Trans guidance for schools - "that British fudge that so often works"

[ResisterRex]

In The Times. Looks like a Cabinet split may open up. It's not clear where the extra space will come from for the gender neutral toilets. And it won't be statutory guidance either:

Ministers seek compromise on transgender advice for schools

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/006ef0b0-4818-11ed-8558-9a2089c4aed0?shareToken=6b7644896a593dcb3760a4516b1200ec

"A senior government source said: “This never used to be such a divisive issue: people just accepted trans people and got on with it. It only became an issue once the activists got involved and polarised people. We need to get back to that British fudge that so often works.” They added: “In schools we need to find a compromise that works for all pupils, whether that’s having gender-neutral toilets as well or something else.”"

@2fallsfromSSA I'm sure you're into this but if unions - who are discharging a public function- are inducing or directing members to do something against the EQA (Barverman's speech) then that's not lawful. Can something be done about that?

I’m not discounting current polling

THIS MAP IS CURRENT POLLING!

The above is for @lannistunut

I feel we are talking at cross purposes. Current polling has Labour achieving a majority, you seem to feel that is not possible.

To be honest, we are not sure. I don't think they are subject to Judicial Review. I think it would have to be a member or member of staff who was adversely impacted by following their advice. But its a tricky area.

This Guardian article explains it:
theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/02/to-win-an-outright-commons-majority-labour-will-have-to-gamble

If we had a presidential system then current polling would have Starmer beat Truss but we don’t.
You have to apply current polling to a seat by seat basis because we vote for MPs, not the party, not the leader.

As an example the 2015 polling (predicted hung parliament, leaning towards Ed Milliband win) was way off the actual result, which had David Cameron’s Tories win by 99 seats.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35931342.

First past the post is messy and difficult and Labour don’t have enough in the kitty to mount a full £30,000 campaign in 650 seats.

Anyway, this is a massive derail (started by our resident Labour stan!) so I won’t respond again here, the conversation re: school’s safeguarding is too important.

Happy to engage via PM or a different thread - I’m quite nerdy about this having been part of NW Labour election strategy and campaigning for 3 GE and 4 LE, but I have allowed my membership to lapse because I can’t vote for a party that doesn’t allow women freedom of association on the basis of sex, let alone work on their election campaigns!

Braverman's speech itself was a "fudge". It was woolly and lacked the clarity needed for educators.

Just to say: I still don't agree with you, and you're womansplaining to me as I know all the things you mention, but if you look at the blue wall polling I don't think you're adjusting your 'inside your head model' to how much the Tories' are alienating their core vote.

The Tories could pull it back, historically they are effective at that, but right now they are destroying their brand in a way that is profound and not easy to recover.

Those core blue seats are way more likely to swing yellow than red, especially as Labour doesn’t have a strong organisational presence in seats where they are the third (or some times 4th, after the greens) party. See the LE results for a sense of how strong a Labour presence an area with a Tory MP has - hardly any cllrs = hardly any members and no members = no leaflets, no canvassing.

Tories are rich and post all theirs.

Anyway, I don’t really care if you don’t agree, I just think you and Boots come over as a bit naive.

Starmer is no Blair and Truss will likely be replaced before the next GE.

To bring this somewhat back on target, Starmer needs to get a handle on this.
Presume it’s a rogue statement but if there is one thing Brits like less than inflation, it’s paedos and paedo apologists.

Today seems to be a good day to pull out all the stops for a comment from Starmer re: safeguarding kids @2fallsfromSSA

He should be very sensitive to doing the right thing here, he won’t want to attract negative attention after the criticism he got re: Saville and the CPS.
Archive: archive.ph/HAtOi

People who disagree with you are not necessarily naive, it may be that intelligent people view the same data differently.

Everything you are telling me I know.

I fully understand how hard elections are to win, learnt through experience.

Not sure if this is the right thread for this but this is quite a good programme about the stuff that is being taught to children in schools. It's presented by Calvin Robinson and I know he's not everyone's cup of tea but he presents in a pretty neutral way and there are some good measured interviews about PHSE lessons in schools by external and a parent being labelled anti LGBT for asking questions about what is being taught to their child.

Starmer cannot do what is necessary because he is Leader of the Opposition.🤷‍♀️

The Tory party are in government and it's time for the Conservatives to issue clear rules around this. Their wooly, noncommittal statements do not safeguard women and girls. They leave it up to others to find a fudge that will ultimately benefit males at the expense of females. In education. In Justice. In the NHS.

As many on this board have previously said, the TRA movement have been very successful in "capturing" people and institutions, so we can't leave this up to individuals. It's time for the law to intervene.

It's time for the Tory government to deliver for all those who voted for them in the belief that at least they know what a woman is.

Yes, and girls are allowed to wear trousers, boys can wear skirts without any mention of gender/sex change. Toys are all gender neutral, all sports are also gender neutral. Everyone is taught about feminism and why it's important, the history of women as the oppressed sex alongside the facts that women can actually do most things men can do.

I like your suggestions

Starmer needs to get a handle on a Labour policy regarding gender and schools and stop ‘LABOUR LGBT’ rogue tweeting.

That’s definitely not the job of the Tories!

🙄

Well duh!🙄 Of course the Tory party can't stop Labour folk talking shite. That's not their job.

The job of this Conservative Government is legistlation for all of the UK. And atm the Tories know that their policies have fucked the rights of women and girls in the UK. They know they could fix it because they are in government with a huge majority. But, for whatever reason, they aren't doing that. Instead they have suggested a fucking "fudge"?🤯

A fudge in education. And what looks suspiciously like a fudge in the MoJ. The Tories aren't protecting the most vulnerable females in our society because they don't care about women and girls.

Starmer could say he will protect womem's single sex spaces in the morning, it wouldn't make a bit of difference because he isn't in government. And according to you, will never be in government.🤷‍♀️

Christ on a bike, please follow the conversation.

The question was Labour being elected, it was suggested that Starmer needs to get a handle on his party because people hate pedophile apologists more than inflation.

I wouldn't go so far as to say he's a weak leader, but he's not a strong one, and they need someone like that now.

The question was about this shambolic, chaotic, disgrace of a Tory government suggesting a jolly British fudge instead of safeguarding women and girls.

So why isn't Starmer taking a stronger line on speaking out against this government, then? And what would he and Labor do differently? And details, please - not "sunlit uplads and a free unicorn for all!!!" types sentiments. Because at the moment, Labour are not proposing anything. So no reason to vote for them.

Labour at the moment are stuck where poster TooBigForMyBoots is stuck.

Yes, the Tories are bastards. But Labour does not offer any improvement. Labour whinge, but offer no concrete proposals of their own that we can get behind. In any area at the moment. Economy, environment, fiscal policy, society.
Nothing. And where women's rights are concerned, the Tories are slightly ahead, I'm sorry to say, thanks to people like Suella Braverman.

@SimpleName83, I don't know. I don't care. It doesn't matter*.

The Buuut Layyyyburrr shit is tedious now.

What's your priority here?
Women's rights?
Tory support?
Or
Your hurty feelz about Labour?

Fine, you just want to insult me.

I just wish that your Labour party would start producing realistic policies that chime with real life and would benefit the vast majority of ordinary people in this country. Rather than saying, as you do - "B-b-b- ut what can we do??!!!"

There are evidently lots of women on Mumsnet, who would happily vote Labour, and would even go out campaigning for Labour - if only Labour could acknowledge women's rights. But Labour has chosen not to acknowledge women's rights. In fact, it told us to fuck off.

We are willing to cooperate. The Labour party is not.

1. They're not my Labour Party.
2. I haven't insulted you.
3. I want women and children to be safer/ at least as safe as they were before the Tories came to power. What can the Tory party do now? Loads! Because they are in power and have a huge majority.

Then why are you arguing with me, if you agree with me?