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/

Ok the first makes sense but with the second we do keep males out of female prisons without issues with the ECHR is that correct?

Does that show that where the gov decides it is doable?

The current law allows males to be kept out of other female spaces where it’s deemed justifiable.

With prisons, the government presumably has access to sufficient records (like GRCs) to know whether-or-not someone is trans or not, making it easier to maintain single sex spaces.

Your average (non-government) service provider, though, does not currently have the means to conclusively determine whether-or-not someone is trans, which is why the question of implementing legal changes is so difficult.

It would seem to require some sort of ID document that confirms a person‘s biological sex, which would most likely run contrary to the right of gender recognition (which includes the right to change sex markers on ID documents).

Perhaps there are other solutions but I’m not clever enough to tell you what they would look like.

To add I don’t think Labour have made anything near a convincing claim in that statement due to not being able to answer those questions

It’s a sop at this point until they clarify

The current law allows males to be kept out of other female spaces where it’s deemed justifiable.

It is possible to be aligned with ECHR but comes down to the concept of justifiable

Labour’s statement could easily apply only to prisons, in fact likely does

The thing is, Labour appear to make all the right noises, but then along comes someone like Angela Eagle making pronouncements which look to destroy safeguarding and the current legal right to believe that people can't change sex. I cannot see how the two can possibly be compatible and it's why many people can't trust Labour.

Also looking incompatible are modernising the GRA and reviewing the EA re biological sex.

It's all a total mess.

What I'm surprised about is that given the intention of the EA to always mean biological sex, and the inclusion of the exceptions (including excluding those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which includes those with a GRC), why there hasn't already been a ECtHR challenge by anybody already excluded under those exceptions who has a GRC, if having a GRC is meant to mean you're treated like you have the biological sex that you wish to have, not that you are.

Which is fine, but it isn’t unique to Labour. The current government can’t (yet) answer them either.

Just a reminder Who's opinions are really being voiced by the Labour Party

I do hear you re trust- but shouldn’t we also recognize, for example, Liz Truss, just a few years ago (while in government) also modernized the GRC process and specifically said “The Government has no interest in changing the current situation where transgender people are able to use facilities of their chosen gender”?

It's usually pretty obvious if somebody if trans though, in reality. Men don't pass as women.

There has been several reported instances of women being harassed in single-sex spaces, due to having been mistaken for transwomen.

Yes, that happened. But time has moved on since then. It's what's happening now and what the parties are saying / doing now which has to be looked at.

You can't look at the past in this matter, where it's moving so quickly in public and government opinion, and use that as a marker as to what will happen in the future. You have to look at the here and now and what each party is doing.

To my mind, the Labour Party are trying to be all things to all people, hence mixed messages and distrust from some of us. The Tories have never given a fuck if they decide to go down a road which they know an(y) element of society won't like, and they appear to be going down the sex-based rights road (belatedly; after sleep walking into the position we're currently in).

Reported where? An unbiased news source (what's good for the goose and all that)?

This doesn’t mean we should have legislation allowing males access

Is your preference single sex spaces or no?

What set up are you advocating?

@ThisQuickFinch thank you for that well considered break down of useful information.

The problem is that unless women refers to biological women only, stating women becomes pointless. Wrt to a GRC - they are also essentially, pointless. People aren’t allowed to ask for them, people don’t have to show them. As someone else said somewhere on MN, Schrodingers GRC.

Nothing is mentioned on Labours website about this issue.

https://labour.org.uk/missions/

This issue may yet be decided by the Court, if For Women Scotland's UKSC appeal goes ahead before whoever is in government gets their shit together.

I actually don't care about Truss' motive as it's sunlight on the issue and exposes the problem to a wider audience. It's a slippery slope exposing motive, given some Labour MPs' shenanigans / proclamations.

On the subject of trust, Labour front benchers stated that they don't want GC members, or those people to vote for them. They haven't publicly apologised for that or said they were wrong to say it. Which means that, as it stands, they don't want GC votes.

So they're sitting on the fence re who they're trying to woo as voters, whilst not renouncing their 'fuck off GC people' statements from previously. Attractive in a political party!

Yes it’s just sunlight and exposure which is fine by me

The most important part is politicians feel they should give answers and not avoid the issue

This gets murkier and murkier. Anthony Watson

‘He did donate directly to the Labour Party but the majority of his donations, 22 in all, were give directly to M.Ps. He directed his monies to those in the running for key leadership positions. Below is a PDF of all his donations ranked in descending order, based on the level of contribution.
Donations Watson
Here is a screen shot showing the top beneficiaries. Angela Eagle and Owen Smith were both attractive targets for Watson, as they were in the Labour Leadership bid. Ditto Yvette Cooper. Dawn Butlerwas, at one point, in the running for the Deputy Leadership. Wes Streeting and Peter Kyle were also recipients..’

https://gendercriticalwoman.blog/2022/04/05/labour-party-anthony-watson/

I appreciate the need for single-sex spaces and think the ECHR’s recent guidance (which admittedly, i haven’t read in full) is probably along the right track in terms of intentions, but I struggle with how it would be implemented or policed and await substantive proposals from lawmakers. I’m not advocating for anything in particular - my “thesis” is that I don’t think the Conservative and Labour frontbenches are currently as far apart on the issue as is often portrayed and, unless all else was equal, it wouldn’t inform how I vote at the next GE.

@ThisQuickFinch

Are you aware of the issues raised in this article, in particular the issues raised as a result of the Haldane judgement which has bearing on the rest of the UK unless there are compelling reasons not to? I am about to go off to bed but happy to discuss later fully

https://www.blackstonechambers.com/documents/Transgender_Issues_in_the_Law_-_2023_in_Review.pdf

paragraph 14 & 15 of particular reference to the issues but in particular -

• theres is no definition of a 'biological woman' under the current wording of the EquA.
• Whilst service providers can exclude on the basis of sex they are likely to fall foul where a male is a legal female by virtue of a GRC, where he has both the pc of sex and of gender reassignment.
• Obviously this needs to be tested at law but service providers will be wary of refusing a legal woman as the Act (as currently drafted) does not protect them.
• Futhermore under current legislation evidence of a GRC cannot be requested (with very limited exceptions).

So I do. not believe that current legal frameworks can exclude males, especially ones who are legal women. Especially in the light of the fact that evidence cannot routinely be required.

Apologies if this isn't as coherent as normal for me but I'm very tired tonight.

But Labour really need to pledge to close these loopholes to assist service providers to exclude all males, if that is indeed their intention.

I think the issue already has very widespread exposure. I doubt there’s a single person in the UK who, previously unaware of the issue, would suddenly have been clued in after Truss’s bill, even if it had been debated.

I wouldn’t at all. It takes events such as Isla Bryson for people to connect, and not everyone will have.

And we are nowhere near clarity and that can come due to public pressure.

It’s more about what fills in trays and if politicians see it does then all good.

You sound more aligned with gender ideology from your posts on not needing sunlight and exposure and this There has been several reported instances of women being harassed in single-sex spaces, due to having been mistaken for transwomen.

Do you work with politicians out of interest?

No, I’m not aligned with gender ideology, and I’m not really sure how you get that from my above quote - particularly in response to someone saying it’s usually obvious if someone is trans or not.

And no, I do not, nor have I ever, worked with politicians.

And, respectfully, I do not want the conversation to be about me. I’m happy to be clear that (of the realistic options), I want Labour to win the next GE, so that’s generally my ”angle” here.

I’m also happy to acknowledge that, even if their current platforms aren’t far apart, many people feel more comfortable with the Tories than Labour on this issue, but I really don’t think the difference between them is anywhere near as stark as the thread title, or the article in the OP, would suggest.

@lifeturnsonadime, thank you for that. It's far clearer than the pages of text from the ECtHR! The issues are now much clearer to me.

I can't believe that FWS referred to 'gender assigned at birth', however, which is what is said. We all know that isn't a term used by GC people.

Can you see how Labour is giving mixed messages though? And that they haven't gone back on saying they don't want GC members or votes?

You haven't given me a source for the harassment of women thought to be men, by the way.

What is your solution for single sex spaces? Do you think they should exist? And do you think TWAW and TMAM?

I can certainly see that Labour have u-turned on self ID, and that u-turn is far more recent than the Tory one. As to mixed messaging, I can’t pretend to have read each and every statement by Labour MPs - if you could point be toward a particular, recent statement that you find troubling, I’d be happy to read.

Without meaning to sound like a “do your own research” type, I’d invite you to google “woman mistaken for trans woman” and I’m sure you’ll very easily find a lot of stories. If you can’t then I’m happy to post a few but it’s difficult and time consuming from my phone (when I switch tabs, I often lose what I’d typed so far).

I don’t have a solution for single sex spaces (I think I’ve made that clear).

I’ve been clear that I think that the law needs to be improved to better protect single sex spaces, so I’m not really sure why you’re asking me if TMAM and TWAW. Truthfully I’m not even sure what those statements are meant to mean in each and every context (I’m not particularly absorbed in the particular ideological debate)

Do I think Starmer’s 99.9% comments are in line with the current law (albeit with the numbers not exact) - yes. Do I think that the protection of single sex spaces necessitates a distinction between biological and legal sex? Also yes. I’ve also never espoused “TWAW” or “TMAM”, though have no problem using people’s preferred pronouns and, in an every day context (not that it often comes up) would probably refer to any particular TM as a man and TW as a woman unless their “transness” was of particular relevance in context - does any of that help, at all?