To let you all know :Jane the mntter held keir to acct, brilliantly on radio today and it's viral.

[JaneVapeman]

Unfortunately I can't link to her clip, but she's a star and a hero. She pinned him down and cut through the "twaddle". I am a swing voter and would have been proud of a mntter holding any mp to account on an important issue like Jane did. Jane is/was even trending on twitter.

💥

I realise that I am a loner on this thread. Fine, that's sometimes the way it goes. The disappointment is when it starts to get personal. I've said my points now, so I'll leave it at that. However, next Friday morning if I wake up to a Labour government, I will be more than happy.

Then why do you have a problem with us discussing things Starmer has said on the campaign trail?

It's not our fault if it turns voters off.

I’m in an area where it’s neck and neck between LibDems and Tories, but the LD candidate is very much part of the ‘be kind’ brigade - so kind in fact that he has blocked the local terf group on Twitter and refused to answer any of their questions.

I have no problem with you discussing this. I have never said so.
Why are you wilfully misrepresenting my views?
Stop accusing me of things like that. It is offensive.

The purpose of this thread is to make it clear that women need to hold Labour to account, both before the vote and after the inevitable outcome.

As I said upthread, disappointing when it starts to get personal. I enjoy a discussion, shame when this happens.

Whoop, Jane, thank you and well done! Great work. I'd vote for you. 😊

Do you mean when people quote you to respond? Because that’s a perfectly normal thing to do.

Apologies if you meant something else.

I only actually text to ask a question because he hadn't answered this question each time it had been broached during question time and interviews. I knew what he was going to say DPP, women, violence but that did not answer my question. I wanted him to answer it and be honest before I was cut off.

If he had been polite to me, not ignored the question I had asked, I wouldn't have had to cut him off.

He did eventually answer my question. He is going to make obtaining a GRC easier and those woMen that are in possession of those certificates will then be legally entitled to access women's spaces.

Accusing me of not believing in democracy.
Of not allowing freedom of speech.
So, yes, I did mean something else.

I've tried to do what Starmer suggested in the last debate - go away and read the legislation. Crikey it's abstruse.

However I can't see anything that says a GRC changes "biological sex" or "birth sex", so I am frankly a bit confuddled by why the phrase "safe spaces for biological women" isn't good enough. I'm not being snarky - genuinely can someone explain it to me?

This https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and seems clear(ish!) to me that it is lawful for a leisure centre to exclude a birth male with a GRC saying they are now female, from a women's only changing room. The legislation does allow for birth/bio sex to be treated differently to legal sex when there is good enough justification, and privacy and dignity are included in the justifications.

What has really horrified me is that I can't see anything about women having a RIGHT to safe spaces. This legislation seems to be all about how and when the leisure centre/service provider is legally allowed to exclude trans people from single sex spaces. There seems to be nothing protecting women's rights to them. Maybe - - hopefully - I'm just looking in the wrong place, but it seems we are just depending on trying to convince the operator that they are "allowed" to exclude trans people, if they do it right. All too often the default assumption seems to be that they should allow trans people into all single sex spaces these days. That is wrong, and to follow Starmer's argument, not what the law says anyway.

Absolutely Starmer is choosing to be unclear on this, which is really frustrating. It would have only taken one sentence to spell out that a GRC does not create a biological woman, and safe spaces for biological women does not mean for "people born as women plus anyone with a certificate". He won't say it for fear of alienating the trans lobby, but I'm not convinced that means he will open the floodgates to allow trans people into biological sex spaces.

Question for you:

If you thought spoiling your vote would contribute to the Tories getting back in would you still do it?

Even knowing that the Conservative policies of the past 14 years have had such a negative impact on the lives of millions of women in the UK that it can actually be measured in falling life expectancy for women and a growing poverty gap between men and women?

Or is your pointless gesture, which won't be noticed by anyone except you, something you think you can do without the risk of letting the Conservatives back in and so you're morally comfortable with doing it?

Yes, it's an absolute shitshow of badly confusing legislation.

I'd love to give you a definitive clear answer, but expert lawyers can't agree on this point.

This is why there's a court case currently pending.

'Does the definition of “woman” under the Equality Act 2010 include biological males who have acquired a Gender Recognition Certificate issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004?

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/the-courts/supreme-courts/about-the-court-of-session/livestream-hearings/case-P578-22

So her choice is both 'pointless' and at the same time capable of having a negative impact on the lives of millions?

Mazing.

I asked you some questions to clarify your position, not sure why you are characterising that as making accusations.

You've also accused someone else of making it personal.

Meanwhile:
This whole thread is trying to put people off voting Labour. It is intended to alarm women and turn them away from Starmer.

Now that does sound like an accusation.

@JanefromLondon1

You don't need to explain, it's petty obvious he was spouting the same line and you wanted an honest answer.

This thread hasn't put me off voting Labour. I'd made my own mind up after listening to Starmer during many of his interviews and from that I didn't feel I could trust him. Jane did a brilliant job and unlike many of the previous interviews, got through Starmer's barricade of waffle. That confirmed to me how Starmer is playing a game, sitting on the fence being non-committal because in the end of the day he wants power. That's not to say the other leaders aren't doing similar but Labour appears to have the lead so it matters to me, it matters because I'm not giving him my vote for him to tread on my rights as a woman and that of my daughters. That's my opinion but it was a relief to read on these threads how I'm not alone in being worried what Labour will unleash on us.

However I can't see anything that says a GRC changes "biological sex" or "birth sex", so I am frankly a bit confuddled by why the phrase "safe spaces for biological women" isn't good enough. I'm not being snarky - genuinely can someone explain it to me?

Note on Section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 - my bolding.
"(1)Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes/division/4/9#:~:text=Section%209%3A%20General,a%20woman%20for%20all%20purposes.

"he will open the floodgates to allow trans people into biological sex spaces."

'Floodgates'?

You understand that there are at most only about 50K transgender women living in the UK?

Why are you using the sort of language to describe them that racists and xenophobes are constantly using when discussing asylum seekers, who, like transwomen are also a tiny, highly marginalised group of people who are constantly being targeted by the far right, who GC's are comfortably aligned with on transgender issues

Transpeople are already in biological sex spaces.

They always have been.

What are you hoping the Labour party will do to police women's spaces to challenge the current situation?

@Flowers4me but the trans community is tiny compared to 50% female? Why is he so afraid of them?.. Either he doesn't get it or he doesn't want to upset his doner, stonewall

Or a bit of both

You understand that there are at most only about 50K transgender women living in the UK?

Males who identify as women, not women.

One 'transwoman' has distressed and upset how many women who have been forced to change in front of him:?

https://news.sky.com/video/nhs-nurses-sue-employer-for-allowing-trans-women-to-use-their-changing-rooms-13160423

One 'transwoman' doctor has treated how many female patients who woudl previously have not allowed him to carry out intimate examinations?

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-investigate-activist-who-said-trans-gp-enjoys-examining-women-g8kvtm0vj

It only takes one man to make a space mixed sex and therefore make it impossible or undesirable for many women.

You asked me if I believed in freedom of speech and democracy.
My answer was yes.

My question too; why? Either he doesn't want to understand because he doesn't have much respect for women or he's personally invested in this in some way. Who knows but I'm not willing to give my vote to someone playing games with my rights.