Starmer, JKR, what's most important to most women 2?

[PupInAPram]

@pleasehelpwi3 said it best.

Disingenuous as fuck. What you mean is you don’t want to hear any inconvenient truths.

What are the expert qualifications required to understand that severely disabled women and girls (and the elderly) deserve the right to same sex intimate care?

SO WHY ARE LABOUR FUCKING FIXATED ON IT?

I don’t know. Genuinely. Is there specialist care, are some people trained in certain things, what if it’s an emergency and there’s only a man (or trans woman) available, I don’t know. The pathetic attempts at somehow “winning” by claiming I don’t know about this specific example isn’t really that effective when I’m happy to admit I don’t know.

One point i keep making is that there is not one solution that can be applied to all situations. It’s going to take some amount of effort and consideration in every field to make sure everyone is safe and comfortable.

The examples you’re giving are examples of exactly what I meant yeah

The pathetic attempts at somehow “winning” by claiming I don’t know about this specific example isn’t really that effective when I’m happy to admit I don’t know.

i dont think anyone has mentioned winning apart from you

its not a completion, there are a lot of women on here who feel very strongly about this

I meant I loathe the ideology that if you just build a wall around women (especially good virtuous women) and don’t let anyone near them then bad things won’t happen to them. People have been trying that for centuries and it’s gross

That's a complete misrepresentation of most women's position here.

But there is one solution.

Understand gender identity as a private matter, let people dress as they wish and iron or not iron the shirts, or whatever runs their private sense of identity.

Keep biological sex the only thing which is relevant when someone else is involved (patient, client, sport competitor, co-inmate).

Simple

I agree with you OP 💯 - I live in a high crime area with so much poverty - this issue is so far from my radar, I literally can't worry about this in my life.

I live in a similar place. I grew up in poverty and I’m only a couple of steps away from it now. And it’s so close on my radar it’s terrifying. My neighbour a few doors down on the left is in and out of a woman’s refuge because of domestic violence (as were we when I was growing up). I want her to be able to stay there without having to share a room with a man. There’s a woman over the back who’s obviously dealing and I’m pretty sure will be going back inside in the not too distant future. I want her to share a cell with someone who isn’t capable of making her pregnant. My mum’s elderly neighbour, who is very prim and proper and who would be humiliated at a male giving her intimate care, is in hospital after a stroke. I want her to feel safe and comfortable. The local kids don’t have the same opportunities that richer kids have. If a boy takes a place on a girls team, there is no other option for that girl. Mummy won’t be driving her to gymnastics because swimming hasn’t worked out.

I’m not expecting you to drop all your worries about the things you have to get through. But please understand that it’s not about a fear of hordes of trans women coming over the horizon, demanding to use the ladies loos in the local pub. It’s about ensuring women in our financial bracket, with our limited resources and our limited options, our inability to fund private care for our mums and aunties, etc, don’t lose the few rights we do have.

I am interested in how these problematic people suddenly become not a problem the minute they say 3 special little words?

It's also the unfairness.

Transwomen say they don't want to use men's services and spaces because of safety, privacy, and dignity. So everyone says - fine, use women's spaces.

Women say they don't want to use spaces with men in them because of safety, privacy, and dignity. So everyone calls them bigots and transphobes.

How come some men get to say who they share spaces with, but women aren't allowed to?

@DrNickedMaCorpus exactly and why do we always have to budge up? Because it's all about making them feel comfortable and valid and in some cases, attractive. There ! I said it. Some men who say that they are trans women are not suffering from gender dysporia. I feel for the ones who do genuinely but there are some who enjoy dressing as women for sexual pleasure. ( And this post will last two minutes). Why should women as members of a functioning society have to accommodate this ? Men can deal with this in the spaces allocated to their sex .

@CassieMaddox
Double standards. Believe Sunak (despite the fact he's head of a party full of liars). Don't believe Starmer.

It's pure lefty hating, not to do with womens rights at all.

Not lefty hating. I still just about call myself a lefty. For me one reason I trust Starmer less on this is because he is in a materially different position to Sunak. Labour relies on a activist base where a large faction are fully TWAW and see this as a big issue. Sunak doesn't have that same pressure from his members or voters. Starmer always needs to triangulate some position that doesn't alienate TRAs while also not appearing crazy to the general public or tanking the GC element of Labour even more. You might see the results of this as a balanced compromise but I see them as a shifty and illogical fudge.

Women who disagree with me are probably lying?
Is that you Eden?

Women are ignored, men not

Maybe @SergeantDawkins can say why I think there was a post on ‘lived experience’ earlier

Why when reading posts from women do they prioritise men?

@SergeantDawkins Well I can answer about care . For the past twenty or even twenty five years, most care models have followed person centred care as opposed to the medical model of the past.Everything that has arose since has came from this. Plainly put , it's about treating people as individuals and not objects like used to happen ( routine bed baths, getting all older people up at a set time every day , put to bed at night same time etc ). It's needs led versus resourses led and is a challenge under current times but it's the basic blooming principles of caring for people and when we force a someone of either sex to be washed or support to the toilet by someone of the opposite sex against their will, we really have failed that person's care needs. As for not having someone available, yes that can happen very rarely but a planning is a wonderful thing and there does tend to be people who will help in emergencies I have found. Care providers are absolute chancers and resources led (so short of staff) and I have no doubt that if self ID is passed, we will get the women (and possibly men) who are uncomfortable with carers of the opposite sex but who identify as trans doing intimate care . They will not complain because they don't want to be seen as difficult and they don't want to hurt the person's feelings (why would you?) and that isn't right. It's about those who need care's dignity, safety & privacy.

We as a society aren't providing single sex care and the Tories Brexit fuck up has led to many men from SE Asia coming here to do care work.

TBH we aren't in many cases, not even providing care for the vulnerable for anyone.

Where are all the women supposed to come from?

Who has presided over the collapse in social care? clue - its not Labour.

Care providers are absolute chancers and resources led (so short of staff) and I have no doubt that if self ID is passed, we will get the women (and possibly men) who are uncomfortable with carers of the opposite sex but who identify as trans doing intimate care

Nonsense.

Around 8000 men have a GRC and any man (or woman) wanting to abuse a vulnerable person can apply to work in care.

Men who want a GRC just have to apply, its a 96% success rate.

You are also going down the route that all Trans people are abusers, rapists, criminals etc etc

Scaremongering of the worst kind.

If you think that’s what we want or think you have been massively misinformed. Do you understand the concepts of safeguarding and risk minimisation?

This seems like a very confused post.

So you agree that GRCs are easy to get? Under Labour they will become even easier. Any man who likes will be able to change his 'legal sex' with the sign off of one GP.

So that's all it takes. Quick zoom with a friendly Doctor and women's spaces will be there for the taking for any man who wants them.

Alternatively, 'gender' is creating opportunities for predators to abuse loopholes. See, for example, sex offenders using a GRC process to evade DBS checks.

Exactly. The double standards are absolutely outrageous. Especially as women are far more at risk from men than men are from other men.

This is not a question of social policy. It’s a very simple question. Let me put a scenario to you.

Ellie is 36 and has a spinal cord injury. She uses a wheelchair all of the time, lives alone and semi-independently, with carers visiting several times a day to help with her personal care. This means removing her clothing and her being in a very vulnerable position. Before her accident, she was raped by someone she thought was her friend.

Ellie requests that her care is undertaken by a woman, not a man, because she doesn’t want anyone with a penis anywhere near her while she’s unclothed. Does this make Ellie a bigot?

Ellie requests that her care not undertaken by a transwoman, because she doesn’t want anyone with a penis anywhere near her while she is unclothed. Does this make Ellie a bigot?

Not been keeping up with the thread but I thought this would be a good place to share the Woman's Hour election debate - they had the candidates explain party positions in more detail at least https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/l0056ntv/election-2024-womans-hour-election-debate

It isn't painting 'trans' people as anything.

It is asking why different rules apply for men if they say they are women than would be applied for men who don't.