To ask who you are voting for?

[I5itm3]

Labour
Tories
Lib Dem
Green
Reform
SNP (Scotland)

And why?

I absolutely would ask someone in real life. Why wouldn't you? And also, in true MN style... did you mean to be so rude?

I'm absolutely fine, thank you. And sane, to boot.

SDP. They’re good on sex/gender and we don’t have a Party of Women candidate.

It’s my first time not spoiling my ballot since 2017.

Labour.

Whilst I don't agree with everything Starmer says, I will vote for the party that can form a government close to what I can live with.

And secondly, to put some grown adults in charge.

The SDP's family income policy is pretty scary for women though.

"We'll pay you to have kids but only if you get married and stay married..."

Labour.
I sit on the board of a large women's refuge. Have done for over 20 years. I can see very clearly both sides of the women's right argument.
The fact is that regardless of which party's definition of woman I agree with, the impact of the Tory cuts in local and national government has had a devastating effect on the services that women and children need to survive in a patriarchal society. Not just in refuge but police, courts, health, social services.
I understand the risk in respect of sex based provision being affected by possible Labour policy. I know that risk is far smaller than the risk Tory policy poses to women. They don't give a shit about women.

@EnglishBluebell nah I’m not ashamed to vote Tory.

labour did not do enough to convince me that they could do better. Their stuff is just bitching about tories. They don’t have a plan. Not that I heard anyway.

and the final nail was their stance on women/trans men.

that said… labour will win and we will be back here in a few years moaning about how they fucked it up

What? Are you having a laugh? Life in this country under the Tories in name only, to quote Chris Patten, last governor to Hong Kong, has got immeasurable worse.

You must be of extreme wealth to say that. Have you not seen that foodbanks have more places now than supermarkets? The debt people are in, the housing crisis, and we won't even go their on brexit.

Every single service in this country the Tories have bought to their knees, from the NHS, education, dental, and so on ad infinite.

No, I'm not Angela or any labour mp before you coming that ridiculous, boring so-called joke.

You're either trolling or in cloud cuckoo land 🤦‍♂️

You are lying

I beg your pardon?

I can appreciate that people can get quite het up about politics and sometimes angry when others disagree with their pet party, and sometimes fearful they may influence others, but this is an ill-mannered way to proceed. A more adult way to put it would be to suggest the other person was mistaken and to engage with their points. That way you are more likely to get engagement than an angry dismissal and you can retain the moral high ground.

As it happens, I’m not lying or, I believe, mistaken. Starmer has - on numerous occasions - ducked and weaseled his way out of attempts to get him to clarify that biological males with a GRC will be excluded from single sex spaces. And so did Philipson last weekend. When asked about the safety risks to women of biological men being in their spaces, he takes about ‘safe spaces for women’, not single sex spaces. Because he thinks trans women fall within this category. He habitually skirts over the safety issue for females and goes straight to there being a ‘small number’ of poor old traumatised men and how hard they have it. Implying that them having hurt feelings is worth more than the safety of women. And often uses the murder of poor Brianna Ghey to shut down opposition. Listen to his answer to Jane on the LBC phone-in for a recent example.

However, if you have proof he has categorically stated that men with a GRC will be excluded from women’s changing rooms, toilets, prisons, sporting events, etc, please feel free to post a link to prove your point.

And to be clear, there is an obvious issue with the need to clarify that ‘sex’ in the Equality Act means biological sex only and not those with a GRC. The confusion arises because of the judgement of Lady Haldane. It is this set of smoke and mirrors that Starmer hides behind as he knows that currently there is a standing legal judgement that someone with a GRC would fall into this category. This is why many women are calling for repeal of the GRA and clarification of the Equality Act. Starmer doesn’t want this though. Funny that.

Lib dem because Labour have never had a presence in my area so it’s a two horse race between them and the tories.

Starmer isn't hiding behind that, at all.

He had repeatedly said that he backs the current provisions of the Equality Act that permit for single sex spaces (where reasonably required). He has repeatedly said "single sex" and was has been clear on multiple occasions, including the most recent debate, that people with Gender Recognition Certificates can be excluded, and that he supports that.

This is how the law currently operates and is why transwomen, with GRCs, can be excluded from women's prisons.

If the Supreme Court does determine that sex in the Equality Act means legal and not biological sex, only then the Act would require amendment. Given that Starmer has repeatedly said he supports maintaining existing protections for single sex spaces and supports clarifying legal guidance around their implementation, I don't see any reason to think he would not follow through on that, if the Supreme Court decision requires it.

What you (and Jane) seem to want, though, is for all transwomen to be excluded from all women's spaces. I agree that Starmer won't deliver that (and nor do i expect the Tories would). To repeal the GRA, we'd likely have to leave the ECHR, and I hope that does not happen.

But Starmer hasn't said that he would support single sex spaces - he says "safe spaces" and then immediately talks about how traumatised and vulnerable trans people are. So it's pretty obvious he thinks allowing transwomen into women's spaces is "safe".

@HangryBeaver which women's spaces do you think transwomen should be allowed into?

I’ve got a trans daughter. She uses the disabled toilets, and has never been in a women’s changing room. That won’t stop GC people from deciding she’s a rapist (even though she’s only attracted to men) and a danger to them. I wouldn’t mind but she’s been chemically castrated and has no sex drive anyway. It reminds me of the 80s when it was gay men that were all branded as sexual deviants and paedophiles and other hateful labels. Maybe trans women don’t want to share a changing room with a load of screeching TERFs.

I'm sure your child is lovely and not a risk to any woman (even a screeching terf). But you must surely be aware of the statistics of sexual offending among transwomen? And the instances of sexual abuse and rape that transwomen have carried out in women's toilets?

In any case, one of the big issues is that if you let any man who "feels like a woman" into the women's toilets then any mam with an ulterior motive can go into women's spaces unchallenged. And then when they expose themselves to little girls the staff back them up (ever heard of WiiSpa?).

It's strange. When women talk about the need for single sex spaces I don't get an urge to tell everyone how wonderful my husband is and that he would never hurt anyone. It's not a sleight on my husband's character to say that I don't want men allowed in women's toilets/changing rooms/rape centres etc. It's not all men who are dangerous and it's not all transwomen. But the statistics of sexual assault, rape and violence by men and transwomen against women and girls is horrifying.

@Bluemincat I don’t believe they’re sexual offences by trans women. I believe they are sexual offences by men who are convicted and subsequently claim they identify as trans women in prison. They’re no more trans than you or I.

By doing this they’re segregated from the other male prisoners who would kick their heads in, or worse. The stats make it look like half of sex offenders are trans women when they’re not. It’s a common trick and there’s nothing the prisons can do about it.

I’ve heard lots of people talking about trans women raping women in toilets but it’s only been hearsay so I ignore it. I’ve never found a credible news source to prove all these stories. I do think that men masquerading as trans women are a much bigger threat than trans women.

Also, swimming pools have had unisex changing rooms for years and nobody seemed to mind.

Two quick points before I go to bed.

1. You've neatly identified that it's impossible to tell who is "really trans" and who is saying that they are trans for nefarious purposes. How is my 11yo DD to know that the man wearing a dress and lipstick in the women's toilet is harmless or not, or trans or not? What is the difference between (a) a man pretending to be a woman and (b) a man pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman? Who gets to decide who is "really trans" and who is just pretending to be the opposite sex?

1. Sadly there are plenty of reputable sources showing transwomen sexually abusing and raping women and girls in toilets etc. I'm going to bed now so am not going to research and link but I would suggest you look into it further as it is most definitely happening.

Maybe start with Googling Katie Dolotowski.

Why does every single election thread on here end up with a discussion on trans women and toilets

Fgs there are far more important issues out there

Spoilied my postal vote already. I suspect that if enough of us do that they will be looked at . Respect my sex if you want my x seemed to work and none of these reflect my views.

No, he talks about women’s spaces and safe spaces, not single sex spaces for women. Quite deliberately.

But feel free to post links where he states single sex spaces will be protected and no males will be allowed into them, if you have any.

And yes, I do expect and demand that women’s single sex spaces will be kept just that - as spaces for biological women only. That’s who they’re for. They’re not for men, no matter their feelings. And for good reason. And they’re certainly not for any bloke to try take away from us. The fucking nerve of him.

This is a strange take on the EA.

There is not, and never was any ambiguity about how the EA defines sex, it's laid out quite clearly in the notes.

It states explicitly that people with a GRC, are, for all intents and purposes, considered to legally be the sex denoted in the GRC held.

This notion that there is a need for "clarity" arose purely because of a completely speculative action on the part of FWS. Lady Haldane quite rightly pointed out that there was no requirement for any sort of "clarification" as the act is completely unambiguous, and it was never intended for references to "sex" therein to apply purely to biological sex.

The Gender Recognition Act predates the EA, so how anyone can contend that the EA was somehow formulated in ignorance of the GRA, and is therefore full of holes and contradictions is risible.

It's one thing for campaigners who simply do not like the content or effects of these Acts to campaign for their repeal, but the assertion that they are somehow in conflict is nonsense.

Oh, I wish we did! Then I wouldn't be vacillating so annoyingly.

I did say years ago that I'd put myself forward when KJ got this off the ground. Health has made me incapable. Hope some other opinionated women in the rural Midlands will get to it next time. Better yet, I'd like the PoW to be unnecessary in five years - but I suspect it may be even more urgently needed.

I don't believe your child is a rapist at all. However, I don't believe your child is a woman either and so as such, shouldn't be using women's facilities. I'm assuming there are no disabilities either so shouldn't be using those facilities. Your child could campaign for spaces more aligned to their requirements though?