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.”

The GRA and the EA2010 do contain some clashes, as do many pieces of legislation. But the EA2010 makes it crystal clear that even when a man holds a GRC he can be excluded from any female facility if certain requirements are met.

Stonewall, TRAs will tell you that these are onerous and not easily met. The truth is that the Guidance Notes say, again with crystal clear English, that a service can refuse access if another user might object to a member of the opposite sex being included.

So Men's Sheds and women's centres, for example, are legally entitled to have a blanket ban on members of the opposite sex using their services. No person by person analysis required. Case analysis means by situation. And such decisions are perfectly legal, if much decried by some.

.... 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

I disagree because it's quite the opposite: a small minority are ordering politicians to remove rights from 51% of the population. That can't be allowed to happen.

'can be' isn't robust enough for services that are threated with loss of funding or legal action - not to mention its no use to front facing staff faced with angry people.

Because when it was raised as a conflict that some men might insist they were in fact female, not male, the idea was considered ridiculous and no protections were built into the wording.

Then males declared they were, in fact, females….

It’s purposeful.

They don’t refer to single sex spaces and do refer to safe spaces, for two reasons: i) it fits with their core belief; ii) as a tactic which enables them to appear high-minded, caring, and egalitarian whilst pursuing their policy goal.

• Their core belief is that women do not have a right to privacy from men.

• Their policy goal is that males should be able to do whatever they want.

So they use “safe spaces”. Talking about safe spaces enables them to put the focus on safety rather than privacy in order to:

• avoid disclosing their core belief that women do not have a right to privacy;

• divert women’s and journalists’ attention away from the question of women’s right to privacy from the opposite sex when unclothed or otherwise vulnerable;

• talk about “people” being safe, and to spout platitudes about how they “want all people to be safe” - again to divert the focus away from women’s needs and rights;

• create a narrative about about ‘privilege’, vulnerability, and oppression in which they can claim that male people wanting access to opposite sex facilities where women are unclothed need to be given that access in order to keep those male people safe from other male people. They aren’t sufficiently honest to spell it out in those terms or to use the term male people of course as that would make their disdain for women just that bit too clear. Not only that, but they seek to make a distinction between ‘men’ (ooh, now we have a potential threat!) and ‘trans people’ (never a threat, only ever victims!) as if trans people are never male. Which doesn’t even stand up to scrutiny under their own logic / arguments as, if their belief that a GRC or an assertion of identity makes a person the opposite sex were true, then under their terms transmen are male.

Single sex spaces are absolute. Safe spaces are conditional.

If an opposite sex person accesses a single sex space it is no longer single sex, it is mixed sex. It’s a black or white situation. No shades of grey.

But safe spaces? There’s nothing absolute about them. Lots of grey to argue about there. If a male Met Police officer is patrolling the female toilets, is that a safe space? Who knows? Plenty of scope for debate and diversionary tactics there! But is it a single sex female space when he’s in there? No. So to answer your question, it’s purposeful, imho.

I think the bit you're missing is when Theresa May announced the Tory policy of Self ID in 2017. That's when things got really bad.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/18/theresa-may-plans-to-let-people-change-gender-without-medical-checks

A GRC is a gender recognition certificate.
It's not about changing sex as that isn't possible.

I think this is why these details have flown past me. Absolute statements like this which I've taken at face value. And I am so pissed off with myself for not being a lot more scrupulous about interrogating statements here.

The GRC allows people to legally change their sex. Some have probably been living with 'female' on their birth certificate for twenty years. The fact they cannot actually change their biological sex is why the GRC process even exists. There would be zero requirement for it they were biologically, and therefore automatically also legally, female.

Also ... outrage at Starmer saying TWAW is another example of why I've not grasped these really really important facts. Legally, a trans woman who has a GRC is female, therefore he is legally correct to say TWAW.

Don't get me wrong: I think these laws are ill-conceived and women and girls will pay an awful price. But denying and obfuscating the basic principles they enshrine is really not helpful at all.

I'm just realising the fight for womens rights was probably lost twenty years ago.

I don't know how you can make a case for removing a minority groups legal rights without setting an awful legal precedent. It's so fucked up and I don't know where to aim my anger.

But the EA2010 makes it crystal clear that even when a man holds a GRC he can be excluded from any female facility if certain requirements are met.

Is there analysis of this you can point me to? What are those requirements? I really need to see it because I'm spiralling into despair here. I've just heard Maggie Chapman on LBC and I'm just so fucking depressed now.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

The legislation guidance notes themselves

The only way I'd pay attention to KS on this is if he said he was prepared to repeal the GRA.

Labour should win the next election - but as everyone knows, a week is a long time in politics and we've seen plenty of evidence of that in the last few years. Even if/when Labour does win this issue is growing and growing - Starmer will get skewered on it by the Tory press in the election campaign and beyond. So he'd better start making some serious amends right now.

@SamphirethePogoingStickerist

This?

"A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful."

OK. I need to read, and think. Thank you. Thank you.

Incidentally, I worked in a Rape Crisis centre as well ... not UK though.

28 (1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)The matters are—
(a)the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;
(b)the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;
(c)the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/paragraph/28

@Thelnebriati - Thank you 🙏

The grounds for providing single sex services are outlined here;

27 (1) A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2) The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.

(3) The condition is that—
(a)the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.

(4) The condition is that—
(a)a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.

(5 )The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)a hospital, or
(b)another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.

(6) The condition is that—
(a)the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

(7) The condition is that—
(a)there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b) B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.

(8)This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/part/7/crossheading/singlesex-services

@Thelnebriati

Many thanks. 🙏. I'm feeling drained now. But will look through all this tomorrow.

Examples of legal single sex services are given here;
738. These exceptions would allow:
a cervical cancer screening service to be provided to women only, as only women need the service;
a fathers’ support group to be set up by a private nursery as there is insufficient attendance by men at the parents’ group;
a domestic violence support unit to be set up by a local authority for women only but there is no men-only unit because of insufficient demand;
separate male and female wards to be provided in a hospital;
separate male and female changing rooms to be provided in a department store;
a massage service to be provided to women only by a female massage therapist with her own business operating in her clients’ homes because she would feel uncomfortable massaging men in that environment.
Gender reassignment: paragraph 28
Effect
739.This paragraph contains an exception to the general prohibition of gender reassignment discrimination in relation to the provision of separate- and single-sex services. Such treatment by a provider has to be objectively justified.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

Reading that whole section of Guidance Notes is quite reassuring. However none of it has been tested in a court, which is why Stonewall etc manage to make such contrary claims and have so many believe them!

Until a politician has the balls to say explicitly that ONLY adult human females are women, that those born biologically female are women and entitled to single sex services and spaces, then I wouldn't believe a word that comes our of any of their mouths.

They can say "single sex" all they want, but if their definition of "women" includes any type of male, then single sex spaces by definition do NOT exist for us.

So, we need CLARITY.
Seriously, did we ever think in 2023 we would need to define what a female is at government level, and that so many people would be unwilling to do it? Scared to do it? Unable to do it?

I cannot see anyone currently in power able to do that one little thing.
It is both terribly sad and terrifying that they are throwing 51% of the population under the bus to appease a tiny percentage of (mainly) males who may or may not have a paraphilia.

Starmer also said;
''While Scottish Labour ultimately voted with the SNP in favour of the law, Starmer said that it “troubles me” that not all the amendments his party had suggested were adopted and added''.
archive.is/0USe1#selection-919.0-919.183

Does anyone have a list of what those amendments were? Because my memory may be at fault, but I remember it being a Conservative MSP who wanted to ban sex offenders from being able to get a GRC.

Oh ffs, that reply contained an archived link.

Ooh! Warning ladies.

Those Who Monitor seem to have found this thread.

Not sure what Inebriati said, it disappeared so fast. But I doubt it was anything actually controversial.

It wouldn't matter what Starmer said, there is a group on here that completely ignores what has happened to womens rights in the UK over the last 12 years, especially in regard to DV Refuge's, Prisons, the NHS and Policing... heard the news today about yet another Met police rapist...?

They don't want Labour to do well so they twist each and every word Starmer et al say to suit their narrative.

Even the OP ignores Labours 20pt lead in the 'polls... people can see that aspects of the media are using the Trans issue to attack, unfairly, Labour and Starmer.

In RL women need help with childcare, bills, food, wages, schools, transport, Policing, DV... the Trans debate is a M/C one for people for whom RL issues don't matter.

Thanks Samphire! This is what I posted minus the link;

Starmer also said;
''While Scottish Labour ultimately voted with the SNP in favour of the law, Starmer said that it “troubles me” that not all the amendments his party had suggested were adopted and added''.
(archived link)

Does anyone have a list of what those amendments were? Because my memory may be at fault, but I remember it being a Conservative MSP who wanted to ban sex offenders from being able to get a GRC.

How is it 'unfair'?

I'd be interested to evaluate Labour's thoughts on all those other issues.

But I'm a single issue voter here. If a political party can't be quite sure what sex my daughters & I are, & why that's important, they needn't expect my vote.

That's VERY fair.

Convince me you are worth my vote, & you will get it.

Don't convince me, & you will not.

I might vote for someone more convincing or I might spoil my ballot or I might not bother turning out at all or I might stand for election myself.

All of those are 'fair'.