Labour have committed to single sex spaces

[flumpetto]

Excluding trans

This is a step in the right direction at long last....

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-trans-women-labour-b1924832.html

Sadly I think Ova has nailed it.

@OvaHere

On the party’s policy, he said: “Our position on this has not changed [from the 2019 manifesto].

“What we have said is that Labour would work to update the Gender Recognition Act to enable a process for gender identification.

“And we also continue to support the implementation of the Equality Act, including the single-sex exemption which allows the provision of women-only spaces.”

This just seems to be a rehash of the pre election 2019 situation where they commit to both self ID and single sex spaces. Which is a circle that cannot be squared. What they're also not saying is that their definition of the word woman still includes at least some men. So our version of single sex is unlikely to tally with Labour's.

I fear this is a nothingburger and just Party HQ trying to quash criticism over the treatment of Rosie Duffield whilst not committing to anything that makes real sense.

As ever I hope to be wrong. We'll see.

Agree. I see nothing to be optimistic about here, it's just lawyerly fudge to dissipate the heat over what has happened to Rosie Duffield.

'Sorry no, until they commit fully to biological women only then I don’t believe him.
It would be too easy for them to say TWAW and then we are back to the same old argument'

My thoughts exactly. Just waiting for him to start backpedaling when the inevitable screaming starts. Would love to be present proved wrong.

It's what's known in the trade as constructive ambiguity, something everyone can sign up to because it might mean whatever they want it to mean.

Starmer's prime goal is to restore the electoral college to keep the Corbyds permanently out of the leadership, he hopes.

Until he says the words “biological women only”, I can’t trust him.

Didn't Angela Rayner say the exact opposite thing just 3 days ago on Twitter? She said Labout were fully commited to implementing self -id.

These aren't exclusive, you can have self-ID and exclude trans women even with a GRC from single sex services, but the challenge is a practical one of actual getting organisations to apply it even we've seen they are either too scared to, or falling over themselves to be woke.

I have a feeling you’ve nailed it, ova.

Nothingburger served with a side of fudge.

@Artichokeleaves absolutely.

I just can’t twist them at all. There has been too much damage done - they have tried to give/given so much away already. They still have twonks spouting anti biology nonsense. They still have Student Labour LGBetc groups attacking women.

Nope.

I wouldn't get too excited. It will apply only "in specific circumstances". That's the equivalent of a parent saying "We'll see" when a child asks them for something and the parent doesn't want to come out and say "no".

Well, my ears are pricked up but I would like to hear more about this specific circumstances and how many hoops would have to be jumped through to claim that right.

Maybe he's carefully leaked this fudgeburger to scope out the reactions and see if it's going to get a positive reaction and is worth pursuing - yes it is Keir!

We know it will get a fanatical negative reaction of course, but the fact remains that if one party clearly and unambiguously comes out in favour of sex-based rights and also ideally against genderwoo in schools, they will clean up.

It's only "some" spaces "when justified". They haven't won my vote back yet.

Same here.

but the fact remains that if one party clearly and unambiguously comes out in favour of sex-based rights and also ideally against genderwoo in schools, they will clean up.

I am not sure any party has the guts to do that and, on past and present performance, certainly not the Labour Party.

Restating the law is obviously not new policy. But daring to restate the law is quite a thing. Stonewall's goal is to have everyone read the law as it wants it to be. This is not the law as it wants it to be.
Hopefully poking the wasp nest will show him how bad this has become.
Hopefully we can have conversations now.
Really sad that any of this is the closest we get to a positive development.

This really is not a difficult circle to square.

It takes a bit of compassion, a bit of tact, and some common sense.

If they cant figure this out then every single one of them is a waste of space. The answer is 3 spaces - Male, Female and Unisex. And if somewhere small cant accomodate that then they should all be individual unisex provision like in Starbucks.

Not difficult!

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

It's only "some" spaces "when justified". They haven't won my vote back yet.

Same here.

What will be the justification? Will women have to lay bare their reasons why and those reasons will then be judged by men to see if they are worthy or not?

Just fuck off with your justification Labour and Keir the only justification required is that women say no.

I think it's just the kind a thing a lawyer and politician will say and will make absolutely no difference to RL situations where, for example, lesbians running a lesbian-only event are faced on the day with people who are clearly male-sexed but who self-define as lesbians. Even advertising a women-only event is enough to get the women involved in trouble with the TRAs.

We need to see far firmer rulings on this — and we need to know that the police will uphold women's rights to female-only spaces if it becomes necessary to call them.

@Sophoclesthefox

I have a feeling you’ve nailed it, ova.

Nothingburger served with a side of fudge.

Exactly this

Wait until he defines women and what single sex services mean.
He’s committed to self ID is he not?

What will be the justification? Will women have to lay bare their reasons why and those reasons will then be judged by men to see if they are worthy or not?

Quite. Are women going to have to carry trauma passports or apply for faith exemption and argue for these spaces on a case-by-case basis against the default assumption that a man is who is says he is and can go where he wishes and when he wishes?

@LemonSwan my problem there is that it doesn't cover single sex provision where it's more complicated than toilets. There is never going to be a 'unisex' gynaecology ward to go along with the women's one. And although there is more and more single room provision in the NHS, there's still an awful lot of multi bed provision too, and not just in the UK.

@trumpisagit

Interesting.

I left the Liberal Democrats this week/cancelled my membership.

I explained why (Ed Davey's comments about not protecting women's only spaces).

I received email back focused on trans rights/trans struggles saying
"The struggles of trans & non-binary women are not unrelated to cis-women’s struggles"

CIS?!

The Liberal Democrats really don't get it.

I wonder if Labour do?

Did they mean the double negative?

So they mean "The struggles of trans & non-binary women are related to cis-women’s struggles"?

Or did they mean a single negative:

"The struggles of trans & non-binary women are not related to cis-women’s struggles"

(I’ve now looked at the word struggles too much and it appears to have lost all meaning)

As a PP said, what's interesting about this is that it means they feel they need to try to dissipate the criticism over Rosie Duffield and over the TWAW brigade.
I don't believe it's a substantial change and I think they're still playing semantics but the fact they feel they need to start playing semantics again, might be a tiny good sign.
I can't wait to see what the usual Labour misogynistic loudmouths say because they'll either have to let the cat out the bag and admit this means nothing has changed. Or they'll be frothing.

In case anyone thinks this is relevant, I am a man.

It is a start but why hasn't he condemned the attacks on Rosie Duffield? The Speaker has. Sending her a private text but saying nothing in public is not good enough.

In my view this whole area is still a huge problem for Labour. Many in the party think only in terms of "equality" and "rights" and seem unable to comprehend that sometimes one person's rights may clash with another's. Even if Starmer is genuinely committed to single-sex spaces (and his commitment is highly qualified with the reference to "some specific circumstances"), there will be many in his party who do not follow his lead on this.