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.”

If anyone here has not already done so, they may wish to sign this petition started by Sex Matters to Update the Equality Act
to make clear that sex is biological sex, but sex as modified by a gender recognition certificate.
⬇️
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

Given that it would also help if the adults of the future are not taught in their schools ,from primary age, to believe the confused idea that gender can be changed and gender and sex are the same thing, you may be interested to sign this other petition against teaching ‘gender identity’ ideology to children in their RSE lessons on schools (which are often outsourced)
⬇️
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/618970

Thank you for that. Again, I didn't know that. That does make things a bit clearer. I need to read both Acts for myself, with a highlighter pen!

“to make clear that sex is biological sex, but sex as modified by a gender recognition certificate” =

“to make clear that sex is biological sex, not sex as modified by a gender recognition certificate”

LRM and Ben Bradshaw's behaviour and subsequent tweets doubling down are disgraceful. I honestly don't understand at what point someone steps in re consequences for being abusive in the HoC? No workplace should see.men subjecting women to abuse.

Labour MPs like Charlotte Nichols and Sarah Sultana just show themselves as a bit thick/unable to work with the facts as they just talk in Twitter drama terms,.ignoring the carefully put to them arguments.

As someone who has voted Labour in all GE, I am absolutely ashamed to have not realised what a party of idiots, cowards and dimwits they are. There is almost nothing they could do or say now to make me consider voting Labour in the future.

A body responsible for regulating the participation of persons as competitors in an event or events involving a gender-affected sport may, if subsection (2) is satisfied, prohibit or restrict the participation as competitors in the event or events of persons whose gender has become the acquired gender under this Act.

This subsection is satisfied if the prohibition or restriction is necessary to secure—

fair competition, or

the safety of competitors,
at the event or events.

“Sport” means a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature.

A sport is a gender-affected sport if the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one gender would put them at a disadvantage to average persons of the other gender as competitors in events involving the sport.

From the GRC? Why aren't those bodies allowing TW to compete against or alongside women being taken to court?

but why the fuck weren't women making this argument and demand of all politicians when the GRC was drafted and immediately beyond?

It's a boiling frog analogy. Good arguments were made against it at the time by a few dissenting politicians and very prophetic ones as it turns out. The landscape looked very different in 2004 to how it does now. The Tories were out of favour and not far out from the years they battled against gay people. The Blair government was still in its golden period and anyone vaguely liberal or to the left wasn't minded to listen to Ann Widecombe or Norman Tebbit.

Most people had never met what was known then as a transsexual. Cross dressing men (transvestites) unless they went the whole 9 yards with surgery etc. to become transsexual still did it behind closed doors in secret. The media hadn't yet rehabilitated and revered men who erotic cross to some kind of sainthood/ most marginalised status.

Social media didn't exist and pornography not as yet widely available. When the debates about the GRA occurred in 2003 the internet was still very much in its infancy, smart phones didn't exist and people still used dial up modems. The amount of time your average person spent on time was minimal compared to now.

Rolling news was still in its infancy too. Analysis and opinions on political issues, if you wanted them, still had to be sought mostly through the print media.

In 2004 I was in my 20's with two young children, a newborn and a job. I can barely remember the Act being passed. Like other women life kept me very busy and I wasn't paying attention.

Had I paid attention perhaps I would have thought it odd but not knowing this tiny cohort of people (mostly men)I might have assumed it was reasonable - based on how it was sold to the public at the time. In the aforementioned context of how society was at the time there wasn't a lot of reasons for the average, under informed person to imagine things would end up where they have.

Back to the boiling frog analogy it was only really about a decade ago that the water started getting uncomfortably warm for many women. A full 10 years after the GRA.

However I'm certain within that 10 years individual women will have felt the heat faster than others, for example, many lesbian women will have experienced problems long before I began to take notice. Transwidows are another group who will have felt ramifications earlier on than most.

It's possible that had society not changed very much from how it was in 2004 the GRA might not have become such a serious and widespread problem for women and girls. But society did change in those years, hugely and mostly down to big leaps in technology.

The notion of transgender/gender identity was invented, spread and taken mainstream via that technology with the help of lobby groups who grew stronger and more influential post GRA 2004. A massive and lucrative industry grew alongside it as well as the beginning of a new strand of politics that serves a number of agendas. That is where we find ourselves today.

@OvaHere - Thank you. In fact, thanks to all of you for taking the time to explain. It's deepening my understanding a great deal. I did think I had a very good grasp of it all, but my grasp is probably more current and less historical (well, excluding researching how QueerTheory grew out of postmodernism and the 1960s rights movements and French philosophers). I need to get to grips with the laws and how they evolved etc. You are helping me fill in blanks.

why has there not been visceral anger and demands for clarification dating back to 2004 and through all the years in between?

2004 I had young children a full time job and I didn’t hear anything about this legislation come in.

However when the GRA reform consultation was announced like many women I attended a discussion meeting where trans activists hammered on the windows and doors and we had to exit through a narrow space between a group of aggressive young men towering over me rather than the police dispersing them and when I noticed I was being followed back to my car I had to evade the young man following me (advantage of being stalked previously is you notice quickly and have honed your evasion techniques).

In the meantime online discussions women were being shouted down and women who expressed anger/asked for clarification were being expelled from twitter, facebook and mumsnet among other places. Our anger and requests for clarification were being ignored by our MPs (I’ve lost count how often I’ve written to mine on this).

What have you been doing?

OvaHere · Today 13:54
Thank you. What a good explanation.

The Blair government then was apparently golden. It seemed charismatic and they were good at using ‘spin’ very well.

I had no idea of this bill then.

No one announced
“We have a new law which will make it legal to lie about your sex even on your birth certificate and create the legal fiction ( what a euphemism, what an oxymoron) that you are the opposite sex for all purposes.”

(Except if you were born an aristocratic woman: in that case, if you ever become a man, you cannot inherit the title or estate even if you are the only child in the immediate family.)

@TrainedByCats

What was I doing? 2004 ... recovering from male violence initially, and I wasn't aware of the GRC at all. I then spent 15 years working obsessively in human rights focussing on a country outside the UK. I wasn't aware of any issues re the GRC during that time. I've been hyper aware of what's been going on in recent years (but not the actual nitty gritty legal detail). Very very triggered, in fact ... I don't think I ever fully recovered.

@ScrollingLeaves

If they amend the GRC, then they need to address the inheritance/ title bit quickly. Let's see how quickly men freak out about the possibility women will abuse the GRC for personal gain.

In 2017 Tory PM Theresa May removed the need for medical checks for Trans folk, thereby saying that the feeling of being the other sex was enough to make it real.🤯

@scratchedbymycat I've just read today that Keir Starmer doesn't believe that England should be blocking the GRA in Scotland because it doesn't present a threat to single sex spaces. Apparently he can't see anything in it that's problematic. This is HUGELY worrying and suggests that he's not on board with the concerns of biological women.

His point is apparently that you can't refuse entry to someone with a GRC at the moment, so there's no difference. Conveniently missing the point that as it's radically simpler and easier to get a certificate, lots of questionable individuals may be able to access single sex spaces.

Honestly, every time I think maybe there's a chink of light, the door is slammed shut again.

I loathe the Tories with every inch of my being but I'm delighted they're blocking the GRA. I think there may be a constitutional fall-out over it, but that's a risk I'm prepared to take to prevent Nicola Sturgeon's ridiculous vision reaching England.

In other news, apparently Rosie Duffield was shouted down by Labour MPs when she spoke in the Commons about her concerns. I haven't heard it myself, just seen it reported.

Yes, I saw the reports of what KS had said. So it seems clear now that when he said he would protect same sex spaces, he meant “unless a man who wants to go in tells you he is a woman”. So insulting to women. So weasely. How can I trust him now with anything?

Oh no 😰

OK.

I think those letters now are critically important. I was up until 1:30am writing one jointly to Lloyd Russel-Moyes and Starmer after I finally actually saw footage of LRM vicious outburst in Parliament.

I'm going to write something supplementary to go in with Starmer's and I'm sending it recorded delivery.

What you heard / read was in the Telegraph, so I'm smelling a bit of politicking going on. The most alarming thing said is this:

"The Labour leader has said he will “update” the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) if elected, despite warnings that doing so would impact women’s rights and could enable <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/mrrck/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/18/predatory-sex-offenders-could-exploit-new-gender-recognition/" rel="nofollow" target="blank">predatory menen to access single-sex spaces.*"

The Starmer quote is "update". Kier Starmer said the GRC law needed reform on the Nick Ferrari show as well earlier this week - the same show where I felt I saw light. I think it needs possibly reform too - but not the way Scotland did it.

I am accepting there will be reform, but I don't know what the reform will look like.

On that, The Telegraph says this:

"Sir Keir’s commitment could mean legislation in the UK mirrors changes <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/mrrck/www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/22/scotland-passes-gender-reform-bill-snp-nicola-sturgeon/" rel="nofollow" target="blank">passed by the Scottish Parliamentnt on Thursday, which allow people as young as 16 to change their legal gender by signing a declaration.*"

Note the "could mean" speculation and deliberate fanning of flames.

And this - read carefully - my square brackets:

The Telegraph can reveal [implies new information ] that Sir Keir has promised the LGBT community that he would take similar action on the GRA in England and Wales if elected.

In a message to Pink News for Pride last year [is this the reveal? ... last year ...?] he said his priority was “forming the next government so we can introduce legislation and change society so that, whoever you are, you can lead a happy and fulfilled life. We are committed to updating the GRA to introduce self-declaration for trans people”.

No, this is the reveal. Just confirming last year's position which Starmer confirmed on LBC anyway.

A party spokesman said: “All political parties agree that the process needs modernising. A future Labour government will consult on what that looks like, while upholding the Equality Act and maintaining single-sex spaces.

“Labour has a strong and proud record of standing up for women’s rights. Our commitment to them is unrelenting.”

So actually - unless he's made a statement since - literally nothing has changed since Monday when I sensed massive reservations from him re Scotland's approach.

"A future Labour government will consult on what that looks like,"

Please god, not like the SNP consultations.

My gut instinct is Labours GRC reform won't go as far as the SNPs. For a start - Keir Starmer said he was not happy that some of the amendments proposed for the GRR had been voted down implying it should have been more cautious.

I've learned in this thread that tightening the EA is necessary as well. It's not enough to assume exemptions will be applied - legislation needs to back it up in some way. If he did both, then reform might work.

Surely it would be better if both women and trans people were happy? As opposed to sacrificing women.

Labour are absolutely awful but the Tories are bloody terrible. I wouldn't trust Starmer with a paper run but that is all we have basically. ( At least we are not in Scotland😭). I think he is watching and seeing what Nicola is not getting away with re the GRR and thinking "fuck". Don't get me wrong ,the nutter wokes in the Party will be pushing for Labour to have full self Id in the manifesto and much tantrums will occur.
I am sick of it all. The Tories are removing our right to strike and the NHS is crumbling and I am reluctant to vote Labour as they are so woeful.

^scratchedbymycat* · Today 09:06
My gut instinct is Labours GRC reform won't go as far as the SNPs. For a start - Keir Starmer said he was not happy that some of the amendments proposed for the GRR had been voted down implying it should have been more cautious.

I've learned in this thread that tightening the EA is necessary as well. It's not enough to assume exemptions will be applied - legislation needs to back it up in some way. If he did both, then reform might work.

Surely it would be better if both women and trans people were happy? As opposed to sacrificing women.

Re: what you said about it “not being enough to assume exemptions will be applied - legislation needs to back it up in some way”

I wondered if you had seen this petition to
to update the Equality Act to make clear that ‘sex’ means biological sex, not sex as modified by a Gender Recognition Certificate?

To sign and share the petition,
⬇️
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

Starmer’s word salad!

The fact that he keeps on stating that a GRC means the holder must be admitted/ accepted in to female spaces is fucking infuriating - and the reason that everything he says about 'women' is based on that lie.

I cannot find any evidence that the GRA has been amended to remove the need for medical checks. Please could you tell us where this has come from?

With Kelly-Jay standing against him, does he really think he's got a chance to get away with weasel words. Does he really think the media won't cover it. Does he really think the Tories don't spot an opportunity.
Remember to win the next election, Labour needs people to get out and vote on a massive scale.
I will never vote Tory so I will continue to spoil my ballot paper until Labour gets its act together on this. And the more of us they fail to convince, the harder it will be to get a workable majority at the next election. Or any majority.
Not in my fucking name.

I've signed that and shared with everyone I know. Got DH to share with his friends too and ask them to share etc. Wish I could sign it every day instead of checking if it's moving.

Does he? Not even the law says that...?

I read the Guardian (yes, I know!) but usually scan the other papers online. It was in the Mail and being presented as from his spokesman - www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11651245/Keir-Starmer-sides-Nicola-Sturgeon-Scottish-gender-law.html#article-11651245