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/

I agree with this. I'd actually go further and say they have made life objectively worse for women and children.

A lot of people basically have to choose between Labour or Tory.

I believe women and children would be much worse off with 7 more years of Tory cuts.

No, sorry, but this is really air-headed (or dishonest).

Of course Labour know what biological sex is (hence; among other things, their view that certain spaces need to be female only - which is currently the case but the legislation needs better specificity, which Labour supports).

Starmer’s 99.9% comment reflects the fact that some males can, and do, obtain Gender Recognition Certificates, which gives them a legal entitlement to be recognized as women.

Sunak can whisper sweet nothings about penises into your ear all you like but that is exactly what they are - nothings - until and unless he commits to repealing the GRA (which would be extremely difficult given the ECHR).

Almost all of them [trans people] just want to live their life in the way that makes them feel comfortable

Can you really not see that there’s no way for trans identifying men to get what makes them feel comfortable — being in women’s spaces, doing their jobs and roles etc — without taking those things from women?

Good lord, air headed. I’ve never been called that before. There’s always a first time. Dishonest, no. It was factual.

‘Of course Labour know what biological sex is’. Also no. Starmer stated that hundreds of thousands of women have penises.

@ThisQuickFinch please don’t say ‘Sunak can whisper sweet nothings about penises in your ear’ ever again. It makes me feel a bit queasy.

I'll try one last time. Would you care to respond to my question?

Oops I forgot about your post. It is not my place to tell people who to vote for.

The truth is that I don’t know who I’ll vote for yet. I won’t be voting Labour.

Sunak can whisper sweet nothings about penises into your ear all you like but that is exactly what they are😂Typical man! 😂

Well played 👏

He didn’t.

I think people underestimate how angry and motivated lobbyists are and how much pressure will be applied to advance gender ideology

They will lobby against the schools guidance and puberty blockers decision and other

Women have made gains, despite some saying stop speaking up, but it concerns me that a receptive party to the lobbying could say yes

That's factually incorrect.

1. he said 99.9% of women don't have penises, not how many do. So you could infer 0.01 have penises but he wasn't giving a definitive number

2. there are 33.75 million women in the UK

3. 0.01% of that is 33,750. Nothing like "hundreds of thousands".

No, we all know how angry a relatively small number of women are.

Male TRA lobbyists

The ones who threaten, write decapitate terfs and punch 70 year olds in the face

I only see women say no. I don’t consent

Some don’t like that obviously. But that’s their issue frankly.

He never said in the U.K.

He didn’t need to. He’s not standing for election in any other country, is he? Or harbouring ambitions to be “world King” like some people.

Agreed. Then with Stonewall on the case with their blatant misogyny, which some misguided organisations bought in to, it’s tricky.

Oh? He said women but didn’t mean those women? Sounds familiar.

They have a strong hold atm but women saying no is not violent, males have shown this

And visual reality tends to puncture pretence

I think this quite incendiary though. There is surely a middle ground between an acceptance of trans people and the other end of the spectrum being puberty blockers/operations at a young age etc. entrenched positions don't help at the end of the day. I hate the way the most banal thread on MN (MIL,cats,parking) almost inevitably has some trans bitching on it. There also obviously has to be some middle ground about women's spaces, and the trans community might find they also have to make some compromises there. But the vitriol gets nobody anywhere.

Yes.

You’ve clicked on this thread so I don’t think you can be surprised it includes discussion on sex based rights

What middle ground do you mean? When it comes to sports, refuges and other single sex spaces?

Which women do you think he didn’t mean? You do realise that if the stats were extrapolated globally the percentage of trans people would be even smaller? It’s a bit of a first world luxury.

I said threads about other things if you'd like to read back.
As for middle ground, I'm sure you'd agree that it'd be entirely ridiculous if I came up with a soundbyte cover all here. That's simply not possible with a subject that is so complex. But I really don't believe hatred benefits anyone.

That was for @EasternStandard

Another side step

Yes it’s complex hence the discussion

Women don’t tend to ‘hate’, they certainly don’t threaten or use violence as males do, they just say no. Because safety, dignity and privacy plus fairness and lowering harm to dc

All valid reasons.