Middle class biological women prepare to be relegated to being second class citizens by the end of the week

[Mycatsmudge]

The Labour Party is expected to win a huge majority in the GE on Thursday. My fears are their stance on trans rights which are being prioritised over those of biological women and this will risk our safety, opportunities and dignity. I also work in the NHS and read what is happening to the nurses in Darlington with horror.

My other concern is they have not been transparent on their plans on how to raise money for their spending pledges other than say they will invest and reap the benefit of green technology. This is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. I can only conclude we will be taxed even more but stealthy.

Then I read this in their manifesto:
‘Expansion of the Equality Act 2010Labour will implement the socioeconomic protected characteristic of the Equality Act, also the socioeconomic duty under Section 1 of the Equality Act and ensure equality impact assessments of government policy are conducted.5 Jun 2024’
To me this means richer areas will get less money from government for public services than poorer areas. I live in an area which is very boringly middle class but our public services are already cut to the bone(bin collections fortnightly, potholes left for months, all adult evening classes gone) but we still pay a hefty amount of council tax.

So under a Labour government I as a biological woman, working in the NHS on the frontline and will be expected to share our women’s changing rooms with any man with a GRC. I will probably be taxed more as a higher rate taxpayer because the tax bands have stayed static for years and I will expect less public services because I live in the suburbs but my council taxes will most likely increase just to sustain what we already have

If POW were standing in my constituency, I'd do the same.

Thank you @MaidOfAle
I need to do some reading.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes to an extent. The ECHR have determined that transgender people have the human right to be recognized as their chosen gender (including their sex marker on ID documents).

I therefore think it is extremely likely that the ECHR would find any law that blanket bans transgender people from their preferred single sex space, in every instance, as being in violation of the Convention. Such a law would completely undermine the rights that the court had previously found that transgender people have.

Although, to engage your other point - let's say Person A enters into a female-only toilets but Person B thinks that they are male so challenges them as to whether they are allowed to be in the female space. Person A says that they are female but Person B does not believe them; what happens then?

This with bells on

‘Expansion of the Equality Act 2010Labour will implement the socioeconomic protected characteristic of the Equality Act, also the socioeconomic duty under Section 1 of the Equality Act and ensure equality impact assessments of government policy are conducted.5 Jun 2024’
To me this means richer areas will get less money from government for public services than poorer areas. I live in an area which is very boringly middle class but our public services are already cut to the bone(bin collections fortnightly, potholes left for months, all adult evening classes gone) but we still pay a hefty amount of council tax.

I'm sorry that you are feeling the lack of evening classes (!), but do you honestly not think that it's reasonable that richer areas redistribute to poorer areas?

ECHR != ECtHR. Here, you refer to the latter.

Person A says that they are female but Person B does not believe them; what happens then?

In staffed environments, B fetches the staff. In unstaffed environments, well, a mother upthread described the outcome of her DD refusing to use the loo in the presence of males and ending up wetting herself. I question the moral compass of anyone who attempts to defend a male who invades the ladies', knowing that doing so could put a child in that situation.

I also consider it unlikely to be the case that, where A is actually female, the misunderstanding will persist for long. I get "sir" a lot, likewise startled looks in the ladies', and usually me commenting on the weather assures the other person that I'm female because human voice pitch and timbre are very much sexed. The converse is true: I've come across people who I've read as odd-looking women until they've spoken and I've heard a male voice and joined the dots.

Maybe it's just me, but surely a truly socialist, or even just plain compassionate, govt would eliminate poverty instead of enshrining it alongside disability and sex as protected characteristics?

Yes I know ECtHR is more correct - apologies for using the wrong abbreviation but the point still stands.

Your response re the toilets issue hasn't really helped at all. If the person keeps insisting that they are female (perhaps truthfully, but perhaps not), what then? How would the law actually be enforced?

Nobody is going to "eliminate" poverty. We might reduce it. One way of reducing it could be to redistribute from richer areas to poorer areas.

All of which have happened under the Tories. You do know they've had 14 years in power, don't you?

@SnappyBee
I therefore think it is extremely likely that the ECHR would find any law that blanket bans transgender people from their preferred single sex space,

How are you getting from the right to markers on documents to the right to access opposite sex spaces? It's a massive leap. I think If the court had intended access to spaces they would have mentioned that explicitly.

Person B will leave the space because that is what women will do to avoid confrontation with gross men in their single sex spaces.

You may not think evening classes are important but they provide a lifeline for many people whether they are rich or poor. I use to attend several exercises classes a week run by the council. The classes were women only and very well attend by women of all ages (20s-80s)l and often had a waiting list. They were affordable and the instructors made the classes very inclusive. Women who would not normally go to gyms or feel intimidated at mixed venues came along. Some of us have health issues which the classes helped us to manage. It provided the isolated with opportunities to socialise and if someone missed the class especially if they were elderly or vulnerable we would check up on them. I loved meeting people from different backgrounds and ages who I wouldn’t have otherwise met. So those who sneer that evening classes are a luxury I would argue they are in fact essential for building communities, reducing strain on health services and keeping on eye on the elderly and vulnerable.

@Hummingbird75

Developing nations still allow for dignity and privacy, so yes Labour are dragging us back into pre historic times of no privacy or civility.

I apologise, but this is one of the funnier things regarding the election I've read in weeks. Was it sarcasm or for real?

@Hummingbird75

As you well know Starmer is saying you and I could have penises, in fact ANY women can apparently.

That was not what he was saying at all. Maybe read his words again.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom

It should not be a binary choice between the fucking Tories and people who don't accept that women have the right to exist.

Can you provide a link to a statement from Labour regarding the above? It's news to me, and I'm find it a bit alarming, given I'm a woman and all.

That is precisely what he said when pressed.

When asked what a woman is, Tony Blair said:

"What is a woman? Well, it's not a very hard thing for me to answer really. I'm definitely of the school that says, biologically, a woman is with a vagina and a man is with a penis. I think we can say that quite clearly.'

When questioned about it Starmer said: 'Yes, Tony is right about that, he put it very well I saw it reported, I'm not quite sure when he said it, but I agree with him on that.'

So, so many people on Mumsnet haven't actually read, listened to or understood what starmer was saying about the definition of women, they're just blindly following those who keep bleating on about "starmer said women have penises!"

You've completely failed to understand he was talking about the legal position. Not what he personally believes, but about the fact that some males are legally recognised as women.

If he does a u turn now, and says yes, all male born people will be banned from every female space, regardless of the legality of saying that, he will lose hundreds of thousands of leftwing and LQBTQ+ votes. Why would he do that right before an election when he's spent the last few years pulling the labour party back into shape and they're on course for a landslide victory?

Let's all just vote in reform because they "know what a woman is" and we can be USA Lite.

Starmer is actually saying some women have penises.

That is clearly untrue. I think most of us understand that, thanks.

as that poster stated:

You've completely failed to understand he was talking about the legal position. Not what he personally believes, but about the fact that some males are legally recognised as women.

Its not up for debate, it's true, those transwomen/biological males are legally recognised as women. Whether others agree with that being legal or not isn't what he is discussing, it's the plain fact.

Well clearly you don't understand that, because he's right, legally, some male people have a GRC that says they're a woman. That's simply the way it is. And that's happening under the tories. So he's right, you're wrong.

They get aggressively challenged. This has happened to one of my DC who is female but gender non conforming. There would be a lot more of that if the GC single issue voters get their wish. And I got called a liar on FWR for raising it.

Not only did Starmer agree with Blair's definition, he agreed with Duffield, 'biologically, she of course is right about that'.

I'm not sure why, given the evidence to the contrary, you keep repeating the same thing.

@CaptainmyCapta1n
If he does a u turn now, and says yes, all male born people will be banned from every female space, regardless of the legality of saying that, he will lose hundreds of thousands of leftwing and LQBTQ+ votes. Why would he do that right before an election when he's spent the last few years pulling the labour party back into shape and they're on course for a landslide victory?

The flipside of that, is there is nothing currently stopping the likes of rapist Isla Bryson getting released from prison and using women's toilets and changing rooms.
The Tories would clarify the EA that sex means biological sex to make it easier to exclude males without fear of being sued. There is a balance between respecting trans peoples rights to present how they want and be free from discrimination and also protect the rights of women. I think the correct balance is that sex based spaces remain sex based not "gender identity" based.