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

[PupInAPram]

@pleasehelpwi3 said it best.

"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.”

How does it counter the idea that you can put on a dress and the next day have a GRC? That is exactly the mechanism they've just described, isn't it? You just book in with a friendly trans affirmative doctor - Webberly will do it for a fee - and abracadabra, you're a legal female.

It just means that for two years after putting on that dress, if at any point you decide you don't want to avail yourself of women's spaces/rights, you can take the dress off again and change your mind. Or am I misunderstanding?

What are the protections - that you have to phone Dr Webberley and pay a fee? Will that be the existing £5 fee? If they are saying that men can be charged £5 to access women's rights and spaces is 'protection' they are apparently determined to insult us outright.

It’s trapping them in a same-sex marriage when they entered into a heterosexual union. Divorce is never easy, emotionally or financially, and this makes it far more difficult.

The long-running transwidows threads give some genuinely upsetting insights into how women and children can have their lives torn apart in particularly damaging ways when a husband decides to transition.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4879982-trans-widows-escape-committee-6-the-next-generation?page=1

Trans Widows on Twitter/X:

“Despite the @UKLabour manifesto being silent on the Spousal Exit Clause, confirmation here that they intend to abolish it, and remove #transwidows right to end their marriage before their husband legally changes sex #NotAVeto”

You really can't see the problem with completely re-writing the marriage contract and history of the marriage from a heterosexual union to a same sex union on one party's say so?

Really?

It also highlights the total absurdity of it all.

So the material reality of someone's marriage gets contradicted by a piece of paper based on an idea in someone's head that cannot be verified in any way? It's like Alice Through The Looking Glass. But these are people's lives we're talking about.

But these are people's lives we're talking about.

Exactly, of course in this Brave New World the only life that matters is that of the person that is changing gender and fuck everyone else.

Exactly. The focus on one at the expense of everyone else is quite something.

I remember an awful Twitter exchange where a mother whose child had 'transitioned' was getting absolutely piled on for being upset to be told she'd actually given birth to a 'daughter' rather than a 'son'. Like her own memory and experience of that event was worthless.

Its all very well denying your own material reality - but its deeply unfair the way it's being used to deny everyone else's.

This is basically where I am now. I'm afraid that this isn't going to stop so we're just going to have to go through it.

All I hope is that when the lovely Isla Bryson is out of prison, he ends up next to one of the stupid women that are advocating for men in women's spaces and not next to my daughter.

Some people will only care when it affects them personally. It's amazing how they think they're the kind ones, isn't it?

Women that vote for this don't seem to realise that once it hits mainstream properly, they will see this as female driven and won't be happy til women are back out of the workforce and out of positions of power across the board. Let alone what they will do to lesbians.

In the US it's already being used against women who've woken up and realised what happening to women's sports.

Many men aren't interested in helping us fix this. All they're saying is 'well you women voted for Biden, you're reap what you sow'

This is so absurd because it ignores how the major political party's actually treat the most vulnerable in society and we should care about poor women, black women

Not just white middle
Class women

This affects all women. No matter their race, income, or class.

Vulnerable women are more likely to be affected, those in prisons, women's refuges and homeless shelters.

White middle class women are the least affected by the erosion of their spaces. That's the problem - they have the loudest voices, but they won't speak out.

It's very vulnerable women. Prisoners, the sick and disabled, domestic abuse victims, rape victims, orthodox religious. Those women who are very rarely heard.

Labour have made their feelings very clear. They are on.the side of gender, not sex.

The incoming government are set to undo the tiny footholds women had started to make.

Brace yourselves for conversion therapy, the scrapping of school guidelines, self ID, and some new hate crime laws to make it harder to talk.about the issues. The courts, police, academia, NHS, schools and unions are largely captured and this will be further entrenched.

Equity is dead, and everything is mixed sex, which leaves women with fewer protections.

It's hugely depressing.

@DrNickedMaCorpus

”Labour have made their feelings very clear. They are on.the side of gender, not sex.”

Sums it up.

Dammit thats a pain

i was thinking of lib dem which i usually vote and labour, had just decided not to vote lib dem cos of the spousal veto and now bloody labour have admitted they are doing it!

Conversion therapy! What a load of absolute rubbish!

If you’re in a swing seat your vote will make a difference. Use it to put pressure on Labour to legally protect biological women’s rights.

Why swing voters could deny Labour an election landslide
www.thetimes.com/article/06e1ee5e-1a7e-4f7a-a094-9fbf634d09c8?shareToken=92e7935b8c1c2a423b819c1453bdb3ba

Conversion therapy! What a load of absolute rubbish!

You don't seem particularly well informed about any of this OP.

Exactly and he's probably only interested in the vast amounts of cash he gets from just stop oil donor Dale Vince hence his 'environmentalism' if oil and gas gave him millions he would no doubt be happy to push their agenda.

Dale Vince himself has a vested interest, his company is in direct competition with oil and gas. It's so sleazy.

Starmer is slippery, two faced and utterly untrustworthy. He doesn't have the courage or care enough to protect women's rights. Like Boris he will sell his soul to get power. His mealy mouthed parroting of Tony Blair should convince no one. Labour are more than wiling to put their boot on women's necks.

The most important thing for women is to not have Labout in power.

I've always been a floating voter and I never thought I would agree with Jeremy Clarkson but for me it will be anyone but Labour that gets my vote.

Wayne Couzins had a police warrant card and handcuffs. He didn't need anything else.
Some men will go to great lengths to access vulnerable women and children. They study for the priesthood, train as nurses, doctors, become scout masters, gym coaches, teachers. I wouldn't be surprised if Wayne Couzins joined the police in order to gain power over the vulnerable, particularly women. His colleagues called him Rapist. A certain man (without a GRC) managed to get a job running a rape crisis centre and freely admits to enjoying the power he has.
I have no doubt that a certain type of man would choose obtaining a GRC as their method of choice in order to access women.

The most important thing for women is to not have Labout in power.

The most important thing for this woman - and millions like her - is to get the Tories out of power. Where I live that means voting Labour.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire springs to mind.

As @DrNickedMaCorpus said,
Labour have made their feelings very clear. They are on.the side of gender, not sex.”

The voice of reason is the thought that springs to mind.