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

Well they didn't put it right when they were in government with an 80 seat majority @ifIwerenotanandroid. If you're willing to forgive them that thats up to you but I don't know how you can trust a word that comes out of their lying, self serving faces.

I will never forgive them for the trans shitshow they forced on us or the fact they wrecked the country and totally fucked women for the past 14 years.

Still batting for Labour gender ideology?

Great post 👏

Have you noticed a difference the last few days on here? I don't know if the paid bots have gone away but it's suddenly seems a lot easier to have rational discussions without name calling and baseless accusations. I'm keeping my fingers crossed this is a good sign and not temporary.

I bang an anti-Tory drum because I am a feminist and British citizen. It doesn't mean I support Labour. I don't.

That's why the toilet debate is infuriating! I personally don't believe it's possible to extrapolate from comments about toilets to whether or not someone believes TWAW. The whole interview was annoying. I would have preferred the sky journalist to ask about gym changing rooms to be honest.

That’s the outcome you’ll get though. And they created gender ideology with the GRA and will push it further

At some point you might talk about that since they’ll be in.

If women made it harder for them rather than say fine whatever they’d change more

ECHR guidance?

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/statement-following-lady-haldanes-opinion-petition-women-scotland-ltd-judicial

1. There is currently no definition of “woman” set out in the Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, so “woman” has the same meaning in the 2018 Act as it does in the Equality Act 2010.
2. Under Section 11 of the Equality Act 2010, sex is a protected characteristic and is binary (a reference to a man or to a woman). Section 212 of the Equality Act defines “woman” as a female of any age.
3. The purpose of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 is to provide a mechanism by which people born in one sex could acquire the legal status of the other sex

The problem is with the GRA, not the Equalities Act. Which is why Labour's proposed consultation on the GRA is important.

Female has a biological definition:
of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.

I am not sure how much clearer it can be made, presumably why Badenoch took so long to propose nothing new

There’s no court case backing up Starmer’s claim from
the debate. If attempted it would be challenged by TRAs

Concerning he can cite refuge example and not work through why businesses would be risk averse re litigation .

Agreed. The toilets debate is not the one. Refuges, social care and hospitals ARE very important. I just wish the noise wasn't centered around either side "speaking for women" - when they do not. No-one speaks for all women, as evidenced by this very discourse. I just hate the privacy and dignity part of the toilets/changing room debates because i still want my privacy in regards to my body around strangers and that's the same whether they are male or female at birth. Because if it was only about privacy or dignity, why would i be happier to have my privacy invaded potentially by a fellow woman than i would a trans woman?

Sorry, I'm confused
There wouldn't be a court case to challenge legislation that works. Where would it come from and why?

The "notes" are what I linked and are clear. The problem is the GRA not the EqA.

The Tories made up the EqA thing because they want to get rid of it for other reasons. If it was about women they could have repealed the GRA in 2022 when they had a huge majority. They didn't want to.

There’s already a court case for a Brighton refuge.

It would come from a TRA in the same way

No business will risk that kind of court case along the same lines for obvious reasons

Starmer was wrong to point to a refuge line in the EqA to show there was no risk. A refuge is not a commercial gym or retailer. What the law thinks would be proportionate would have to be decided in court.

can you give more information on this court case?

(Pls)

Sure
https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2022/05/05/brighton-rape-crisis-centre-sued-over-refusal-to-offer-female-only-groups/

Starmer doesn’t know the outcome of this case. No one does

Business will not risk similar from TRA litigation. No chance. Even if Sarah wins that does not mean a retailer or gym would

Why would Starmer think businesses have protection from the EqA? They don’t

Biological reality is also if people can't afford to feed their children healthy food they won't reach their potential but no one seems to give a shit about that

how dare you speak about such things when clearly we need to sort out the issue of politicians being able to define the sub group they hate the most. silly.

Why are you using an example of a biological female suing rape crisis for inappropriately including males, as an example of what TRAs "might" do?
Sarah is covered by the single sex provision in the EA. A TW would not be.

https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2022/05/05/brighton-rape-crisis-centre-sued-over-refusal-to-offer-female-only-groups/

More shit on women that happened under and because of this Tory government.

Will Sarah win?

Courts determine outcomes particularly when legislation is unclear.

What is proportionate wrt exclusion? Can you define it?

Due to legislation created by Labour

She most likely, because that center went against the EA. Unless the story given in that link isn't the full story.

Single-sex services
If you are providing a service to one sex only (and not to the other), you must be able to meet one of the following conditions:

1. Only people of that sex need the service.
2. Providing the service jointly to both sexes would not be sufficiently effective.
3. The level of need for the services makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services for each sex.

This link has a great explainer about EA and GRA.

1. "What are the reasons why you think you might need to modify or limit access or exclude trans people from your service?

Remember that you have to show there is a good reason based on evidence. For example, dignity, privacy, preventing trauma or ensuring the health and safety of others.

1. Would modifying or limiting access or excluding trans people from your service actually help you to achieve this?

If it wouldn’t, it might be unlawful to exclude trans people, or modify or limit their access to your service."

Separate and single-sex service providers: a guide on the Equality Act sex and gender reassignment provisions | EHRC (equalityhumanrights.com)

Even if she does for a refuge it does not mean the same for a retail business or other

That it needs to be tested in court first means no one will risk it.

No business would willingly end up in litigation

but again, there are two different situations.

Are you really conflating rape crisis centres and retail changing rooms in regards to the impact they have?