Labour promises to keep single-sex exemptions

[RoyalCorgi]

From the manifesto:

labour.org.uk/manifesto/tackle-poverty-and-inequality/

"Ensure that the single-sex-based exemptions contained in the Equality Act 2010 are understood and fully enforced in service provision."

This is quite something.

Well said Arnold.

Good stuff on Marr, Angela, good stuff. Way to go in fucking up your own election campaign. You fool.

Yeah I don’t see how gender identity is workable. It’s a bit like saying my personality must be a protected characteristic. For instance if someone’s gender identity is not a quantifiable thing - which seems to be what non-binary is - how on earth is it enforceable.

If they do change the Equality Act to gender identity what happens if you have no gender identity?

You will be assigned one and compelled to use it.

And that’s the crux of the matter - men’s gender identities are not up for debate. Women, you’re female now STFU.

Swinson do one and take rayner with you

IIRC, 'updating' the GRA 'but there are the exemptions' was the stance of the conservative party/W&E around the time of the consultation.

This was gradually muted with mumblings of 'unintended consequences' and the long grass waved invitingly as circumstances slowed down the report of the consultation.

I feel like we have been here before, but Labour has not yet reached stage 1.

Labour have shown time and time again just how much they despise women. The front bench can't even hide their distain for women's rights. They lost my vote and my trust.

I hope the likes of Angela Rayner, Dawn Butler et all lose their seats. They don't deserve them, they are not fit to represent the people of this country.

I met Rayner to discuss the GRA. Results not hopeful. makemorenoise.libsyn.com/suffragette-city-radio-extra-one

"there is no way spaces will be permitted to discriminate against trans people."

Except there will, because the Labour Party will have removed the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment".

It might not be possible to exclude somebody from a public facility on the basis of sex, but it would still be possible to mysteriously exclude trans people from employment or membership of a club, because there would be no concept of 'gender reassignment'.

Dawn Butler and Angela Rayner are so focused on affirmation and validation through protected characteristics that they have forgotten why protected characteristics are necessary in the first place.

Dawn Butler and Angela Rayner are so focused on affirmation and validation through protected characteristics that they have forgotten why protected characteristics are necessary in the first place

Well, yes! The very reasons we have, and women fought for, sex segregation in the first place have been forgotten; and are now being actively' disappeared' into an ideology which, at once, is utterly focused on sex, but which at the same time seeks to deny sex exists as a real thing at all.

Being so utterly focused on the suffering and the plight of gender dysphoric people means that all other considerations go straight out of the window. That there may be any conflicts of interest is denied; & the very real facts & consequences of contemporary radical transgenderism are ignored or simply unexamined. Women's discomfort and psychological well being is a secondary or total non issue.

What is going on? It is utterly disconcerting and very bizarre.

Being so utterly focused on the suffering and the plight of gender dysphoric people means that all other considerations go straight out of the window.

Does anyone know what the relative numbers are of the different groups under the trans umbrella?

How many gender dysphoric people are there compared to part-time cross dressers like Philip Bunce and AGP males for example?

Are the gender dysphoric people (those who are truly repulsed by their own sexed bodies and seek physical transition as the only treatment for their distress) heavily outnumbered by the other types? I suspect they are, so the focus on their distress when the main issue is they other types is slightly odd.

Well there are about 5000 people with CRC, which require a gender disphoria diagnosis or actual surgery to get.

The are 500,000 people who identify as transgender.

Are the gender dysphoric people (those who are truly repulsed by their own sexed bodies and seek physical transition as the only treatment for their distress) heavily outnumbered by the other types? I suspect they are, so the focus on their distress when the main issue is they other types is slightly odd

Then there are the high numbers of young lesbians transitioning......

Had a very disconcerting encounter with a Labour party member who was out leafletting this morning. Thing is he struck me as a classic Liberal, and not a Labour party person at all......Anyway - he was utterly focused on those with gender dysphoria ( he said he has worked as a clinical psychologist and understands all about this), and their needs and their rights.

As far as he was concerned feeling that you are in 'the wrong body' means that being born in the wrong body is a real thing; a real possibility not just for that person, but for everyone ( & he claimed to be a scientist - when I questioned the validity of this))......and that most women are "comfortable' with sharing spaces with such people....even though I told him they are not.

It was a very chilling encounter in so many ways.....as he had zero empathy for the 'women's rights' position...and there was a total void between us with him making no effort to reach out or understand at all.....just to rebuff and deny ( that's also my experience with Liberals on this issue).

As far as he was concerned it is about equal rights. That's it! And about the world/women making way to accommodate gender dysphoric people. He sees no conflict of interest; no problems at all.......He also didn't seem to have much in the way of concern about trans kids either...for him it was just about compassion and being kind and understanding.....no questioning of the ideology under-pinning transgenderism at all.

I questioned whether he was really a socialist - as he was coming out with pure Liberalism - he says he's a Socialist Libertarian.

Being so utterly focused on the suffering and the plight of gender dysphoric people means that all other considerations go straight out of the window

I don't think they are concerned about people who suffer from dysphoria.

I think they are more concerned about adhering to queer theory and avoiding wrong speak.

Just been reading about Labour's pledge to compensate women who have been disadvantaged by the change in retirement age, with payments of up to £30,000. Wonder how many men born 1950-1960 will try and cash in by self-IDing as women and I wonder what kind of criteria Labour will apply to them.

Wonder how many men born 1950-1960 will try and cash in by self-IDing as women and I wonder what kind of criteria Labour will apply to them

Good question - even if purely theoretical - you should pose it to your local candidate.

The Labour party seems to have two 'strands' running along - side by side - but oblivious to each other. Women's Rights; WASPI women; women only short-lists etc - and then the mantra TWAW.

There is a thread on Simple Politics (I think) on FB where men are already losing their mind about this issue. Stamping their feet and saying how unfair when men have to work harder/longer/worserer/poor ickle me-er.

TBF there are a few other men giving them a few choice words, but still...

I wonder what kind of criteria Labour will apply to them

I heard an interview with John McDonnell recently and he had no issue whatsoever understanding and specifying that it was women who needed this reparation (that Saint Jezza would magically bestow up on them in his magnificence).

I have no idea how he managed to correctly identify us all. Lucky guess perhaps?

Watched the Andrew Marr - Angela Raynor interview on I Player. She avoided the issue of 'women' throughout - with total focus on the the 'sufferings' of trans people. Kept circling back to 'suicide' 'equality' etc, and totally neglected ( wilfully so, I'd say) to address or even acknowledge the concerns, of women's groups and organisations.

It was like she'd been trained to say what she was saying. No spontaneity or willingness to engage fully with the issue.

The Labour party manifesto, in its section on women and equalities ( the accompanying image shows no women, just a rainbow LGBTQ flag) mentions the safety and dignity of women, but then totally fails to address how this is going to be achieved given its commitment to Self Id. even without Self Id these incursions and risks to women's safety and dignity are already happening.

The Labour party appears not to give a fuck, and it also appears there are now two Labour parties. The Jeremy Corbyn/Momentum wing and the old traditionalists like John McDonnell. Total disconnect is the result.

Are the gender dysphoric people (those who are truly repulsed by their own sexed bodies and seek physical transition as the only treatment for their distress) heavily outnumbered by the other types? I suspect they are, so the focus on their distress when the main issue is they other types is slightly odd.

Have a look here:

www.psychologytoday.com/gb/conditions/gender-dysphoria

Like CaptainKirksSpikeyGhost says, it seems that the those with gender dysphoria (in terms of it being a serious condition) is a very small proportion, in the region of 0.005% of the population versus 0.5% of the population who are said to be transgender.

I assume that gender dysphoria has by now been redefined to be an umbrella term embracing all those from post-operative transsexuals to those who say they experience "gender euphoria".

Good morning, Labour Party.

I see no big hitter has yet come out to clarify and defend the manifesto "compromise" and to enforce party discipline.

When will this happen? I'm going to need someone with unimpeachable authority to do this. John McDonnell? Where are you?

I assume May's Tories went along with the Stonewall line on transgender because they were frightened of missing the zeitgeist and being dubbed the nasty party.

Instead, following consultation results, they realise this issue is more complex and are keeping quiet, leaving Labour exposed to scrutiny. The more problematic it becomes for Labour, the less likely the Tories are to pursue GRA reform during the next parliament. My hope is that it becomes enough of an issue that the Tories instead will seek to clarify and strengthen the Equalities Act. Perhaps that is what we should be saying to Tory canvassers.