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

Yes. Reporting a Times interview, I believe. Starmer either said the words to the Times journalist, who presumably recorded them, or he didn't.

Has he denied saying those words yet?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13591309/Keir-Starmer-says-trans-women-penises-NOT-allowed-female-toilets-JK-Rowling.html

It's not primarily labour's position though is it? It's the current law. Keir was referring to the law.

The law around being legally recognised as women affects a tiny proportion of males who identify as women. Most of them don't have a GRC.

Labour's policy is to make it easier for male people to be women.

That's not the same thing though, is it?

The law already exists to allow people to get a GRC. They want to remove bureaucracy from a legal process. But the legal process isn't actually necessary because people can't be compelled to produce a GRC. So making it easier or not really makes no difference aside from lightening the load on the NHS and civil service - people don't need a GRC to be transgender.

So, we are back around again, to how do other parties intend to police the equality act to ensure that people born male aren't accessing female single sex spaces? We've heard lots and lots about labour - what are the other parties intending to do?

We don't have toilet police now, it's a social contract. I'd personally like the social contract to be clear in that women's toilets are for women, not males of any "gender".

And for toilets you can assume I mean all other women's spaces, services, sports. No encouraging men to use them or get comfortable in them.

But someone said upthread the EA is already clear enough.

So how will amending the EA (which is the only suggestion on the subject that I've heard from the Tory camp) help clear up the social contract?

What suggestions have the other parties put forward that will help make clearer the social contract?

The EA is drafted in a way that puts the responsibility onto the service provider/employer/similar. The exceptions are there but years of TRA propaganda make people nervous to use them.

PS. I am not "the Tory camp" and many of the women here disagreeing with Labour aren't either.

Same. I've only ever voted Labour at a GE (plus I think a couple of votes for greens at local or euro elections). I'm not a Tory. Labour just have a dire attitude and bad policies relating to gender and that's what I want them to change, so that I can vote for them again.

Ok ... So is amending the EA the best way to approach the matter, if the provision already exists but people aren't enforcing it?

I'm not even trying to have an argument, i really am just dying to know what I've missed about HOW all the other parties intend to address this that will actually make a real difference in the real world in areas that women are concerned about? What are they proposing to do?

We've established on this thread that the EA doesn't need to be amended, it just needs to be enforced. So how do they all propose to do it?

I don't want the Tories in power. But I completely agree with you that Labour aren't the answer either. We'll be worse off for generations fighting off the male privilege.

Ok ... So is amending the EA the best way to approach the matter, if the provision already exists but people aren't enforcing it?

It would clarify the situation and get rid of the confusion about whether you can keep MTFs out of female spaces. That's my stance. There are lots of different views, even within the GC movement. People whose opinion I value highly have a different take to me on some of these things.

So how do they all propose to do it?

That's the nub. The genie is out of the bottle.

Comment bookmarked 😁

You can't change societal attitudes overnight. But changes to the EA and things like the School's guidance will help.

Clarify it for who?

The general public have no idea and most don't care.

If a business or service provider isn't abiding by the EA now, why will they suddenly change if the EA is amended?

No parties have any real world solutions to solve the problem of male people in female spaces.

We've established on this thread that the EA doesn't need to be amended, it just needs to be enforced. So how do they all propose to do it?

I don't think we have established that. Some people think that an EA change isn't needed. I think a lot of people who say that are just defending Labour policy because Labour victory is the most important thing to them. That's not a criticism - everyone balances priorities differently and there are lots of mild GCs for whom getting the Tories out is more pressing.

If the EA is amended, in my opinion, service providers will have to weigh up decisions around policy making differently. They are less likely to be worried about unlawfully discrimination by excluding TW, and more likely to be worried about the possibility of unlawfully discriminating against women by advertising a space as single sex while intending to provide a mixed sex one.

How will adding one line to the EA make any tangible difference in the real world? Societal change won't happen from one minor amendment to an existing piece of legislation that most people have no idea about. How will it make anything safer for women if businesses are already not complying with it?

You said the EA already says what it needs to say. I can't get my head around how changing it is therefore the right approach - it needs enforcement. But nobody can answer me as to what all the parties intend to do to enforce it.

I suspect the answer is that none of them do intend to do anything about it so I'm confused as to why Labour are being held to such a higher standard than any other party over this one issue. The Tories are being let off the hook over then saying they'll look at this amendment to the EA - but that won't actually change anything so what good will it do?

I refer to the Tories as they are still likely to be the opposition on Friday. Ive got no idea as to anyone else's political leanings here but i don't think that's relevant anyway.

Firstly having to spend 10 years paying off labours debts. Fact.

Funny old definition of fact you’ve got there.

Clarify it for who?

Everyone. Service providers, people in government departments, trans lobbyists, the public.

People are confused about what the law/policies are.

I'm not sure why you've seen fit to handwave that fact away. If you make the law that sex means biological sex, people will know that things segregated by female sex are for women only.

Nothing because they won't be in power.

There are so many similar posts. I am wondering if it's a desperate attempt by Tories to get their members write on forums like mumsnet.

If the EA is amended, in my opinion, service providers will have to weigh up decisions around policy making differently. They are less likely to be worried about unlawfully discrimination by excluding TW, and more likely to be worried about the possibility of unlawfully discriminating against women by advertising a space as single sex while intending to provide a mixed sex one.

Exactly. I agree. It's not all that needs to be done, but it would be a start.