Starmer may make the Labour Party electable

[oviraptor21]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4a822cec-9577-11ed-a130-baced48eb788?shareToken=a70de80a5b17f9807a092d10dae5bcfe

The Labour leader said: “Sex based rights matter, and we must preserve all those wins that we’ve had for women over many years and including safe spaces for women.”

Starmer has done good work on domestic abuse etc. I do believe he cares about female safety and, given his previous job, probably has a better idea than most men about the cost to women.

I don't know if it is possible to put this genie back in the bottle - the misogynistic one that queer theory and stonewall etc have released. I feel too many kinksters and opportunistic men have had enough of a taste of a free reign to ever relinquish it. So I do think the equality act needs clarification that sex means biological sex.

But ... will this mean a tiny number of old-school trans women who previously had access to those spaces via the longer GRC process, will now not be able to access them? I don't know why I'm being so slow on this, but is this why the TRAs claim we are trying to take transgender rights away?

I've been following this obsessively and with growing despair, for five years now, but for some reason that penny didn't drop.

I am not aware of the visceral anger that women currently have ever being directed at trans women using our spaces in the past. I thought our safety issues were recent, and as a result of the crap queer ideology set free.

I have no idea why this was deleted, even after checking the guidelines.

Fuck off Starmer - we just don't trust you

As long as he believes TWAW, the safe space stuff is bullshit. He had to state explicitly "biological/natal women only". He can then talk about safe third spaces all he likes. But 100% of women are natal women.

Realistically though, I think he'll always state what is 'factual' in terms of the law, and I don't think he'll ever be a full-on GC activist. And given he's likely to be the next PM, it seems self-defeating for women to dismiss him on just those specific points.

But he didn't. He stated a very biased, legally dubious, truncated version of a transwoman's legal status and was visibly sacred to agree that only women have a cervix. We shouldn't go round saying such nastiness, apparently.

Excellent band name though - Labour's Shitty Sex Fudge.

I don't think he realises how angry women are about this constant picking away at their rights. However I have no doubt that having Kelly Jay Keen standing against him is going to really focus his mind there.

He’s so weak. Just waffle

And as for it being self defeating it depends on how you view the law stating unequivocally that some men are women for all intents and purposes and that any woman who disagrees could.be prosecuted.

This ridiculousness would impact every aspect of everyone's lives. Employment, healthcare etc would have absolutely no way of collecting meaningful data, measuring the needs for provision of sex based medicines.

Imagine prostate or cervical cancer funding allocation when you have no accurate idea of the sex of the population. Let alone how you'd avoid wasting time and money inviting transmen for prostate screening, transwomen for smear tests - which already happens!

And as for it being self defeating it depends on how you view the law stating unequivocally that some men are women for all intents and purposes and that any woman who disagrees could.be prosecuted.

What I'm trying to work through is ... hasn't the law been that way for years now? Why wasn't there a similar groundswell of outrage when that law was being created? Or was there? How the hell did I miss that?

I'm not being goady ... I'm trying to understand.

I, personally, wasn't aware of massive outrage from women at the time of the GRC and I'm a news junkie. Also, was there similar anger and arguments for the equality act to define sex to be biological sex at the time it was drafted?

Is the fight now to address what's happening with self-Id and safety for children, but also go further back and amend laws that previously were not widely viewed as a potential violation of womens rights?

It has never been a 'right' for males with TQ+ identities to enter female spaces, it was introduced by males for other males without ever bothering to consult women, and passed through Hansard on the ground of there being so few of them that the impact on women could be brushed off.

It's been pushed until it broke. The good will has gone. It was not women who pushed and broke it.

Yes, it will eventually have to mean that there are female only spaces (re) introduced, in essence what will have to happen is third spaces where there is a mixed sex 'womans space' for anyone of either sex who wants it, and a female only space meaning female at birth and not identifying out of being female so that female people who need female only spaces are not excluded. And yes, this will mean that some male people will have to come to terms with there being female only spaces not open and available to them, and dealing with it.

The only fair solution is that everyone has equality of access and consideration.

The current male chosen solution of 'males do whatever they want and some females get excluded and harmed and that's ok if the males are happy' is just sexist insanity. And it will have to end. And yes, to some male people that will feel like deprivation.

It will still not be up to women to sacrifice the interests of other women to make them happy.

Agree re Mandelson being an advisor. I heard him speaking on R4 just before Xmas where he said they needed to stop chasing culture war ideologies.

The Scottish legislation has meant he’s had an early opportunity to start talking sensibly about women's safety. Thank you Nichola!

I wouldn't call Mandelson 'sensible' .... having read his biography I could think of several descriptive terms and armchair psychology conclusions, but 'sensible' would really not be one of them.

Seeing another useful puppet he can put into power and operate from behind the scenes might be one. This is the man who wanted the 'post democratic era' remember.

I suppose they have realised that even dishwater Rishi is getting a good press re the Scottish nonsense. But I don’t think they are prepared to countenance even a suggestion that TWANW.

I’m in despair, actually. The Conservatives are just corrupt, Labour are in thrall to a number of dodgy concepts and the LibDems……😡🥺

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1501654/Boris-Johnson-GB-News-latest-Conservative-Party-speech-woke-cancel-culture-woman-cervix-vn/amp

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4517255-JHB-asks-Rishi-Sunak-what-is-a-woman

He talks about the economy all the time. He only talks about trans rights when people bring it up - and good because we need to know because trans rights impact on womens rights. Rachel Reeves is respected across the board. The Tories literally took us to the brink of economic meltdown & are directly resonsible for the extra % on our mortgages etc!! Who on earth can you vote for if you want a stable economy?

That's because we have always been able to say "No. This is a single sex service" until about 7 or 8 years ago.

About then it became apparent that some men, TRAs, Stonewall etc were demanding the dismantling of single sex provision - Stonewall said as much to a government select committee, the submission is easily available on their website.

Which is why places like the rape crisis centre I work for lost funding... Our insistence on remaining by women for women, all women but no men, ever, lost us about 40% of our funding for almost 5 years. And I mean Lottery funding and other mainstream funding streams.

This kind of thing has made many women look again at what is being asked/demanded of us and the reality of some of it, like Stonewall actions, has led to many now saying No!

Fucksake, Samphire, that's awful.

I don’t know how I’ve been following this so intensively for so long and haven’t teased these details out properly. I actually feel a bit sick.

I just checked dates: GRC - 2004. Correct me if I’m wrong: this allows a man to identify as a women via a lengthy process with the end result being that they are a women in law, and can change their sex on their birth certificates etc. I know they are still biologically male - but this law says they are now treated as female.

Equality Act - 2010. Single-sex spaces protected. If the law already says those with a GRC are legally the female sex, then they automatically have the same sex-based rights as females. Or am I wrong?

The one law is 20 years old. How did it get through without the same kind of concerned anger that we’re seeing now. Why, if this was a massive threat to women’s rights, has there not been sustained anger over two decades.

Secondly, how did the EA come into being without the public twigging clarification was needed given the two laws? Why haven’t we seen thirteen years of anger and action? And if we were able to insist on sex-based rights before now … how? How were TW excluded?

What am I not understanding?

What am I not understanding?

Basically that all this nonsense was inconceivable 20 years ago. Obviously "female-only" for sports and rape crisis centres meant "female-only".

In the debates, the people who pointed out the potential consequences of the laws were told they were idiots.

Because some people have vested interests in making sure that these issues weren't discussed.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4059873-Deep-Dive-on-the-Dentons-document

I genuinely don't remember people pointing out potential issues with the fervour they are now.

So basically, trans activists are now laying claim to a legal right those with GRC certificates have had for twenty years. Access to single-sex spaces based on the fact that the GRC says they are legally a different sex ...

That when single-spaces have been respected before now, this is more by luck than law?

You say, obviously, with regards sport ... but I don't quite know how we've dodged this bullet for so long because it seems logically consistent to me that if you are legally allowed to change sex and the EA doesn't qualify what sex means, then it was always a matter of time before it happened.

.... but what this all amounts to, is women are asking politicians to REMOVE a right that a minority of people have had for TWENTY years.

Oh fuck. I feel sick.

A GRC is a gender recognition certificate.
It's not about changing sex as that isn't possible.
Old school transsexuals were such a tiny minority - were single spaces affected way back then?
There needs to be clarity that it's perfectly legal to enforce a single sex space when required. And that gender is not interchangeable with sex.

There needs to be a requirement for single sex spaces and services now. Its not enough to say they are legal. If they are listed in the EA they must be single sex. If they are single gender they must not be advertised as single sex.

If you're daft enough to believe anything Starmer says I have a bridge to sell you. What we need instead is a frank conversation on the validity of the GRA, especially with the way the world has changed since then.