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/

But it was under the tories that we had violent male prisoners in women's prisons and men in wonens wards. They started the whole absurdity we're now faced with.

What a shame you can’t be up front.

If you do want self ID and males in female spaces then I think you’re doing women and children a disservice

If you don’t then you owe it to the women who have been speaking up and changing things. For some at personal cost.

Labour started it, if we're being accurate, by introducing the Gender Recognition Act.

“At least there won’t be someone with a penis in the ladies”

The word you are looking for is a “man”. Do you not see how incredibly serious it is for men to access women-only spaces?

Nobody is saying that other issues aren’t important. Why does defending single-sex spaces, thinking it’s important enough to make a voting decision on, and pointing out that the Tories are bit more reliable on this than Labour, get translated as being relaxed about long waiting times in A+E? No easy choices here, but I’ve made one.

I am awaiting each parties manifesto before I make the decision on who to vote for (though I will guarantee it won't be Tory)

I don't owe anything to anybody. I could change my mind about the reality or otherwise of transgenderism between morning and afternoon and it's nobody's business but my own. Again, my point was, I think all this energy would be much better directed towards actual supports for women who are desperately in need rather than droning on about this ad infinitum. It's certainly not feeding or housing anyone.

And women don’t owe it to you where they spend their energy 🤷‍♀️

You obviously want women to stop speaking up for their sex class and harms to children. Tough frankly.

@CaterhamReconstituted I wasn't looking for any word. You must have imagined that I was. Although I thought if I said a person with a penis it makes it obvious as it is what people want acknowledged. We aren't talking about the issue in isolation but the party that is pushing it. If all other issues are equally important I would like to see the party address those issues equally. Not just say "look over there, not here". Each person must make a decision as to which issues are more important.

How many threads have you started on this topic now op? It's getting a bit dull.

Ha at people not knowing how to hide threads

Why do people click on it. There are other topics

Why don’t women just shut their little mouths about the erosion of their sex-based rights eh?

How about harms to children and women from common or garden men? Not enough places in refuges? Things like that? By all means, be as anti trans as you want, but your average woman or child is far more at risk from a romantic partner than a trans person. So logically that is by far the more urgent problem to attack

Not ‘anti trans’

Pro women’s sex based rights

It’s just a basic distinction

Not really. You may as well be honest about it. It's a valid point of view. But as I said earlier, I think it's way down the totem pole as regards threats to women. I'd much rather tackle violent boyfriends and husbands who are battering their girlfriends and wives right now as we speak.

No it wouldn’t be honest to say ‘anti trans’ because that’s your male focus

Mine is for women and children, sex based rights and reducing harm

Don't presume to tell me what my focus is fgs. You don't know me from Adam (or Eve, if you'd prefer). All I am saying, and I have been quite clear, is that trans is a much lower threat than actual violent men who beat and kill women on a regular basis.

So you recognise that women are threatened by violent men! Absolutely. And the erosion of women-only spaces benefits violent men! That is why we talk about it. It is not “anti-trans” to recognise that some demands of the trans lobby are a direct threat to the safety of women.

But that Act was not introduced because of Labour’s policy on gender, but because it was necessary for the UK to comply with rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (particularly, Goodwin v United Kingdom).

The Labour government fought against that case, lost, and so we’re required to introduce legislation.

I don't recall saying that every single demand of the trans lobby should be acquired to without question?

*acquiesced

‘Getting a bit dull’? Women’s rights are not yours or anyone else’s circus.

Exactly.

OP, could you answer my question as to what you want women to do at the next election?

You have made it clear that you don't want us to vote Labour, so what action are you recommending, exactly, in order to help protects women's rights?

I'm not saying that obviously. Just there are multiple threads by the OP about Labour's stance on transgender issues and a whole board where this discussed in great detail. I am not sure why she's started another thread about it.

And no, it isn't about "women's rights". It's about transgender rights and how and where these might impinge on women. I'm getting very fed up with the oversimplification of the complexity of the issue to "womens rights".

Labour have good policies on women's rights. Not that you'd know if if you spent your whole time focusing on trans.

Well quite. Not sure why you want to go around the hamster wheel again what are you hoping to achieve?