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

Even Bridget Phillipson now seems to realise that there are dangers of allowing men into womens toilets.

She supported it a few days ago in the times radio interview, yesterday on LBC she wouldnt that a man with gender should be in the womens toilet.

Labour are back to saying that its a complex problem.

If there was some easy fix then it would have overwhelming cross party support and probably would have happened already.
I think both main parties have put forward some good ideas here.
Labour's plan to run extra courts to clear backlog is a great one if they can achieve it. I do suspect even without the court backlog problem the conviction rate will remain stubbornly low.

Oh i agree, there is no one quick easy fix. I'm merely curious on others thoughts on what actions they can see making the most impact.

It would to me and my dd

I’m fine to deal with both and definitely don’t wish to say ok to men in my spaces as rape culture exists. That make me far more likely to want single sex spaces.

I would like women’s safety, privacy and dignity to be prioritised over that of men, and in law..

I do suspect even without the court backlog problem the conviction rate will remain stubbornly low.

Not as low as with no cases even going to trial. It’s essentially a rapists’ charter.

but again, you do not speak for all women anymore than i do. So if we are not all in agreement, then how on earth do we expect politicians to be?

Transwomen using female bathrooms is not anywhere near the same issue as hospital wards/rape crisis centers. Majority of "TRA" believe that - because we're not trans right activists. We believe in single sex spaces WHERE POSSIBLE and also treating others with dignity. Why would someone expect respect and dignity given to them when they don't give to others?

There have been many GC debates on here which have been in good faith from both sides, and I've not ever thought of those posters as transphobic. But there are a vocal minority who genuinely despise trans people and do just hate them. These vocal minorities happily accept neo nazi males at their rallies because they agree with their stance.

This doesn’t make sense to me you want to give spaces to men for their dignity and privacy. I don’t prioritise that. I much prefer women and girls have theirs prioritised. Both can’t have it.

Of course we are not all going to agree that’s not a criteria for politicians on any topic. Why do we have to do agree for this topic?

I’m not going to agree with you to make politicians lives easier. And assume you won’t either

If you are not transphobic for wanting single sex wards etc then I am not for wanting to see single sex for all spaces. Do you hate them because you want that? If it’s a no then you can understand I am also a no.

Hardly a surprise given we've had a government steeped in rape culture and misogyny who have opposed all measures that would help women get justice.

The Tory party is an anti-woman party.

but again, you do not speak for all women anymore than i do. So if we are not all in agreement, then how on earth do we expect politicians to be?

I don't expect politicians to always agree. But I expect them to follow the normal democratic processes to decide. For years GC views have been misrepresented and frozen out of the debate. Labour leadership won't even talk to the groups in his own party who could debate him on this. Why? Because he knows his position doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Once he twaddles down the clock filling the 2 minutes allocated to the question on a TV or radio interview with "most marginalised etc etc", there is nowhere left for him to go. So lucky for him he never has to expand or justify his points beyond that, because I'm certain he wouldn't be able to.

If its not possible to have single sex public toilets and changing rooms its not possible to have single gendered ones either.

But politicians aren't saying this. They seem to think it is possible? Starmer is saying that there is a definable group of vulnerable people who need to be in gender spaces. And he want to provide those spaces for them.

But thats different to what people are saying here. Here people are saying its not possible to keep men out of womens spaces and they arent really that important. But TRA and politicans think they are important, and it is possible to keep the wrong gender people out?

Listening to starmer, he seems to believe that single sex, gendered and mix sex spaces are all needed and possible. And more, they are needed for saftey.

A 15 year old trans boy needs to go into the 'male gendered' toilet or changing room for their own saftey and dignity. But a 60 year old man with gender will be unsafe there and need to be with the 15 year old girls in the female spaces away from the trans boy? Because gender is what is causing people to be unsafe and a danger, not sex.

But not in hospital wards, when its sex, not gender that is important.

One of the current requirements to obtain a GRC is to "live as" the required gender. I assume this means using women's facilities, so before having a GRC this would be encouraged.
But it all goes back the original problem-they are all men. Some may be "trans" some transvestites, some predators, some maybe just men curious to see if they can get away with being pervy. Nothing can indicate which men are safe, and all infringe women's privacy and dignity.

Yes - that's why I actually think Labour's proposal to get rid of that requirement and replace with a "cooling off" period is a good thing.
Thinking about it,maybe that's what TRAs mean about "dignity". Not being forces to use womens spaces and "live as a woman" (totally arbitrary nonsense) for their trans status to be taken seriously.

The 'living as a woman' has always been TRA interpretation of what is needed to get a GRC.

Its a diagnosis and two years worth of id in the new gender. Where 'new gender' can only mean name. There has never been a requirement to use womens spaces before a GRC can be issued.

Otherwise, the access to womens spaces would be legal once a man declares he has the PC of Gender Reassignment, not when he has a GRC.

www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate/who-can-apply

You can apply if you meet all of the following requirements:

you’re aged 18 or over
you’ve been diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the UK
you’ve been living in your affirmed gender for at least 2 years
you intend to live in this gender for the rest of your life

you’ve been living in your affirmed gender for at least 2 years

That doesnt say living as the opposite sex, or using opposite sex facilities.

The panel use id to check that the applicant as lived in the aquired gender for two years. That named id - bank statement, payslips, tesco club cards, utility bills, passport,driving licences, credit agreements, anything with the new name on.

again, where did i state men should have dignity and respect but not women? i did not. i stated that people with transphobic views (not GC views) don’t treat them with that.
which is why there is a distinction between being GC and being transphobic.

What does "living in your affirmed gender" mean if not living as the opposite sex?

And how do you "prove living as the opposite sex" if not using facilities for that sex?

And if its genuinely just about changing names on paperwork why do so many people repeatedly say Labour are reforming the GRA to make it "easier"? How much easier can it be than that?

Ooh and I've thought of another....if its that easy to change legal sex now, why didn't KB take an easy win and tighten it up?

So many questions....

And how do you "prove living as the opposite sex" if not using facilities for that sex?
Illinivich just told you, you show utility bills and other paperwork with your new name. Using spaces wouldn't be much proof unless you filmed yourself going into them to keep as evidence.

if its that easy to change legal sex now, why didn't KB take an easy win and tighten it up?
Because it's not an easy win. Making GRCs harder to get, or going the whole hog and repealing the GRA, would be a massive battle. If you can get a similar outcome by keeping the current process for obtaining a GRC, but limiting what they entitle you to, I can see why a politician would go down that route instead.

And how do you "prove living as the opposite sex" if not using facilities for that sex?

No one is asking anyone to prove they live as the opposite sex.

Do you believe that a man has the right to use womens spaces before he is issued with a GRC?

You seem completely unaware of the process.

Yeah I'm gonna vote Tory I think. I've been swinging back and forwards. I want to punish them for their bad behaviour but honestly I think kier will do more damage. The gender thing is a huge deal for me.

To me it's common sense. Biological sex cannot be changed.

We need certain things to be separated based on biological sex... prisons, sport, rape support services, healthcare etc.

It's really not up for debate.

If a leader can't get that right then how will they handle more challenging topics

I think very few MPs understand the whole issue. But, given more time, i think there was enough cross party understanding and an attitude within the conservative party allow the problems to be talked about and solutions found. Although i admit, that could take another 10 years.

Starmer isnt one of those MPs who understands, nor is he a person who will allow those who do a chance to speak let alone work towards solutions.

I think we are going back to pre 2016 in terms of government attitude to trans rights and safeguarding, but the press are more aware now. When safeguarding does fail, the press wont ignore it and starmer will have to do something then.

You keep ignoring the operative line in the government guidance about "living in acquired gender for at least two years".
I'm assuming it's deliberate now, so not much point in further discussion.

I'm not ignoring it. But living in the acquired gender means identity documents in a new name throughout a two year period.

If it meant "using womens spaces", the panel would ask for proof of that, if they wanted them to present in womens clothes, they would ask for that, but they dont.

If men are allowed to use womens spaces before they are issued with a GRC, what process and safeguarding do you think labour politicans are talking about when they say its fair for these men to use womens spaces?

There's precious little safeguarding around the GRC process, but absolutely none around a man stating he intends to undergo gender reassignment sometime in the future.

I'm pretty sure they do ask trans people what spaces they are using.