To think that Labour have just shot themselves in the foot?

[Redrosetat]

https://twitter.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1768647056111861760?s=19&t=wqgtbWPG_X1xZDMhuF871A

‘Just now Labour MPs prevented debate on a new law to protect children and single sex spaces.

Instead they used parliamentary time to discuss ferret name choices.

@Keir_Starmer is terrified of debate on safeguarding & his MPs actively work to ignore the concerns of constituents’

There’s a really intelligent, nuanced answer to that question here.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/politics/5027646-or-have-labour-totally-lost-the-plot-wrt-womens-rights?page=16&reply=133812415

The current Minister for Women and Equalities is trying to get on with it.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/04/kemi-badenoch-could-rewrite-law-to-allow-trans-exclusion-from-single-sex-spaces

Could it be the current Equalities Minister isn't doing anything about it because the Tory position on it is as clear as mud?

When did she introduce a bill into parliament that would sort it all out?

Its not like there is much other legislation being debated.

Could you perhaps find where it was announced in the King's Speech?

Only that doesn't work because the legislation won't allow it. There is no such thing as a biological woman under the Equality Act 2010.

The Sex exemptions applies to both biological women and men who are legal women by virtue of a GRC (with very limited exceptions).

I can link legal opinions on this if anyone is interested.

Yes it could but the Labour Party is the subject of this thread.

The Labour party is likely to get into power.

Now is the time to ask them to clarify what they are going to do about these issues.

You are correct the Labour party will be in power by the end of the year.
That leaves plenty of time for the current government to deal with this issue if they thought it were important. That the Equalities Minister couldn't even be bothered last week to turn up to a debate on the subject tells us all we need to know.

I’m not sure why people are so committed to blocking clarity

If they are so convinced Labour are in line with what women want let’s hear it

And if they don't?

What do you think Labour should do about it? Make it worse by making it easier for a man to be a legal woman? Make it worse by putting 'trans health care' at the top. of NHS waiting lists? Make it worse by making talking therapy illegal?

Because that's what Labour are currently saying they will do when they get into power.

Have the government addressed any of the very much more pressing issues in this country such as the huge increase in inequality?

When did the Labour Party propose putting trans health care at the top of NHS waits lists? Can we have a link?

What has that got to do with the purpose of this thread?

You do know that I want the same things as you right? A fairer society? Increases in equality?

It's only going to be so long that the Labour Party and supporters can hide behind 'but not Tory' about this issues.

Some posters on this thread might not have previously been aware of the Labour stance (as currently stated) on this issue, maybe someone who wasn't now is and won't be shocked when it becomes apparent.

Maybe some of them will talk about it. Maybe some will ask Labour candidates questions. Maybe the Labour party will realise that women have valid concerns and will respond to them. Or maybe they won't.

Nothing changes if we say that certain topics are off limit. This is what the Trans activists rely on. They didn't ask or consult with women when they sent lobbyists out to put males in what were previously single sex spaces. The activists have got rapists in women's prisons based on people not being aware and women not collectively saying 'this is not acceptable'.

I am not trying to convince anyone to vote Tory. I won't be. I'm trying to convince women not to take this lying down. The ongoing safeguarding of women and vulnerable children is not an acceptable price to pay to oust the Tories. Labour can do the right thing. They really can.

https://diva-magazine.com/2024/01/29/exclusive-keir-starmer-lgbtqia-rights/

”Starmer said. “We’ll cut NHS waiting lists for LGBT+ people waiting for urgent physical and mental health care.

Clearly there is a slight difference in what I have paraphrased and the actual quotation for which I apologise, but they do not appear to have told any other group that they will cut NHS waiting lists as a result of their illness or identity, which strongly suggests that people with these issues will be put at the top of lists/ prioritised, unless they clarify that they didn't mean that by making this statement.

That article makes for very interesting reading -

another snippet -

“We’ll strengthen the law, so every category of hate crime is treated as an aggravated offence,” Starmer said.

What does this mean? Does it extend to women correctly sexing males? Some clarity from the Labour Party would be welcome especially given the amount of women who have been questioned by the police for their social media activity v the blind eye turned to the rape / death threats made by activists against women.

Obviously hate crime in its purest sense is abhorrent, 'all forms' suggests that calling a man a man could be an aggravated hate crime. Even though it's a truthful statement.

Would be fantastic if Labour could clarify it's position on this please?

Can I just say thanks to posters for now allowing a conversation. There was a time earlier on this thread that this seemed impossible.

I'm logging off for the night but happy to continue 'talking' tomorrow.

Talking is important.

At any point in that conversation has there been any indication as to why the Equalities Minister didn't attend the debate on Friday, or indeed hasn't shown any sign of introducing any legislation on this important topic?

In all honesty, I think that’s adding two and two and making five. Starmer didn’t say any group would be prioritised. Cutting waiting lists is a key Labour policy and they’ve outlined how they’ll do it, obviously that programme of work includes LGBT+ people - a group which is by no means exclusively trans people. The top and bottom of it is they intend cutting waiting lists for everyone.

This is abject and desperate nonsense. You wouldn’t be asking this about any Labour MP receiving racist/ anti-Semitic/ Islamophobic abuse. Implying that them staying in the party means they’re delighted with or unbothered by the abuse they receive.

Why don’t YOU answer the question raised before your whataboutery kicked in - why has Keir Starmer refused to publicly (or privately) condemn rape and death threats against Rosie? I would condemn threats like that against even
my worst enemy. Let alone a woman who simply wants women’s existing legal rights upheld.

Keir is a coward, a misogynist, or both. That’s the unpalatable truth.

Well time will tell, quite how he is going to solve NHS waiting lists for all groups with the current economic situation is a bit of a puzzle.

He also doesn't appear to be making these direct promises to other groups. I can't imagine that it will be particularly politically expedient to prioritise trans health care over, say cancer treatment, but I haven't seen that he has made the equivalent promises to other groups.

Autism waiting lists for children are years long, he will have noticed the fact that the Cass Review states that there is a correlation between neurodiversity and gender difficulties in children. So surely it is more sensible to pledge to cut waiting times for those diagnoses.

Either way pledging to cut waiting times for trans 'healthcare' and pledging to ban 'all forms of conversion therapy' is hardly following the current science given that a lot of this 'healthcare' isn't evidence based and there is, in fact, growing evidence of harms.

This is really disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. He was being interviewed by a publication specifically aimed at the LGBT+ demographic. Obviously that’s what he focused on.

Well I'm using his words. So if that's not what he meant perhaps he would like to explain.

Blossom I am trying to have a civil conversation, calling me 'intellectually dishonest' for posting what the leader of the Labour party has actually said and a reasonable interpretation of it in light of the Cass review is not very civil.

This is so typical of ardent Labour supporters who won't criticise anything that Labour says or do. It always ends up with name calling.

Many mainstream press outlets also reported this but are behind paywalls. Are they also 'intellectually dishonest' for reporting words Starmer used and assuming he was telling the truth in the conference that he was speaking to which was a Labour LGBTQ Event hosted in the House of Parliament on the 29 January?

The fact that this was reported in Diva magazine doesn't make it untrue.

The fact that this was reported in Diva magazine doesn't make it untrue.

I didn’t say it did. Context is all. He was speaking to an LGBT+ audience. It’s perfectly obvious that he tailored his message to them. At no point did he say or imply they would be prioritised. Your interpretation isn’t reasonable and it is intellectually dishonest - you’re bright enough to know what you’re doing by implying something that was never said or intended. And I’m bright enough to see straight through it.

Well all people have on Starmer is what he says on this issue

By all means get it out there so the women who want to hear it do

This is so typical of ardent Labour supporters who won't criticise anything that Labour says or do. It always ends up with name calling.

Yes. That’s a whole new thread.

True