Rachel Reeves Today R4 just before 8

[Monitaurus]

Biological facts are important for wome as are single sex spaces. However if you have suffered ( unspecified) difficulties we must be inclusive and the law is clear . Really?

Process of shifting back to science is going to be slow and painful for Labour. Poor Rachel Reeves is fumbling around in fog. Understanding the difference between sex and gender will help enormously. Sitting down and listening hard to some of their GC members would be a huge help

At least she used the B word - biological - but what a waffly answer after days of her colleagues being roasted for this. How does she still think trans only means the tiny cohort of people with gender dysphoria and not all the other NBs, crossdressers, chancers and whatnot? And muddled up sex and gender too.

She did originally fluff the answer and conflate sex and gender, but she ended with:
"I am clear that a woman has certain biological characteristics, but there are also people who were born into a different sex that identifies women and I wouldn't want to exclude them..."
She went on to assert the importance of single sex spaces.
I think it was actually quite a sensible approach. Esp given she won’t have been expecting the question

Just on Sky as well. Labour seem to be having to develop their position day by day, interview by interview.

"If you're a woman like you and I are". But then a large focus on trans. Then "for 99.9% of people your gender is your biology"

Then it's important to have single sex spaces like prisons and refuges. On men being asked if pregnant before a scan: "sounds a little bit odd to me".

Reeves said this wasn't being debated 11 or 12 years ago. But now it is? Couldn't quite make that part out.

Of course she expected the question. Everyone has been asked the same thing.

And this was still quite fudgy.

I like Rachel Reeves, I think she is better than a lot of the current Labour lot. At least she answered the question, unlike Sunak.

I think it was actually quite a sensible approach. Esp given she won’t have been expecting the question

Any MP not expecting this question must be bloody mad! Ever since it was asked in the Senate hearing of Ketanji Brown Jackson, asked of the Labour leader, asked of the Chancellor, why does any MP think they are exempt from being accountable to 50% of the population looking to their elected representatives to protect their rights. it should be a question they are prepared to bloody well answer, and suffer the ridicule when they can't!

So sick of this shit from MPs! It's not like it's a new topic for them to consider, it's been chugging on since the last general election at the very least.

Didn't hear interview but what's in it for Labour taking this stance? The 'Red Wall' voters that they need to win back, won't give two hoots!

Ok ok ok so sex exists and woman does mean adult human female and yes yes they do need single sex spaces BUT to #bekind any person of the male sex who wants to identify as a woman and use female single sex spaces has to be given what they want regardless of the entire female half of the human race.

Cos male people are just more important than female ones. And excluding females is much better than saying no or finding alternatives to male people.

Thanks Rachel, it's getting clearer day by day. Very interesting to see that as sex is beginning to be acknowledged as still existing that we're now getting to the real heart of it, which is that to Labour, sex is a hierarchy and female people are walking resources. Fascinating.

Red Wall women voters don’t want to be in hospital next to men, don’t want women in refuges to have no space from men or women to be pushed out of sport. Rich people who can buy their way out of the NHS and can’t imagine needing to stay in a refuge or access Women’s aid care less in my experience.

The problem is highlighted by James Kirkup here: www.spectator.co.uk/article/starmer-won-t-talk-about-sex-and-gender-that-s-a-problem?fbclid=IwAR3YtRWSTuqujcLR8z2G94CB-ia5z_NyiP03auFZtxxWPtEozWfE6yrG5ks (Hope that link works). But if some women can genuinely have penises in law - it seems to me that the GRA needs proper reform or women without penises need a new collective noun to be used to protect their rights and dignity in law and in life.

I think the more they keep mentioning gender, the more on guard I'm going to be with this.

Rachel Reeves is wrong; the law is very far from clear on this and that's why we're up to our necks in this mess.

Excellent piece by James Kirkup, as ever, though I think he used 'gender' on occasion when 'sex' was what he meant. He must be rivalling Helen Staniland in how many times he's used the word penis.

Do women have penises? No. Not a single woman does. Get used to it, chaps.

Any politician not expecting these questions now must be living under a rock!

I heard this - so much waffle. I think they're trying to row back a bit but they're still trying to please everyone, hence all the tying in knots.

@lanadelgrey

Process of shifting back to science is going to be slow and painful for Labour. Poor Rachel Reeves is fumbling around in fog. Understanding the difference between sex and gender will help enormously. Sitting down and listening hard to some of their GC members would be a huge help

It's useful to think of it as a process of coming back to science. I agree this is going to be a clumsy and painful rollback for them, though. They've got to somehow repudiate the bullshit assertions without losing face.

She was better on Sky. She linked biology and single-sex spaces - prisons, refuges and sports.

She also said she doesn’t want to exclude people like Jamie Wallis from living the life he wants to lead (and I’d agree with that, as carefully as it’s expressed). However, it’s not my views that would exclude JW from the biological category of ‘woman’ - it’s just biology. Sometimes that doesn’t matter. I’m not about to go round telling people they can’t wear a dress or call themselves a woman. But if I’m using a space overseen by a law that says the space is only for females, then it does matter, because if it didn’t, we wouldn’t need the law at all.

Reeves said this wasn't being debated 11 or 12 years ago. But now it is? Couldn't quite make that part out.

I missed this interview.

Can anyone who heard it clarify @RegisterRex's recollection at all? It seems like another evolving Labour claim to keep in our sights.

i.e. is Labour trying to divert from its own GRA 2004? And pretend all this mess started under the Tories in 2010?

Transcript of R4 on Twitter:

twitter.com/anyabike/status/1509425657977135114

Things that leapt out:

'there are people born one gender and ID as another'
first Tory trans MP 'should have the right and opportunity to define himself as he wants to'

So, Labour is still in favour of self-ID

Anya Palmer's much better(!) analysis:

^Executive summary: woman is a sex except when a man strongly identifies as a woman and Rachel wouldn't want to exclude him, biology does matter but he should have the right to define himself as he wants to, but same sex spaces should exist and the law is clear on that.
So: Labour is still not prepared to recognise that women are a sex class, because they are still determined to make that subject to the qualification that men have the right to identify into that class if they want to. Gender trumps sex.
And reading between the lines: Labour still supports making it even easier for men to do that, for example the suggestion that Jamie Wallis should have the right to be treated as a woman even though he has not yet evinced any intention to change anything about himself.
Still no sign that Labour front bench has any understanding that this is not just about the rights of men to self identify as women, but about the right of women who in Labour's scheme of things would be forced to accept or pretend to accept that men can be women if they say so.^

@tabbycatstripy

She was better on Sky. She linked biology and single-sex spaces - prisons, refuges and sports.

She also said she doesn’t want to exclude people like Jamie Wallis from living the life he wants to lead (and I’d agree with that, as carefully as it’s expressed). However, it’s not my views that would exclude JW from the biological category of ‘woman’ - it’s just biology. Sometimes that doesn’t matter. I’m not about to go round telling people they can’t wear a dress or call themselves a woman. But if I’m using a space overseen by a law that says the space is only for females, then it does matter, because if it didn’t, we wouldn’t need the law at all.

Absolutely, @tabby. Biology is not inclusive, and no legal fictions can alter that.

@SpinningTheSeedsOfLove the 11/12 years ago part is at c1:04mins

twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1509439570420633601

Thanks, RegisterRex.

Hmm. Better than I've heard from some. But not at all clear what her personal view is, It sounds like she throws everything into her answer to try to placate both sides, but ends up giving a confused and fudged answer which placates no one.

MH: Why has it been so difficult for KS and for other members of the Lab front bench to have a coherent answer on what a woman is in recent weeks?

RR: I don't accept that. The vast majority of women..

MH: There's been a lot of different answers, KS won't engage with the question

RR: Well, let me answer the question

MH: But it's true, isn't it? There have been different responses to this question, I just wondered why it's difficult?

RR: The vast majority of women share biological attributes, we can go through those different parts of the body, if you like, but there are ALSO people who are born one gender but strongly identify as the other and I don't want to EXCLUDE those people, but biology DOES matter. It is the main determinant of your gender, but if people are born as one sex as we saw yesterday with a Conservative Member of Parliament, the first trans MP, he should have the opportunity to define himself .

MH: But the point is that there HAVE been different answers, I just wondered if you agreed with what Tony Blair has said, that you really need to tackle this, so into it and resolve it, to make it clear where you stand and that's all of you who are on the Lab front bench..

RR: Well, I am clear Mishal, that a woman has certain biological characteristics but there are ALSO people who were born into - as a different sex, that identify as one and I wouldn't want to exclude them. They have gone through difficult times, difficult processes, but it's also important that same sex spaces are also available, whether that's in sport, inrefuges and in prisons and the law is clear on that

@ResisterRex

Transcript of R4 on Twitter:

twitter.com/anyabike/status/1509425657977135114

Things that leapt out:

'there are people born one gender and ID as another'
first Tory trans MP 'should have the right and opportunity to define himself as he wants to'

So, Labour is still in favour of self-ID

Anya Palmer's much better(!) analysis:

^Executive summary: woman is a sex except when a man strongly identifies as a woman and Rachel wouldn't want to exclude him, biology does matter but he should have the right to define himself as he wants to, but same sex spaces should exist and the law is clear on that.
So: Labour is still not prepared to recognise that women are a sex class, because they are still determined to make that subject to the qualification that men have the right to identify into that class if they want to. Gender trumps sex.
And reading between the lines: Labour still supports making it even easier for men to do that, for example the suggestion that Jamie Wallis should have the right to be treated as a woman even though he has not yet evinced any intention to change anything about himself.
Still no sign that Labour front bench has any understanding that this is not just about the rights of men to self identify as women, but about the right of women who in Labour's scheme of things would be forced to accept or pretend to accept that men can be women if they say so.^

It’s the position on self ID I’d like clarity on.

As they’ve obviously learnt to not put their foot in it so much by modifying language but they should be clear on policy at some point.