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.”

Come to work with me and tell the women I work with that. They will laugh at you.

Just to be clear: this isn't about "the trans issue" this is about women's rights. I don't care about "the trans issue" it is not part of my politics. I do care about women's rights.

As I said earlier, until Starmer says very clearly that women are female, that transwomen are not female in fact or in law then he is not in anyway a safe pair of hands for any sex based legislation.

Health based research, sport, women's centres, employment law, crime statistics etc etc. ALL will be utterly traduced if this crappy thinking becomes the norm.

THAT is why I centre sex not gender, in my politics. Because it affects every part of our lives.

Oh, and I was a lifelong, card carrying Labour party member from 18 - 50 years old. Then I was informed that my belief in sex not gender meant I was not wanted in the party. So I sent my card back with a letter explaining why. 7 years on and I am still waiting for a response. Don't try making out I am Tory etc. I am utterly politically homeless and I resent that fact, enormously.

I missed the middle class part of that silliness. Well, no. I'm not middle class either.

So many assumptions!

I wish I was more surprised that people are still happy to boast about their support of a racist who's been removed from the entire labour party for his unrepentant racism.

But after the last few years, I'm not.

Corbyn is in no way a racist, don't be ridiculous.

A GRC is merely a piece of paper with a factual untruth on it. Bad law shouldn't be obeyed, and this was a really awful piece of law.

Yes, it is sad that a very small number of genuine people used to using female facilities will inevitably, eventually, lose their right to do so. There was a time we used to talk about grandfathering clauses. I think it's all gone too far now, and the good will from women too far gone in response to the severity of the piss take of women's spaces, equality, access, even basic bodily safety. At this point, asking females to continue to care more about males than other females has gone beyond a bit weird to the point of FUBAR.

Those so worried about the shock horror awful 'roll back of rights' for these males had no concern at the time or now for the roll back on rights and equality of females, and we're talking about a tiny number of males who had a privilege until males exploited the crap out of the system, and broke it beyond repair.

Third spaces will not harm those males. Not being permitted to drive a coach and horses through women's rights is not depriving males of anything they have an entitlement to. An equality of consideration, access and care is all that is being asked here. That where a female only service or space is provided in addition to accessible gender neutral spaces that male people of all genders are able to respect that some female people's access rely on them and they have the same social responsibility to behave inclusively as everyone else.

And lets be honest about this: the real barrier here, the real sticking point to permitting female people accessible female only spaces too

is that it would involve male people accepting that there is such a thing as a biological female and there is no way to fully, completely become one.

That's the sticking point. That's the bit that no one can face saying. But while I have sympathy for a male who struggles with this their feelings and needs do not outweigh actual reality of female needs, equalities, inclusion .

Females are not resource services for males.

SamphirethePogoingStickerist · Today 17:36
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!

What about that case last summer which the NHS lost about a TW health worker in the women’s changing room, and some sort of altercation ? The judge used the wrong comparator for the TW (knowledgeable people on mumsnet said) but the judge got away with it. What’s do be done about it? People can’t launch £100,000+ court cases easily.

Why did so many schools move to mixed sex lavatories? School trips move on to same gender dormitories? Girl guides have a TW leader? Why did that rape crisis centre refuse Sarah a male less space? Etc

I think people find balancing gender reassignment and sex under the Equality Act to be very confusing.

Now Scotland says sex is not biological it will muddy waters more.

SamphirethePogoingStickerist · Today 17:25
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

The legislation guidance notes themselves

Thank you for those.

What is the explanation for say M&S having men in changing rooms given those notes specifically allows single sex changing rooms in a department store?
Was it because M&S thought it meant gender?

What on earth made prisons turn the women’s estate mixed sex?

What would Lady Haldane say about TW being excluded from ladies’ changing rooms in a department store, or from women’s prison, seeing as she recently seemed to say sex is not biological therefore a TW would be the right gender?

@Justbetweenus I couldn't agree more. Children are starving, people are freezing, nurses are using foodbanks. But fear of 0.5% of the population are the ones to be feared? I rather think the ones who are to be most feared are those that are allowing the children to starve etc.

I'm not saying women's spaces aren't important, but other things are too. In my view, a choice of a political party is based on a basket of ideas, policies etc. I'll go for actually encouraging and investing in green Energy talking with, rather than antagonizing the nurses, teachers paramedics.

user1471453601 · Today 22:41
I’d agree with you in many ways, but I find the invidious promotion of an ideology through language, institutional capture, and bad law to be extremely concerning in its own right.
I just can’t stand it which ever party is promoting it.

This.

When Starmer talks about safe spaces for women, he is including transwomen in that. Worse, he wrongly believes that is the law even though it is not. And that even though he’s a KC! I lost all respect for him when he said that.

He just doesn’t get it. He’s listened to the wrong people. When Rosie Duffield is in the Shadow Cabinet, then we can talk.

I don’t trust him or his party. He can’t define what a woman is

In all cases because is not illegal to do so! Go work out how that applies to prisons!

It's a choice. And currently the starting point is that women's spaces should be mixed sex unless someone sets out an exemption.

It should be women's spaces are single sex until they specifically agree to allow transwomen in.

But gender politics fucked that up!

It's a choice. And currently the starting point is that women's spaces should be mixed sex unless someone sets out an exemption.

Thanks for your answer.

It is my admittedly not very knowledgeable impression that it is that need to set out an exemption, and be ‘proportionate’, and people being scared of court cases, that means in practice that all those allowed exemptions on the guidelines may as well not be there for all the good they do.

This is the 'chilling effect' mentioned in the letter to Scotland yesterday.

Yes. Women are being asked to accept that the starting point - and the only moral point - is that women's spaces are mixed sex.

They are in theory permitted to go through a process for female only space in law.

In practice - we know the level of attack, harassment, coercion, bullying etc that is unleashed on anyone who tries, based on the ideological fury that any woman seeking this does so purely in spite against male people with TQ+ identities. The ideology expects that female need will always meekly bow to male preference and TQ+ freedoms, and that females who resist for any reason should be punished with exclusion, shame, harassment and threats of legal punishment.

Sarah's case will be an important one: this will look at that when a public funded group have provided: (for rape crisis victims, who will in massive majority be female)

• a men only group
• an LGBT+ only group
• a mixed sex women's group

Male people of any identity have a choice of three options to choose from. Female people who can only access a female-only option, have nothing at all.

This intentionally excludes large groups of vulnerable females from accessing support, and the lack of equality of provision is stark.

To remedy this it would be necessary to:

• re write the EqActs to be clear that sex means biological sex at birth
• that exceptions are necessary
• that provision accessible to females of all protected characteristics should be equal to the provision accessible to males of all protected characteristics
• and that this is likely to mean that female only provision MUST be provided alongside a mixed sex 'women' provision, which may also be called gender neutral.
• requiring male people of all protected characteristics to respect the boundaries of female only provision needed for equality of female access will have to be built into the law - in means of full support in removing and challenging male people who attempt to enter such places by deceit, intimidation or force when an accessible provision is there for them as an alternative to the provision made for people of their sex .

And to do this, it will be necessary to kick the police up the bum and undo a lot of ideological programming and bias, and to have a major publicity campaign highlighting the need for female inclusion alongside male TQ+ inclusion.

But I have no sympathy: it will be a big and expensive mess and it would have been a lot less so had any political party bothered to pay attention to those of us writing to them a decade back.

It is my admittedly not very knowledgeable impression that it is that need to set out an exemption, and be ‘proportionate’, and people being scared of court cases, that means in practice that all those allowed exemptions on the guidelines may as well not be there for all the good they do.

In many cases, yes. See Nils answer above.

But not always, perhaps. It was specifically and directly because we would not include transwomen in our services that we lost funding due to lack of diversity - plainly stated in an explanatory letter. ALL WOMEN was not enough, it had to be all women plus the speshul ones. I have used various information, letters and legal info garnered from her and other places to challenge that decision every year since and mid Covid we had most of our funding reinstated - although we do now 'share' some of our resources with a male shelter to be sure we can tick some new boxes (and no, they don't get asked if they support females).

At about the same time ( I usually say 3 or 4 years ago but actually it was more like 7 years ago, I think) I was targetted, by someone posing as an academic* looking to try and quantify the number/effects of transwomen in female services. Naively I spoke unguardedly and the next thing I knew the trustees of the centre had been contacted about my/their "illegal actions" denying transwomen access to the centre. I explained the situation (to a group of church going men and women mostly in their 80s!!) and they took legal advice. Both the 'academic' and funding streams were told to get lost and we remain single sex. But we are small, rural and very longstanding.

*Yes, I do know who They are and pushed back very hard at the time. To no avail, obviously! But hard enough to prevent further stupidity. These days I am not so sure that would as effective!

And don't worry. None of the above is 100% accurate, it is all true, just a bit factionalised for safety's sake (which is really bloody aggravating). They won't be able to track me down again 😏

^^This.

He has proved himself untrustworthy on this issue and has a long way to go to prove otherwise.

Starmer wants to re-take the middle ground with a number of policies that a majority of the parliamentary Labour Party & their activists don't actually believe in... and we know they don't.

If they win the next election it will be due to disenchantment with the Tories rather than a landslide paradigm shift full of "true believers" in their manifesto & agenda.

We know the Mandelson/Blair approach of old.

Make the right noises to get into power.

Once in power, do whatever the fuck you want, they can't stop you for five years.

Like hell does Starmer actually believe in women and children's rights.

Not while the likes of Lloyd Russell Moyle has the whip.

Same.

I think people wilfully overlook just how hard left / woke authoritarian a lot of the Corbyn era MPs are though.

The behaviour of Lloyd Russell Moyle, Ben Bradshaw and other MPs today, brought the LP into disrepute.

The nonsense spouted by Charlotte Nichols, Zarah Sultana, Jess Philips etc is insufferable.

The lack of support for Rosie Duffield, and the lack of respect for Miriam Cates is an embarrassment. The rest of Labour should be outraged at being made to look so bad. They should be speaking out and condemning poor behaviour.

Keir Starmer needs to step and say something tomorrow. These MPs need to be reminded of their responsibilities and those who behaved so badly need to apologise.

How could ANYONE vote for them.

It would have been electable had the right wingers in the LP not sabotaged things when Corbyn was at the helm. I despise starmer.

I really like Keir Starmer. I think he's an incredibly intelligent man, as proven by the fact he's a KC. I think he has principles and is keen to do the right thing - his track record prior to entering politics demonstrates that with him taking up causes for the underdog.

Starmer is fantastic in pulling apart Tory arguments - nothing gets past him. It would be so refreshing to have a PM who is genuinely intelligent and on the ball. I also like the fact that he doesn't go in for the snidey point-scoring as much as other politicians.

But having said all of that....

I don't trust his views on trans rights, self-ID and women. He's shown in the past that he doesn't know what a woman is, and he's let Rosie Duffield be exposed and vulnerable without voicing support for her and her beliefs.

If Keir comes out clearly about his views, and rejects self-ID and supports single sex spaces for biological women, not trans women then I'll vote for him.

But I suspect this is all still smoke and mirrors - Keir is trying too hard to keep everyone happy. He's trying to keep the Corbynites and the left of the party happy, which contains a lot of TWAW believers. Because of that I don't think he'll ever adopt the approach we want - he'll always try to keep them happy and that means retaining the TWAW nonsense.

Thanks @nilsmousehammer - that's such a helpful post. I was discussing this with DH yesterday, after all the assertions from the SNP that the GRR didn't affect a single thing in the EA including the right to exclude trans women. He was asking, if we had that right, what more did we need?

The best I could do was that although it was a legal right, it was really only theoretical in practice because harassment, abuse and intimidation, and funding made providers wary of using it. I said I thought that it needed to be a default legal requirement to provide those spaces . But this is better:

that provision accessible to females of all protected characteristics should be equal to the provision accessible to males of all protected characteristics

I don't think men will tolerate their spaces being invaded.

I remember once reading someone saying that the comparator in the EA is men with men (because sex is the protected characteristic), not TW with women. I can't find it. Can anyone explain more how this creates inequity among the male sex groups wrt the EA.