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

It's gaslighting. Ask them about the benefits to women over the past 14 years and there's silence.

Love the fact that the post is directed at middle class women. Always said this was a niche obsession for affluent women with nothing else to worry about. I’m gender critical but this whitewashing of an abysmal corrupt government is sickening. I can only surmise it’s part of the evangelical Christian movement imported from the US, they dislike gays too and women who work and delay marriage and childbirth. Read some of Miriam Cates pronouncements, mind boggling and take us back to the 50s.

no, they haven't been 'unlucky'. The debts have been made worse since they have been in power so that's not a valid point. Pandemic and War have been since 2020, what about the 10 years previous?

They haven't been fire fighting. They've been setting fires and going "LOOK!! AN IMMIGRANT/CORBYN/WOMEN/BENEFITS CLAIMANTS/DISABLED/MUSLIMS HAS CAUSED A FIRE"

It's a single line change.

Under the EA it's illegal to discriminate against someone transing. It's illegal to ask for a GRC. They're not repealing the GRA. This argument is circular.

Labour create enormous debts historically.

The pandemic and wars have been a nightmare to manage due to the COL crisis they created.

I think it is fair to say that this has had a massive impact globally.

I am not worried because... I am not a biological woman.
I am a woman.
Off with this rubbish!
Thanks goodness the 4th is almost here!

historically? yet the Tories have made the debt so much worse. so your point is not valid.
Vote for who you want but don't preach lies and sound bites.

Labour aren't responsible for the world financial crisis. That began in the states and the problems were systemic rather than national. The Tories have created a far bigger financial mess with less to show for it.

COVID was mishandled by the Tories and Johnson and his friends made millions out of it. There were billions wasted on PPE.

The idea wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, just to make it irrelevant to access spaces (just as all the TRA campaigners during the Scottish Self ID debate assured us it already was).

Um yeah, we know. The key part of the sentence is "legal".

The law says someone with a GRC is their acquired gender. How do you lot not understand that's what Keir was talking about?

You sit here in your middle class echo chamber and repeat the same old sound bites at each other over and over again, without ever stopping to think that maybe some parts of this debate (such as listening to what keir said, or what have the tories actually done for women) require a bit more nuance and thought.

Which is a legal minefield. It's not as simple as adding a single line. The EA already protects women's spaces. Self ID from Scotland was blocked because it would have an 'adverse impact' on UK-wide equalities law.

I'm a middle class 'biological woman' and think you're being utterly ridiculous OP.
At a personal level I was better off under Labour and I don't believe that human rights are cake. I don't lose mine by including others.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom

It's really quite simple.

If you believe that a man has the right to become a woman, and in order for him to become a woman you have to redefine a woman as whatever it is that man believes he is feeling in his head, you no longer have a word for female people and therefore female people no longer exist as a recognised category in law and policy.

Labour believe "women" is a mixed sex category and don't seem to agree that we need words for single sex groups, let alone spaces for them.

I was hoping for something more factual than that. No source link then? Just your own interpretation?

No but it does mean legally that they are their acquired gender. You said "give over it doesn't legally stand".

Yes it does.

Im gender critical, i don't believe in gender, i don't agree with the concept of being able to change your gender, but it's not really up to me is it? i can't just ignore or deny the existence of legislation that i don't like.

Edited

I mean you really are showing your true colours here.

Quite telling that you think keir is pro trans simply because he's taken a neutral stance.

I expect you'll be voting reform.

@Hummingbird75

What concerns me is Sir Keir's refusal to acknowledge women do not have penises. Given he is so pro trans and is up to his neck in the activism and the donors, we have no idea what he has promised them, we know for sure however that he refuses to protect biological women.

Sir Keir is a lawyer. As such, he chooses his words carefully. Some people living as women legally (with a GRC) do have penises. He would be inaccurate to state otherwise.

It can be done with a single line. Whether or not that will ever happen is doubtful due to the impending change of govt. Of course these things may be challenged, but the basic principle is sound.

The EA already protects women's spaces - in theory. In practice it doesn't protect them very well, which is why amendments are needed.

If it's that simple, why hasn't it already been done?

Labour have said they'll respect the EA and add clarification. Both Starmer and Streeting have already confirmed that they'll protect the spaces of biological women. Starmer said that exceptions would be made to the GRA for safe spaces.

Keir's latest flip-flopping, and Cabinet policy shambles.

The Labour leader said biological males who have legally transitioned should not enter areas designated for women, insisting those spaces “need to be protected”.

His comments came after two of his frontbenchers refused to say whether someone with a penis should be allowed to use women’s lavatories.

(Telegraph, reporting on Starmer being interviewed by the Times.)

It can be done with a single line?

Are you sure? You can't just write what you want on legislation. The end result might be one line added to a piece of legislation but i don't think it will be as easy as you think. Otherwise surely the Tories would have done it by now?

Also if the legislation in question already gives protection to women's spaces, then it's not the EA that needs amending, it's the policing of it. So why would someone vote for the tories when the action they intend to take (amending the EA) isn't actually the action that NEEDS to be taken?

Have the tories/reform indicated how they will prevent males from accessing female spaces in real terms? Because if the EA already gives protection, then they could be doing this right now and they're not.

What's to stop them saying after they've been elected "actually we've had a look, EA already protects women's spaces, no further action necessary, next".

What's to stop them saying after they've been elected "actually we've had a look, EA already protects women's spaces, no further action necessary, next".

That's exactly what they said up until fairly recently.

The Torygraph you say.

If a male person can be a woman, which is Labour's position, what is the word for a female person and what status do they have in law? What spaces are reserved for them?