Or have Labour totally lost the plot wrt women’s rights?

[Lion400]

Does Starmer really underestimate women this much??

‘Would you vote for a party that promised to let men parade around bollock-naked in women’s changing rooms?

Or a party that was alarmingly blasé about gay kids being ‘corrected’ with drugs and surgery?

Or a party that threatened to clamp down on thoughtcriminals who refer to people with penises and testicles – you know, men – as men?

If not, then don’t vote Labour in the upcoming General Election. Because it’s possible it will pursue all of these petty tyrannical policies’

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/03/13/tyranny-in-drag/

@NoWordForFluffy a lot of people will be absolutely shafted if the tories win this GE but you are actively helping them to win. Because Liz Truss does something you agree with, you’re bloody fawning over the woman who single handedly destroyed the economy. Absolutely bonkers.

You can’t really talk about one without the other. The world doesn’t fit into neat compartments.

You have to compare donations to Labour, not to other parties. Labour's set up is slightly different (or was traditionally, with most money coming from unions).

This explains the history.

Nah. No fawning here.

I'm not actively helping them to win. I'm very happy to vote Labour if they sort this issue out. They're the ones losing my vote, not me actively taking it elsewhere. It's for them to fix, not me to hold my nose to vote for them.

Very much pot calling kettle given the absolute refusal of some on here to see why women's sex-based rights affect so many other issues. Yet we're continually told it's a luxury stance. 🤷‍♀️

Not really. We’re constantly pointing out that issues affecting women are far wider and far reaching than the trans issue, you’re the ones who constantly close down discussion on anything else. You show no interest in poverty, healthcare, education - all impacting more heavily on women.

Oh but remember. They do see it. It just doesn’t suit their narrative to say so. Gosh if they did they’d be in all manner of a quagmire.

This is why Labour Party members won’t answer questions about this subject on our door steps.

This is why they filibustered the issue yesterday.

This is why we have seen no discussion on the matter between the two main parties.

Labour are pretending it doesn’t exist in the hope it will go away.

But they are underestimating women. We won’t shut up and we won’t go away.

Angela Eagle has received over £90,000 in small amounts. It all adds up. (See what I did there!)

It’s still peanuts compared with £15 million.

Anthony Watson has donated to 22 Labour MPs including Wes Streeting and Stella Creasey that s a lot of MPs he's got a hold on. As we keep saying we're talking about labour losing women and why/how is happening. You wanted proof of allegations you've got it in bucket loads

You wanted proof of allegations you've got it in bucket loads

Always followed with an, 'Ah, but...' or 'But what about [insert something about the Tories]'.

I thought you wanted discussion? Clearly that isn’t the case.

Some discussion is worthwhile (see early parts in the thread where open minded people were willing to engage and exchange viewpoints).

Trying to introduce false equivalence, whataboutery, straw men etc isn't discussion. It's diversion tactics.

There have been some excellent posts on this thread. Those by @ThisQuickFinch stand out in their balance and intelligence.

I enjoyed hers too, actually. We agreed that there's nothing which states in law that trans people have to be treated as if they're the sex they wish to be as opposed to the sex they are. Just that their sex markers can be changed if they so wish. But that it's legislatively difficult to square a circle.

Her posts added to the discussion. You may have noticed that I was discussing with her, thereby proving I'm happy to have a discussion (or maybe not, as that goes against your narrative of no discussion). @MrsBennetsPoorNerves was lovely to discuss with too.

I do hope they discuss yesterday’s debacle in tomorrow mornings news discussions.

I was disgusted by the behaviour in parliament. The fact it wasn’t stopped. The fact they were acting like petulant children yet mocking the electorate. The fact they didn’t debate what they were there for.

It was hideous, we vote for and pay for these people. They make me sick.

As the late great Tony Benn said:

‘What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?’

I do hope they discuss yesterday’s debacle in tomorrow mornings news discussions.

I wouldn’t hold your breath. It hasn’t had a single mention in The Telegraph, Times or Guardian today.

I was disgusted by the behaviour in parliament. The fact it wasn’t stopped. The fact they were acting like petulant children yet mocking the electorate. The fact they didn’t debate what they were there for.

It happens on a depressingly regular basis in relation to all types of debates. It shouldn't be allowed at all. So many MPs act like massive toddlers in the Commons.

It was in the Guardian, Independent and Mail yesterday, with a quick Google. Haven't looked any further than the first few results to see if it was in others.

@BIossomtoes it was in the papers and on the Internet. Here are few

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/liz-truss-mps-bill-kemi-badenoch-labour-b2513380.html

news.sky.com/story/amp/liz-truss-furious-after-mps-accused-of-blocking-transgender-reform-bill-13095370

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13201883/Liz-Truss-Labour-ideology-children-MPs-filibuster-women-spaces-gender-trans.html?ico=topics_pagination_mobile

www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/national/24188533.liz-truss-bid-reform-transgender-law-runs-time-mps-filibuster/

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/liz-truss-bid-to-reform-transgender-law-runs-out-of-time-after-mps-filibuster/ar-BB1jXyB9

Pp seems to be missing a lot whilst making odd claims

The BBC are known to have succumbed to some sort of trans ideology rhubarb, so I’d be surprised if they mention it. Still one can hope.
I get the feeling they will behave like Labour behave. And we all know how Labour behave wrt this issue.

Starmer has said, for at least a few years, that he supports the exclusion of transwomen from single-sex spaces in specific circumstances:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-trans-women-labour-b1924832.html

(Which, of course, is what the EA currently provides for but without sufficient clarity).

Labour have supported the government’s efforts to review the EA to provide greater clarify, following the EHRC’s recommendation that the definition of biological sex would improve certain sections of the Act (but not others)

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/labour-welcomes-government-review-equality-act-over-defining-sex-biological

Anneliese Dodds (Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities), said more specifically re clarifying the law:

“We need to recognise that sex and gender are different – as the Equality Act does. We will make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access. Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/24/labour-will-lead-on-reform-of-transgender-rights-and-we-wont-take-lectures-from-the-divisive-tories?CMP=share_btn_tw

I think everyone serious about reform (which includes the current government, but not Liz Truss) is approaching the matter with sufficient care to best ensure that any legal changes will not fall afoul of the ECHR.

I know that you have consistently said that you are unbothered by Truss’s motivations for bringing the current bill but I do think it warrants analysis.

Truss was Minister for Women and Equalities for 3 years and did absolutely nothing to address this issue. Badenoch, the current incumbent, has started the process of reform, and is conducting it in the careful manner that will have ultimately be needed to bring about successful changes to the law (and, again, Labour have expressed that they are on-board). I think everyone who is serious about reform knows that simply changing the law to say sex = biological sex, throughout the Act, is not going to cut it.

Truss is making simplistic, pandering noises, whilst the process of reform is currently being implemented in the necessarily methodical manner, having failed to even try to tackle the matter herself when she had the ability to do so.

Serious efforts to reform the law are worth a heck of a lot more than unworkable proposals (particularly from those who never themselves made any effort, while in office, to bring about change).

Wrt Labour’s statements do you know the answer to these questions?

What spaces? How legally would they keep men with a GRC out?

No - I do not know the answer to either of those questions - if either Labour or the current government knew the answers at this time, I’m sure we’d be hearing about them.

I don’t think anyone (serious) wants to state proposed changes with particularly now, until comfortable as to the legality.

The second question in particular seems really thorny in terms of how any changes to the law could actually be implemented in practice and I doubt there are simple solutions that wouldn’t fall afoul of the ECtHR.