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

[PupInAPram]

@pleasehelpwi3 said it best.

Charitably, they seemed enormously under informed.

Ah. Not Richard Dawkins. That would have been very surprising. 😁

I agree, I’m furious that this might jeapordise our chances of getting the Tories out. She is more concerned with her own voice.

Go back to this comment to understand what people are talking about

Ha I went there too

I agree, I’m furious that this might jeapordise our chances of getting the Tories out. She is more concerned with her own voice.

'Ooh, hark at her. Who does she think she is, talking about politics in public?'

I don’t care what they’re talking about. If they think there’s any possibility of Rowling upending the election result they’re living in Narnia.

This whole thread, (this is the second thread now) was started by an OP that said JKR should 'pipe down'.

You’re aiming at the wrong poster

Try @macaroniandcheeze

And is ending up with "she likes the sound of her own voice too much"
Bloody woman speaking eh?

I'm getting a distinct whiff of 'she's getting above herself and should leave politics to the men'.

Own up does any biological woman on here think that a biological man can have a penis. Speak now or forever hold your peace. And tell us in plain English why mr Starmer can't enunciate this and put women who have no interest in politics but are very keen on womens issues minds at rest.

It is a cult which one day they’ll break from and realise was utterly ridiculous to support.

I haven’t heard the ironing shirts = woman one before. Fascinating.

'Sexism = the women should do the dishes.
Feminism = men or women can do the dishes.
Gender ideology = whoever is doing the dishes is a woman.'

https://x.com/genderisharmful/status/1358499334850023426?lang=en

'Does not have a peniis' My proof reader is poorly!

Some days I despair.

All of you who think men of any gender should be in any and all of previously women only spaces, I hope you get what you want. And can never reverse it.

You've given no thought to it, you spout soundbites that you heard somewhere.

But, well I'm alright. I've always been alright. I never have to use public toilets, I dont do sports and if I need caring for at some point, I have enough money for private care. If I end up in prison, I'll just hope for the best. If I need counselling I'll buy it. I could maybe get private healthcare too.

I've given a lot of time and energy trying to make others see the issues. I've spent more than 20 years of my life making it known this was coming. But you all seem invested in not seeing it.

So, have at it, I hope labour wins for you all. You just remember, we tried to tell you .

Unsurprising but still disappointing.

Oh dear.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/29648ec1-5b29-4b35-97df-2a443c71d7e0?shareToken=fd3bf0c5a080ae78044dd82770d8e1a7

Archive link in case needed:

https://archive.ph/jUBcS

So in effect a woman will be recorded as being in a same-sex marriage with a self-ID ‘male lesbian’, despite having had kids together?

So in effect a woman will be recorded as being in a same-sex marriage with a self-ID ‘male lesbian’, despite having had kids together?

Spot on. And with no opportunity to gracefully exit the marriage, when the marriage contract has effectively been rewritten unilaterally.

This is absolutely disgraceful 🤬

A Labour source said: “Our intention was always that we don’t want to change how the diagnosis [of gender dysphoria] is made. It’s not about how it’s diagnosed but we do want one diagnosis.”
The source described the requirement to show two years’ worth of proof as “nonsense”.
They added: “We’ll replace it with a reflection period. It counters the idea that you can put on a dress and then the next day you’ve got a GRC. It’ll be a considerable period of time of two years. But of course you are still protected under the Equality Act even if you don’t have a GRC … There are protections so you can’t legally change your gender overnight.”

These people are so monumentally fucking stupid I have no words.

Yes, change the marriage contract and the history of the marriage without the consent of one of the parties, namely the woman, and yet Labour are all for women's rights, except of course when it interferes in any way with what a man wants.

How progressive trapping women in marriage.

How is it trapping women in marriage? Are people in same sex marriages debarred from divorce?

This was posted on another thread by @SilverElf:

There is also no mention in Labour’s plans about how they will stop eg sex offenders from changing their name, gender & address before skipping off with a clean police record. These are real threats and need to be taken seriously

A very important point.