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?

I left the Labour Party in the last few days over this issue. I was pleasantly surprised to hear this interview. I think it's progress for an official Labour spokesperson to admit that biological sex exists and single sex spaces are justified, albeit with bit of fluffing around. I hope it indicates a change in policy, as it would be astonishingly incompetent for any political party not to be briefing their spokespeople on how to answer this question. I don't think we can expect a sudden move from the previous official poisition of 'everyone can have a cervix' to sanity in one move. But this felt like a good start. I hope I'm not being over-optimistic.

@NancyDrawed

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

This is a mash up. The whole thing but it’s very hard to get clarity eg

‘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’

I think it is over-optimistic. Reeves was always very ambivalent. Streeting still believes TWAW (but acknowledges that there is a legitimate debate about sex versus gender). Duffield is obviously very good on this.

But most of them sound like they’ve been planted upside down.

Reeves did a painful interview in September where it was clear she was reading from notes or a script but was still incoherent. I have no idea what her views are or what she stands for.

twitter.com/LBC/status/1442380463298027520

[quote PronounssheRa]Reeves did a painful interview in September where it was clear she was reading from notes or a script but was still incoherent. I have no idea what her views are or what she stands for.

twitter.com/LBC/status/1442380463298027520[/quote]
Having re-watched that, I am once again hit by how she is literally cannot answer. It really is painful to see her making noises, unable to formulate an answer that she feels won't get her into trouble.

However, what I noticed today, which I didn't in September is that she unintentionally makes her real position clear by saying 'Why are we having to discuss parts of women's anatomy on the radio. I don't feel comfortable talking about women's anatomies and different parts of women's bodies with you, Nick, or frankly with anybody else'

They are trying really hard to find a position that pleases everybody. At some point they are going to realise that it doesn’t really exist.

They need to start talking to people that really understand this. Of course, there’ll be a massive backlash if they do that.

A position that pleases most people probably exists. I’d be happy with people having a legal - but limited - right to change their sex. There could be an amendment to the GRA, not a repeal, so people have the right to change (for example) from female to ‘transgender male’, which would be differentiated in law from ‘male’.

Their legal sex would then be ‘transgender male’.

But this would still need to be based on a medical diagnosis of dysphoria, still need to be accompanied by a period of transitioning, and still wouldn’t come with the right to use single-sex spaces.

I think most people would be fine with that.

But obviously that would raise privacy concerns.

Another question I'd like interviewers to ask. Would Labour / Conservatives / LDs / SNP / Greens support this carrying on, or do they think the data should reflect the legal construction of rape?

www.lbc.co.uk/news/british-transgender-accused-rapists-recorded-female/

A total of 24 of 47 forces asked said that if somebody was arrested or charged with rape or sexual assault, the official record would show their preferred gender identity, rather than their sex at birth. Campaigners say the stance "puts the feelings of a perpetrator of a sexual crime" ahead of those of the victim.

The Home Office Counting Rules, which provide a national standard for the recording of crime, do not contain any advice on the recording of sex or gender, so practices differ at each individual force.

[quote PronounssheRa]Reeves did a painful interview in September where it was clear she was reading from notes or a script but was still incoherent. I have no idea what her views are or what she stands for.

twitter.com/LBC/status/1442380463298027520[/quote]
Yes.

This leaves you with two rather grim possibilities as a voter:

• She does know (and the Labour party knows) what their views are and what they would do once in power but daren't admit it out loud - in which case God help us....

or

• Neither Rachel NOR the Labour party know what their views are or what they stand for either.

I'm not sure which is worse.

Wes Streeting:

twitter.com/Independent/status/1509111941788323845

@tabbycatstripy

A position that pleases most people probably exists. I’d be happy with people having a legal - but limited - right to change their sex. There could be an amendment to the GRA, not a repeal, so people have the right to change (for example) from female to ‘transgender male’, which would be differentiated in law from ‘male’.

Their legal sex would then be ‘transgender male’.

But this would still need to be based on a medical diagnosis of dysphoria, still need to be accompanied by a period of transitioning, and still wouldn’t come with the right to use single-sex spaces.

I think most people would be fine with that.

I'd be wholly behind that.

Legal protections and where needed, additional resources and facilities for transgender male and transgender female people, plus of course NB and all the other many TQ+ gender identities.

AND

sex based rights and spaces, facilities, resources that only those of that sex can use.

Answers that work for and equally respect the access and equality of everyone.

It’s no good saying TWAW but women should have safe sex spaces unless you explain where you are drawing the boundary line. The devil is in the detail. In what circumstances should a transwoman not be treated as a woman/not have access to female sports/changing rooms/toilets/rape centres/hospital wards/women only lists. Otherwise it’s just fudge and waffle. I don’t trust Labour on this unless they spell it out in detail and in black and white.

The frustrating thing about this, as someone's who is desperate to get the Tories out of power, is that I don't think the actual Labour position (if you assume when they say "sex" they actually mean "sex") is all that bad! It's probably where the majority of people in this country are.

The difficulty is that we can't be absolutely sure of that because they refuse to clarify what "sex" is.

'Difficult times, difficult processes', ha! Some don't even bother with the head tilt!
The law is interpreted by some thar just thinking about transitioning, entitles that person as a protected characteristic under gender reassignment. I can't honestly say this interpretation is wrong, although not under the spirit of the law as I would like to understand it. I wonder about the motivation of the people who drafted it and approved it, incompetent or cunning? But where should the line be drawn?

It's absolute bullshit from Reeves.

One minute people are 'born a gender'; and then it's 'born a sex'. Incoherent drivel.

Labour should be attacking the Tories on the (mis)recording of 'female rapists' but instead they're giving the Tories succor.

Never in my fairly long political life have I seen an official Opposition so harmful to itself and others - and I've lived through the 70s and Militant Tendency.

Thanks @JoodyBlue for posting that James Kirkup article. Clear and incisive as ever. I particularly appreciated his use of the phrase “identify themself [as a woman]”. It’s a distinction I plan to adopt in future.

@ResisterRex

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.

For 99.9% of people your gender is your biology. Right

What a cretin.

Rachel Reeves is my constituency MP and is absolutely amazing as a constituency MP.

I'm not sure, though, about this.

I heard the whole interview and I think there was a chink of light actually, what she did acknowledge was this
"Most women share biological similarities, some 'people' are born in the wrong bodies and do not have these biological similarities"

She also offered to list the similarities (yes I know, very big of her) Michelle declined, but I wish she had said go ahead! Perhaps it was too much over breakfast to talk about vaginas.
Nonetheless, there was recognition that we do have biological differences, and that safe spaces for women can be justified.

That is a shift. A small one, but one all the same.

It may not be a U turn yet, but that it is a definite shift to a much more coherent view. I was surprised she actually said that after the Keir debacle.

For what it is worth a solution could be:

Loos, changing rooms, showers, refuges, hospital wards etc all are single sex with unisex always available to transpeople as a matter of law. Biological men can not use women's facilities and it will be protected by law

In prisons all defendants will be placed depending on their biological function. Transpeople and others at risk can be put on the same wings that are often used now. Segregation wings. Or elements of each prison can offer unisex wings with extra care taken to ensure they are monitored. If you would like to put on this wing you must have a proven medical history of more than x years to support your claim.
Women's prison will only house biological women for safety reasons, this will be enshrined in law.

Sports could introduce a trans sphere, where transpeople can compete against each other with a rainbow flag and positive messaging - a little like the olympics when we added less able bodied, in this case you can enter as you please, this would be especially helpful for gender fluid people. Women's sport would be protected by law to stop men from competing unfairly.

As a country we only treat adults - children suspecting they could be trans will be offered counselling support only. Children should be protected by law from being 'treated' as they are too young to make a major decision about their gender before adulthood at the earliest.

How difficult would it be to put this in place? Any political party could take this on with some degree of courage and clarity and make it fair for everyone. One imagines it is coming, as the issue is now featuring on most interviews with political parties. We need to determine how we are going to manage this, as it is not going away as women are not prepared to sacrifice everything inc their own and their children's safety.

"Most women share biological similarities, some 'people' are born in the wrong bodies and do not have these biological similarities"

Yes, step by step we're moving closer to unpacking this properly.

The issues with this line:

• no one is born in the 'wrong body' - this is fantastically insulting to disabled people and means essentially a belief in sexed souls that exist separately to the physical body, and are placed in there by some supreme power that makes mistakes sometimes and puts the wrong sexed soul in the wrong sexed body. This is religion. All religions should be welcomed and accepted but no one can be forced to conform to a religious belief they do not hold. Spaces will be needed for members of this religious belief and other spaces for those who hold different beliefs.

• Biological males are not disabled biological females, are they? The 'this female just has the wrong body' is borrowing heavily from a disability narrative.

• Facilities are separated by sex. Those of the female sex obviously cannot be deprived of their spaces and sex based needs being met to enable male people to have more unlimited freedom of self expression because this would be fantastically sexist.

The limit of gender expression is someone else's sex based rights.

Oh and I forgot this obvious one:

• how do those of the female sex distinguish between a female person trapped inside a male body, and a male person inside a male body who is making use of the narrative of being in the wrong body to access their spaces without good intent?

• What is the difference between these two male bodied people in terms of the experience of the female people using that single sex space ? Is female experience to be predicated on what the male person tells her it is?

‘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 would have been good if she'd been pushed about '... and I wouldn't want to exclude them'.

Exclude them from what?

Assuming 'them' in this sentence to mean transwomen specifically.

From public life? Healthcare? Employment? Costa at 2.15 on a Saturday afternoon? No, I don't want to exclude them from those things either.

Women's sport? Refuges? Prisons? Changing rooms? Yes, they should be excluded from those things. (Which doesn't mean there shouldn't be safe, fair places. It's just that women shouldn't have to give up theirs).

Women's sport? Refuges? Prisons? Changing rooms? Yes, they should be excluded from those things. (Which doesn't mean there shouldn't be safe, fair places. It's just that women shouldn't have to give up theirs)

Particularly as it IS perfectly possible to organise unisex versions of all the above so transpeople have access to privacy as well!
It is not bloody difficult is it!!!

Change a few laws, put a bit of funding in and keep everyone safe!

I can call you Veronica all day long if you want me to, you can use my hairbrush and lip gloss if you like - I don't mind if you want to dance in heels (although you won't catch me doing so) but I draw the line at you having access to loos with my young children. I draw the line at sharing a shower with you where I am at risk. I am not going to run the risk of being raped in a prison cell or on a hospital ward when I am seriously ill and compromised. You can't lower your hormones and pretend there is a level playing field in sports either.

So yes I can be inclusive. Very inclusive but not if my dds are at risk of assault, rape and harm. That is where I draw my lines, and I expect every political party to at the very least offer me that, I have human rights too.