How will we ever get these disgraceful Tories out, if Starmer keeps spouting this nonsense?

[HoliHormonalTigerlilly]

I mean,aside from wondering why on earth he's visiting soldiers in Estonia and banging on about TWAW, I am seriously wondering how we will ever get rid of these heartless Tories?

Labour seem intent on alienating half the population 😢

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-women-are-women-says-keir-starmer-in-call-for-legal-reform-6rk9tpxsl

Money is on offer, if people can secure their relatives home by providing care. They get the inheritance. And in families its pretty obvious who'll be expected to protect the inheritance or be seen as selfish
This has always been the case. Plenty of threads on here alone but other forums too about looking after granny so her home doesn't have to be sold for care fees.
Plenty more on how to get granny in care for free and sell her house anyway.

And if you dont own your own home?
You are paid for anyway.

I'm listing all the actual things the Tories have done versus the potential risk of a different party allowing self ID so males can undress next to females.
As I said, if Labour/Lib Dems or Greens made it actual policy to implement self ID, I wouldn't vote for them.
It's only the last couple of years the conservatives have moved position, having previously been TWAW, and I doubt that's because they've suddenly turned feminist

And you are also dismissing and minimising womens real concerns and expecting us to put our priorities behind other issues.

Starmer has made it very clear that he wants to make it easier for men to id as women and all that that implies. He has said that he sees some men as women. Why should we just assume he's lying?

If he can't or won't support women now, why would we believe that he'll suddenly think of womens and girls safety and dignity when in power?

I've no doubt that everyone here would be equally critical of Johnson or any conservative leader if they said the same thing.

Women are allowed to talk and prioritise an issue that's important to them. If political activist don't like that, tough.

Labour have not actually said they will support self ID. Until that happens, to me their actual policies would be better for most women than the Conservatives.

From the 2019 Labour Party manifesto...

Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people..

I've seen nothing since to suggest they've had a change of heart.

Not a cat in hells chance I'm voting Tory. I am not a turkey, thank you.

Spot the Labour voter; insult anyone with a different opinion to you.

I've never voted Tory but I will at the next election because of this issue. I will not vote Labour because they are treating women with contempt and the people who vote for them appear to treat the non Labour voting electorate with contempt. It's a hard no from me just in case it's contagious.

There is an answer to this, although it's not an easy one. Women need to join the left wing parties and get involved.

Like Karen Ingala Smith from the Femicide Census tried to? kareningalasmith.com/2020/06/27/why-i-was-rejected-for-labour-party-membership-and-my-response/

Labour don't want "people like us" any more than the Lib Dems or the Greens.

I am so so tired of parties thinking they can shit all over women's rights and still expect out support because we'll put other priorities first

Me too but to be honest for the last however long, we have accepted that after the revolution itll be our turn. We have been the tea maker and walked the streets to post flyers, engage with the man on the street in order to get through the revolution.

Problem is with this issue it's far too important and come at the wrong time. We are sick of being told to wait our turn til the men have spoken and we cannot let this become a legal thing.
Someone somewhere took women for granted. They obviously thought because we had stood up for every other minority that this would be a cake walk to sell to us.
Well I'm not sold and I'm fucking angry that we have to start and fund court cases to regain what we already had.
And yet more galling, we get called names now, after we've done our part for all minorities but balk at this which is as fundamental as it gets.

@FOJN

Labour have not actually said they will support self ID. Until that happens, to me their actual policies would be better for most women than the Conservatives.

From the 2019 Labour Party manifesto...

Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people..

I've seen nothing since to suggest they've had a change of heart.

Not a cat in hells chance I'm voting Tory. I am not a turkey, thank you.

Spot the Labour voter; insult anyone with a different opinion to you.

I've never voted Tory but I will at the next election because of this issue. I will not vote Labour because they are treating women with contempt and the people who vote for them appear to treat the non Labour voting electorate with contempt. It's a hard no from me just in case it's contagious.

Someone cleverer than me will remember Stephen Whittle going on record saying that Stonewall et al and the drivers of all this just needed to wait for Labour to win an election. They had all the guarantees and promises made out of sight without accountability in back rooms over cosy cups of tea, and they don't have the slightest doubt. The quote exists somewhere.

Women's equality is absolutely fucked if one of the captured parties gains power. Spoiling papers... yes it makes a gesture and it hands the responsibility to others. I shall be voting tactically to try and keep the candidates most dangerous to women's rights out of office. And as Whittle so smugly points out; they only have to win once. Women have to bloody try over and over and over and over again and never rest, because no one else gives the faintest toss about them.

Good post Artichoke and absolutely agree with this

And as Whittle so smugly points out; they only have to win once. Women have to bloody try over and over and over and over again and never rest, because no one else gives the faintest toss about them.

Please don't. Tories are no friends to women either.

People always say this, but then you get an actually good speech in the house by a person who clearly understands this issue and cares about it, and guess what - chance are it's a Tory. And by chances I mean almost certainly.

If MPs, of whatever stripe, who actually are willing to support material reality on this issue, get votes, that will send a message. Maybe at some point, the LP will actually clue in.

And as Whittle so smugly points out; they only have to win once.
Actually, I don't think that's true.
I think if self ID (A TORY POLICY) comes in itll be overturned at somepoint , once its seen to not work and disadvantage women.

@Kendodd

And as Whittle so smugly points out; they only have to win once. Actually, I don't think that's true. I think if self ID (A TORY POLICY) comes in itll be overturned at somepoint , once its seen to not work and disadvantage women.

Which bit isnt true? SW definitely said about backroom deals already set

If the policy of self id comes in then women will suffer.
How many women will have to suffer?
How many suffering is too many?
How long to change a law?
How long to change a mindset after a law has been in place for 1 year? 2 years? 10 years?

We cannot afford to let this through.

Self Id was not a Tory policy, what makes you think it was?

@MalagaNights

I love the notion people cling to on these boards that it is some sort of aberration that the labour party are on the wrong side of this.

This is the pinnacle of, & final absurdity of the identity politics that the labour party stand for.

I don't understand how so many cling to all the other destructive unevidenced divisive identity politics but think this is somehow different.

It's different in scope but not in the logic: there are hierarchies of identity groups based on power, we must argue about who is the biggest victim and attack the oppressors.

Of course this gender ideology fits with the labour party.

Boris is weak and unreliable, the Tory party are self serving inepts mostly, but they are the party who base policy on pragmatic reality and not utopian ideology which is why they're more resistant to this.

Posts on here are hilarious with the confusion: but of course the uptopian ideology of identity politics is righteous, but in this case it seems to be going very wrong for us?? What to do??

Recognise that facts above idealism are necessary after all and not just meany Tories 🤯🤯🤣

Yeah, I think this is it.

Identity politics are toxic, and frankly against any kind of traditional leftism. It's altogether different than what someone engaged with an old-school leftist position would accept as a good policy approach.

While seriously problematic in itself, this issue is symbolic of a more serious ideological problem in the Labour party, that is completely antithetical to a functioning liberal democracy.

Pragmatism is a great protection in many ways. The Conservatives have rather poor leadership at the moment (though unlike some I don't think BJ is in fact stupid) and they are all to enthralled with neoliberalism which is in no way actually conservative. But they are practical. Practical in that if BJ becomes too much of a liability they will get rid of him, in that they will not knowingly pursue a policy that will make them unelectable, and there is something reassuring about that - it suggests that they are likely even in other areas, like international relations, to base their actions on the political realities of the situation.

I would love to see other political groups emerge that were not so immersed in identity politics, but it really seems to have taken over the mainstream left.

@ScrollingLeaves

To be fair to Sajid Javid, it may be that his own home (immigrant family who were not rich at all) was one where it was taken for granted that family members would be cared for at home.

This may be unrealistic in modern times, and definitely depends on unpaid women, but family care would be nice in an ideal world.

There are lots of good reasons to think that family care is preferential to institutional care for the elderly. To think of it as purely a women's issue is pretty shallow, I think, but if that's the road there are a lot more elderly women in care than men.

It's not good policy if it doesn't address how to make it work, but that's not a failure around women's issues as such.

“The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) provides a procedure for a person to apply for a gender recognition certificate (GRC). Most applicants must provide two medical reports, evidencing a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and outlining details of any treatment received
The consequence of receiving a GRC is that the applicant is treated in the eyes of the law as being of their acquired gender.
In January 2016, the Women and Equalities Committee published a report on Transgender Equality. The report criticised the GRA for its dated “medicalised approach” and recommended reform in line with the principles of gender self-identification.”

@BluerThanRobinsEggs

There is an answer to this, although it's not an easy one. Women need to join the left wing parties and get involved.

Like Karen Ingala Smith from the Femicide Census tried to? kareningalasmith.com/2020/06/27/why-i-was-rejected-for-labour-party-membership-and-my-response/

Labour don't want "people like us" any more than the Lib Dems or the Greens.

I do think that women should consider seriously getting involved at the political party level. It's by far the more direct way to influence things like the policies and leadership that we get offered in elections.

And that goes for whatever party women feel they can and should join.

That being said, on that basis some years ago I joined the Green Party in my country, and eventually I left over this and other identity politics related issues. The thing I most valued about the Greens, apart from the fact that they seemed to look a little deeper into the origins of some social problems rather than simply wanting to band-aid them with social programs, was the fact that they do not whip their MPs, and expect them to represent the views of the constituents who voted them in. Which I think is fundamental to our system.

Right up until there was a bit of a controversy and the leader made it clear that they would achieve the same thing by other means if it means doing something that party members found upsetting.

I've somewhat come to the conclusion that there may be more room for influence within conservative parties around moving to a more pre-Thatcher approach to things like investment in infrastructure and social programs. There has already, in my country, been increased support from legislation around union and worker rights in the Conservative Party.

All of which to say - that is an avenue worth considering as well, that may in the end be more effective than trying to move Labour away from identity politics.

Wasn’t sure where to post this, but an update today from the Labour Party’s latest NEC Equalities sub-committee meeting:

www.annblack.co.uk/nec-update-march-2022/

Interesting bit: “ We continue asking for a code of conduct on transphobia but were informed that the party is awaiting the outcome of multiple legal cases.” I infer that this means those at the top are very aware of Maya’s case and others (which ones might they be referring to? I don’t know what happened with the challenge to the legality of TW on all women shortlists).

The concerning bit: “I was also disturbed to discover that emails which the sender believes to be private are treated in the same way as public postings on social media. So a word of advice: if you get angry about repeated requests from “Keir” or “Angela” for money or support, watch what you say. Your response will not be read by Keir or Angela but by staff, who may report it if you express unacceptable views, and you may be suspended or worse. And so-called private WhatsApp groups are not private either. You have been warned.”

I doubt this is directly about sex-based concerns - I suspect the writer is warning those who write frustrated/“abusive”emails to or about the current leadership. But it is worrying for anyone who is still a member of the Labour Party who writes expressing concerns about the party’s approach to sex based rights. I have always assumed that many such emails don’t make it to the named recipients and are dealt with by staffers. If the culture is now one where those emails can form the basis of complaints that’s deeply concerning.

Interesting thread in Chat.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4503978-Being-curious-how-many-of-you-are-thinking-to-vote-Labour-in-May-election-just-as-a-revenge-to-the-superiority-that-carried-by-Tory

@DelurkingLawyer

Wasn’t sure where to post this, but an update today from the Labour Party’s latest NEC Equalities sub-committee meeting:

www.annblack.co.uk/nec-update-march-2022/

Interesting bit: “ We continue asking for a code of conduct on transphobia but were informed that the party is awaiting the outcome of multiple legal cases.” I infer that this means those at the top are very aware of Maya’s case and others (which ones might they be referring to? I don’t know what happened with the challenge to the legality of TW on all women shortlists).

The concerning bit: “I was also disturbed to discover that emails which the sender believes to be private are treated in the same way as public postings on social media. So a word of advice: if you get angry about repeated requests from “Keir” or “Angela” for money or support, watch what you say. Your response will not be read by Keir or Angela but by staff, who may report it if you express unacceptable views, and you may be suspended or worse. And so-called private WhatsApp groups are not private either. You have been warned.”

I doubt this is directly about sex-based concerns - I suspect the writer is warning those who write frustrated/“abusive”emails to or about the current leadership. But it is worrying for anyone who is still a member of the Labour Party who writes expressing concerns about the party’s approach to sex based rights. I have always assumed that many such emails don’t make it to the named recipients and are dealt with by staffers. If the culture is now one where those emails can form the basis of complaints that’s deeply concerning.

They would have to start with a definition of what transphobia actually is.

And since it will turn out to be a vague mix of:

• stating material reality
• believing in biological fact
• pointing out where women's rights are incompatible
• maintaining responsibility for standard safeguarding, duty of care and due diligence
• saying that inclusion and kindness and accessibility for females must be equally important to the wishes of male people who transition
• female people saying no and maintaining boundaries based on their bodily autonomy, consent and requiring equal consideration of privacy, dignity and voiced experience to those of TQ+ male people
• saying things that someone doesn't like hearing

It's either going to end up looking completely batshit and rendering the party unelectable on multiple grounds, or agreeing that actual 'transphobia' is rare and not just people saying things like 'other people have rights too and we need to find solutions that work for all, not just TQ+ male people'.

@Terfydactyl

Self Id was not a Tory policy, what makes you think it was?
More to the point, why do you and almost everyone else think it isn't? Genuine question. Why has self ID, a TORY policy managed to damage every party EXCEPT the Tories.

In 2016, the House of Commons' Women and Equalities Committee issued a report recommending that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 be updated "in line with the principles of gender self-declaration".[133] Later in 2016, in England and Wales, a proposal was developed under Theresa May's government to revise the Act to introduce self-identification, but it was dropped in 2020 after opposition. Instead, Boris Johnson's government reduced the cost of application to £5, and the procedure to apply was moved online.[4][6]

[quote Kendodd]**@Terfydactyl

Self Id was not a Tory policy, what makes you think it was?
More to the point, why do you and almost everyone else think it isn't? Genuine question. Why has self ID, a TORY policy managed to damage every party EXCEPT the Tories.

In 2016, the House of Commons' Women and Equalities Committee issued a report recommending that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 be updated "in line with the principles of gender self-declaration".[133] Later in 2016, in England and Wales, a proposal was developed under Theresa May's government to revise the Act to introduce self-identification, but it was dropped in 2020 after opposition. Instead, Boris Johnson's government reduced the cost of application to £5, and the procedure to apply was moved online.[4][6][/quote]
I sort of get where this is coming from now but I know the history and I (and many others) saw this coming back in about 2002 for me. Back when unless my memory is totes shite labour were in power.

Now obviously your going to say no way it's from 2016, but I guarantee you it started way way before then.

So I stand by it's a labour policy and it's been nudged along by labour and momentum and interested parties until it finally reached a tipping point around 6 years ago.

So, self ID, proposed by Teresa May's government, after six years of Tory rule, was a Labour policy.
I just don't know what to say to that.

I don't get the question. Yes, the Tories initially were positive to the idea of self-id. As were many women including some on the thread now.

They have backed off, and also allow their MPs to speak their mind on the issue. Some have been pretty active in speaking against it.

Labour and the other left parties OTOH have embraced it, say they will implement it, say things like you shouldn't say only a woman has a cervix, silence and even expel MPs and members who do not agree, and told voters that if they disagreed, they did not want their votes.

What are people not seeing here?

And yet Boris Johnson, just two years ago, made it considerably easier to get a GRC.

I've written to all the main parties about self ID tbh it was a long time ago and I can't really remember what they wrote back. I wrote more to try to add weight to numbers than for a reply. Anyway, none of them wrote back saying they don't want my vote (I would have remembered that). I think most wrote back waffle about considering all positions blar, blar, blar. I don't remember any concrete twaw reply.

In 2016, the House of Commons' Women and Equalities Committee issued a report recommending that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 be updated "in line with the principles of gender self-declaration".[133] Later in 2016, in England and Wales, a proposal was developed under Theresa May's government to revise the Act to introduce self-identification, but it was dropped in 2020 after opposition. Instead, Boris Johnson's government reduced the cost of application to £5, and the procedure to apply was moved online.[4][6]

The crucial bit is in bold.

The Conservatives (or at least some in the party) are embarrassed by their previous stance on gay rights in past decades. Public opinion on homosexuality has shifted significantly and same-sex marriage was eventually successful. As a result, many politicians across all parties think that 'trans' and 'gender identity' issues are exactly the same as the gay rights movement. They are scared of being called homophobic and gender identity activists love to exploit this fear.

The advice in the Denton's report tells gender identity activists to massage the egos of all politicians - tell them they will be on the right side of history by supporting self-id. Lots of lobbying in the background away from public scrutiny and transparency - attaching the controversial trans stuff to issues that have much wider public acceptance like gay marriage.

Most politicians love the thought of 'making a name for themselves' and self-id initially looks like an easy win. Like other parties, the Conservatives jumped on the trans bandwagon because they thought it wouldn't take much effort to implement self-id and it would be an easy win to make them look progressive since the gender identity brigade keeps telling everyone it's no big deal.

The important bit is that even though the Conservatives thought self-id was an easy win, they responded to opposition. Some have clearly grasped the harms to women and children emanating from this ideology. And overall the party is SMART enough to realise that self-id isn't a vote winner. Staying in power is important to the Conservative party and I can't fault them for that. It's what I'd expect from any political party of substance. Once they realised self-id was going to be a political shitshow, the leadership was clever enough to change course. Reducing the fee to a fiver and switching to online applications was a stroke of genius. How are the gender zealots going to screech about the 'trauma' and 'degradation' of such a process now? They will have to find another hyperbolic angle.

Yes there are still politicians within the Conservative party that want to push for self-id, but opposition to them is getting vocal.
I have no doubt that if Labour were in power, self-id would have been steamrolled through. Leadership appears to be consistently spineless, unable to push back against zealots even though it is clear that public support is not there for these wacky ideas. If this is what the party is like without power, it doesn't inspire confidence in people that they can handle the pressures of being in power.

Labour doesn't come across as a serious party. Much of UK voters are fairly centrist and socially conservative. The public perception is that the Labour party is focused on trendy activism that is popular with its niche, affluent supporters and prefers 'purity' over pragmatism.
Research repeatedly shows this is the public perception but the Labour party just cannot acknowledge this for some reason.
They are hamstrung by their over-reliance on divisive identity politics that spans much more than just the gender identity stuff, and the Conservatives are smart enough to exploit that for their own benefit.

And as for this -

How many women will have to suffer?
How many suffering is too many?

Right back at you.
How many rape victims going without justice under the Tories cuts to police and justice services is to many? 96%? 98%? How many is too many?