Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Corbyn and adviser split over biological reality. Times Article

39 replies

Katvonfelttipeyebrows · 03/02/2019 07:49

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corbyn-and-policy-adviser-in-split-over-transgender-women-dz97pw7mq?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1549160612

The comments on Facebook are good. People continue to wake up to what is happening.

Anyone got a share token?

OP posts:
Katvonfelttipeyebrows · 03/02/2019 08:05

Thank you!
Corbyn is such a weak person. What a crazy world we find ourselves in.

OP posts:
LizzieSiddal · 03/02/2019 08:23

The Labour Party said: “We don’t comment on staffing matters. A Labour government will reform the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act 2010 to ensure they protect trans people by changing the protected characteristic of ‘gender assignment’ to ‘gender identitY

That’s all women's spaces fucked then.Angry

Igneococcus · 03/02/2019 08:30

I can't see Labour under Corbyn winning an election despite the state of the other parties.

ErrolTheDragon · 03/02/2019 08:34

That’s all women's spaces fucked then

It really shouldn't be, as long as it's crystal clear that this 'gender identity' characteristic is completely separate from the protected characteristic of sex, and that exemptions to the E.A. which allow for separate facilities for women relate to sex not 'gender identity'.

The more nebulous and wide the gender characteristic is, the further away from the concept of 'sex change', the more obvious that should be.

ChattyLion · 03/02/2019 08:52

Good on you Lachlan Stuart for telling the truth - thank you and I wish more Labour staffers were like you. and good on you The Times for reporting on it.

I don’t want to assume Lachlan’s sex of course.... but let’s assume he is male... I wonder what pile on and punishment will follow for him given what Labour women have faced for saying these same things. Visits from the police maybe? Calls to be expelled from the party? Being placed on a probably illegal data protection-free shitlist designed to kick ‘TERF’s out of Labour?

...What’s that? Voiced in 2017 and Lachlan is still in his normal paid Labour Party job post, you say?

How on earth can this be, Jeremy?

Almost as if the Labour Party can actually really tell very easily who’s a man and who’s a woman isn’t it? Hmm
And that Labour really do seem to use that biological difference as the basis for a being massively sexist and discriminatory? Hmm

GCAcademic · 03/02/2019 08:57

...What’s that? Voiced in 2017 and Lachlan is still in his normal paid Labour Party job post, you say?

Quite. Women subjected to witch hunts, inquisitions, and pushed out of the Party for saying no more than Lachlan has.

Says everything about the entrenched misogyny in Corbyn’s “movement”.

ChattyLion · 03/02/2019 08:58

But I digress:

The Labour Party said: “We don’t comment on staffing matters. A Labour government will reform the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act 2010 to ensure they protect trans people by changing the protected characteristic of ‘gender assignment’ to ‘gender identity’.”

What protections do trans people not already have?
This is a dangerous party policy.
Sex must remain a protected category under the EA and legal self-ID is wrong.

ErrolTheDragon · 03/02/2019 08:58

Surprising news that Corbyn still has a rational advisor left (for now...)

Some good comments on the sunday times piece... apart from the GC ones, I do agree that this should not be what Corbyn should be wasting time thinking about now, with brexit looming.

Barracker · 03/02/2019 09:13

Lachlan is a jolly decent chap and all round good egg.
He's been a brilliant ally for a long time and has had the integrity to hold firm to his beliefs despite the rabid insanity of his party that "TWAW nodebate."

I'm not sure why the story has broken today.
I'm off to twitter to thank him for his courage.

Popchyk · 03/02/2019 09:21

He's been saying this sort of stuff for years. Very measured and reasonable.

Can't think why what he said in 2017 is "news" now.

Must be a campaign afoot to denounce him from within Labour. One of many denunciations that are going on in order to put women and Jews particularly in their place. Men who speak up for women and Jews? We will harass you in order to deter others from doing so.

Really sad to see this in Labour. Even if they did a complete reverse ferret and got rid of Corbyn, I'd never trust them an inch again. This is who they are. Believe it.

Oh, and it is "gender reassignment" in the Equality Act, you dimbos. Not gender assignment.

Victoriapestis · 03/02/2019 09:37

I had a look at the Equality Act after reading this article. I think it is entirely unclear how the exemptions would work if the change to ‘gender identity’ was made. I am not as sanguine as errol.

If Labour want to make a change in this area, then instead of saying what words they want to change in legislation, they should say what policy objectives they want to achieve- for instance, we want all women’s spaces to be open to men who identify as women, we want to ensure women have to accept personal care from men who identify as women, we want to ensure all protections offered to women are also open to men who identify as women, etc.

They don’t do this for 2 reasons. First, because they know these policy objectives are vote losers. And second, because their thoughts are so incoherent they can’t spell out what their policy really is because they don’t know it themselves. They just mouth platitudes about changing particular words and resist at all costs saying what they think the effect of this will be.

Politicians need to be put under pressure to state their objectives, not just opaquely say what words they want to change in legislation. It is their not being honest about this that is allowing TRAs to threaten women’s rights.

ErrolTheDragon · 03/02/2019 09:45

I'm not sanguine about how this might be interpreted(this isn't an area where logic seems to be applied); I'm saying that changing the description re gender characteristics shouldn't have any bearing on sex based exemptions.

howonearthdidwegethere · 03/02/2019 09:54

I'm doubly worried reading that quote from Labour. That's worse than just wanting to amend the GRA to move to sex self-ID.

Rosa Freedman is quite clear that 'gender identity' is too vague a term to hold water as a legal definition. As it is, 'gender reassignment' is pretty vague, given the GRA does not insist on any form of medical or surgical 'reassignment' in order to change legal sex.

OldCrone · 03/02/2019 10:06

As it is, 'gender reassignment' is pretty vague, given the GRA does not insist on any form of medical or surgical 'reassignment' in order to change legal sex.

And the 'gender reassignment' protection starts from the moment the decision to 'change gender' is made - no GRC necessary.

Popchyk · 03/02/2019 10:07

Lewis Moonie, Labour Peer in the House of Lords has this to say on Twitter:

twitter.com/martindufresne/status/1091999831457959937

"Lachlan is 100% correct, and the Labour Party doesn’t know its arse from its elbow on this issue. I begin to question why any sane woman would vote for us at all".

DisrespectfulAdultFemale · 03/02/2019 10:44

I suspect that Labour's "gender identity" is simply a way of saying "sex". Good-bye, sex-based protection for women; hello protection based both on "identity" and "gender" thus doubly ensuring male supremacy and kicking women to the kerb.

happydappy2 · 03/02/2019 10:49

Is strange that a quote from 2 years ago is in the paper today......
However the comments are good-raising awareness.

silentcrow · 03/02/2019 10:58

Yes, I'm curious - and a bit concerned - as to why this has surfaced today, with absolutely no context. How is "advisor says something contentious two years ago" news today?

If it were a novel I'd accuse it of being foreshadowing - something else is coming.

CandidPeel · 03/02/2019 10:59

Yes. The problem with "gender identity" is that it assumes that everyone has one.

So it's not just that a transwoman has the Gender identity "woman", but you have the Gender identity "woman" too. So you share a protected characteristic - - so all the EA2010 exemptions about people who share a protected characteristic will in practice use gender ID rather than sex. The single sex exemptions are already in practice being read as gender.

It would be the nail in the coffin for single sex exemptions

Itssadsometimes · 03/02/2019 11:09

Good.

andyoldlabour · 03/02/2019 11:19

"I begin to question why any sane woman would vote for us at all"

Well Lewis, I think there could be a lot of men who feel the same way, and it will be very interesting if there is a general election this June, because I think a lot of people are aware of this issue, and they are leaving the Labour party.
People, both men and women, who regarded the Labour party as the party of the oppressed, the working class, are now seeing Labour as the party which puts minority rights above all else, particularly above the rights of women, and this is going to come back to bite you.

HaringeyHarpy · 03/02/2019 11:23

OMG

This thread has clarified a few things for me, especially the post by CandidPeel.

CaptainKirksSpookyghost · 03/02/2019 11:28

If it were a novel I'd accuse it of being foreshadowing - something else is coming.

I wonder if the results from a certain consultation are nearing publication.

Barracker · 03/02/2019 11:46

It's more of a failed attempt at a sting, I think.

It's not the first time a TRA has attempted to discredit an eminently reasonable person saying eminently reasonable things. I think it's a rather weak attempt to 'expose' the tweets of someone in labour who has dared to have his own opinion. I expect they collected his most 'shocking' tweets and this is the best they could manage.

I'm not sure the timing is especially significant.

It's a rather good opportunity for people to come out of the woodwork in support of his position, I'd say.