the Equality Act after the Haldane judgement? which gives a trans women the protect of both the protected characteristics of sex (legal sex of female) and gender reassignment which means that service providers are likely to face successful claims of discrimination under the Equality Act if they refuse to allow a 'legal woman' to use the space. Given that service providers in the main, cannot ask for evidence of the GRC, this will allow de facto self ID to continue.

It is interesting that on that thread you have acknowledged that we need to target those who will make up the next government. Yet on this thread you have criticised me for making suggestions about targeting the next government.

Anyway. Here we are. We agree.

Let's continue to work to put pressure on politicians to resolve this for the sake of women.

Maybe you should re read the thread @Dogfisher. The misrepresentation wasn’t of lifeturnsonadime.

I have read the thread thanks and the misrepresentation and subsequent attacks were not from lifeturnsonadime. I will not engage on this further as you do not post in good faith.

Probably not a channel that almost entirely hosts Tory MPs. This was effectively a Tory party campaign and shouldn't have been allowed.

I should declare that I also think rishi Sunak is a horrible weasel or a man.

As one of the posters who was misrepresented, I post entirely in good faith. And nobody was “attacked”. Anyway, all the posts are there so anyone reading them can make their own judgement.

This was effectively a Tory party campaign and shouldn't have been allowed

I am sure that they would welcome Starmer if he felt up to facing a live audience. I would like to see it actually.

I took 'some of us don't share these views' as meaning that Blossoms meant she believes the wishes of males to be in women's spaces is more important than the safety and dignity of women who need single sex spaces.

Ah, I think I'm starting to understand the root cause of the issue, with both labour and posters on here.

You are obviously very analytical and always searching for the deeper meaning as to whether or not things align with the views you already hold. When they don't, you therefore apply your own interpretation so your existing view isn't threatened. It's called confirmation bias and is very powerful.

To others it comes across as putting words in their mouths and misrepresenting their position. That can be annoying for people who have taken the time to think what they want to say before they post.

Maybe you could try accepting things on face value until proved otherwise for a bit?

Yes all these questions on the statements etc, get him up there

So let's get this straight, I'm not allowed to make assumptions about the motives of other people, but they are allowed to make them about me?

As for misrepresentations Adam you said I was 'making things up' when I posted that labour might make misgendering a hate crime. Even though this has been widely reported as a possibility in the national press. This appears to be based on your analytical assumptions about bias, which you are of course entitled to. But I wasn't making anything up was I? I was simply stating what national newspapers have reported on.

As always on these threads there appears to be one rule for thee and another for me. You hold me to a different standard.

If you were to go through and look at who has had the most misrepresentations made about them and their motives on this thread I'm fairly sure it will 'misrepresentations' made about me rather than by me.

You didn't post they "might". You posted they "would". That radically changes the meaning of what you wrote. I responded to what you wrote.

Conversely you are responded to your interpretations of what people wrote, in a way that completely changes the meaning of what they wrote. It can come across as a misrepresentation when someone is on the receiving end. Especially if the tone is inflammatory e.g. what you wrote to blossom.
As a feminist, being told one is "harming women" on the basis of a misunderstanding is offensive and inaccurate.

I am posting this assuming you aren't meaning to misrepresent people, with the intent of demonstrating how you come across.

So let's get this straight, I'm not allowed to make assumptions about the motives of other people, but they are allowed to make them about me?

If you think that’s happened, by all means quote the posts where those assumptions have been expressed. I take what people post at face value and assume they mean what they say. It’s not unreasonable to expect the same courtesy.