Labour Party and gender

[Mobley52]

I've seen quite a few threads where people have said they would not vote for Labour because of their stance on gender.

Would somebody be able to explain in simple terms why this is please

Many thanks

I doubt any trigger words were in it. And if there were, it would've gone zap before anybody saw it. It was reported by somebody!

Back to this debate though, I agree with @MissScarletInTheBallroom, that's it's Labour's evasiveness which is causing issues. Plus they have contradictory policy in the manifesto (Cass compliance doesn't go together with conversion therapy ban, for instance - therapists have said that even if there are exclusions, there'll be a climate of fear around what they could be accused of, so won't want to go near if).

I meant your point about being reactive only, i assume they are proactive in some cases, but not this one.

in regards to conversion therapy, that is not only about Trans identities. That also means people receiving it for their sexual orientation, conversion therapy ban is a good thing. The Below link explains it better than i ever could but it explains why they want to ban it.

• Conversion practice means any practice, sustained effort, or treatment that— (a) is directed towards an individual because of the individual's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression; and (b) is done with the intention of changing or suppressing the individual's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
• Conversion therapy includes medical, psychiatric, psychological, religious, cultural or any other interventions that seek to change, "cure", or suppress the sexual orientation and/or gender identity of a person.
LGBTQ+ Conversion Therapy / Safe and secure communities / Policy Commissions / Labour Policymaking

But affirming gender dysphoria / distress sometimes has the result of conversion therapy for gay children / youths etc. That's the danger of the ban. Being able to talk through the gender distress is imperative.

She's is leader of a political party

Talk through it yes. Push them either way, no.

If a child comes to them with Gender Dysphoria, pushing against it is also damaging. There is a middle ground between Conversion Therapy and "Here is your new ID card with your new gender on it". Which hasn't been possible due to lack of resources and such.

Conversion therapy does a lot of evil. Do we want to make it normalized and have lesbians being questioned that maybe they just haven't found the right dick yet? Because as others like to say about the GRC stuff being a slippery slope for women's rights, conversion therapy is a slippery slope for gay rights.

Do you want to take a bet on it? I think once politicians think there is no political capital to be made on this interest will dwindle rapidly. And also that KJK is going to be a total damp squib and PoW will disappear into history.

The Tories also say women can have a penis

Here is the inimitable Kemi Badenoch making all clear
https://x.com/GMB/status/1797536066917765428/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1797536066917765428&currentTweetUser=GMB&currentTweet=1797536066917765428&currentTweetUser=GMB

Also your post

And also that KJK is going to be a total damp squib and PoW will disappear into history.

I prefer to focus on politicians who will impact policy. Not what’s going on on X

I dare you to post on FWR that KJK hasn't influenced policy!

You seem to be giving her a lot of time and headspace due to KJK being the leader of a political party - one post

At the same time as thinking she’ll be ‘a total damp squib’ in the other

Seems contradictory

Is she having an impact and worth the consideration or not

I'm not opposed to the ban on conversion therapy for gay people.

But I would question how big a problem gay conversion therapy actually is in the UK. How often does it actually go on? Do we have any visibility on this?

Or is it something that doesn't actually happen in practice but the TQ+ community want to ban so that the trans conversation therapy ban can be the Trojan horse that sneaks in with it?

Because I don't think anyone should be allowed to transition until they've had an absolute fuck load of therapy to make sure there's no other explanation for their dysphoria.

But as i said, slippery slope.

It does happen, I'd recommend reading into it as it's incredibly distressing. Converson therapy is not ok, this is right to be banned.

Conversion Therapy is not the only 'therapy' option.

Why not just ban gay conversion therapy and leave trans out of it?

because conversion therapy covers sexual orientation AND gender identity. So bit hard to leave trans out of it?

You know that's not what I'm advocating.

but conversion therapy being banned stops that happening. So, why remove that protection?

Not following?

You introduce a ban on therapy aimed at changing someone's sexual orientation and you leave gender identity out of it.

Ah so you want the awful thing proven to be harmful to impact the one you don't care for? Got it.

No, I just don't think it should be illegal to question in therapy whether someone is really trans or not. I think it should actually be a prerequisite to any kind of medical treatment or change of legal status.

This obviously isn't relevant to gay people.

but that’s not what conversion therapy is. conversion therapy covers a range of dangerous ways

are you assuming it is just people questioning why someone feels they were born in the wrong body? if so i’d recommend you look into it further. because if you’re not informed on it, why are you advocating for it?

I agree there has been real hesitancy in clarifying what politicians mean when they say "women's spaces".

The Conservatives intended to clarify the EA to ensure that sex meant biological sex. This would have given all sorts of organisations the confidence to maintain single sex spaces and exclude males from female spaces, where it is a proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim, whether they had a GRC or not.

KS never talks about single sex spaces he always says womens safe spaces. This is not the terminology of the EA and as a barrister I'm quite sure he knows that and its intentional. So he talks about womens safe spaces and because he's been so slippery on defining what a woman is he usual gets asked a follow up question about whether males with a GRC can be excluded from these "safe spaces", he has yet to give a clear answer. That's the point at which he starts talking about treating everyone with dignity and respect and saying how marginalised transwomen are. What are we to make of that?

Bridget Phillipson has (eventually) been more helpful. She did actually use the phrase, "single sex spaces" in an interview with LBC but when she was asked if this meant males with a GRC could be excluded she refused to answer no less than 8 times. She was pinned down on this issue in an interview with Times Radio where she finally admitted that she would expect males with a GRC to use female spaces.

I think Starmers reluctance to be clear and Phillipsons eventual admission gives me the answer to whether Labour will protect single sex spaces. I think the answer is no.

The devil is in the detail, isn't it? How would conversion therapy be defined in the legislation?

All of this.

maybe read the link i put which explains it?

There was no clear definition in what was being proposed.