Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Starmer may make the Labour Party electable

155 replies

oviraptor21 · 16/01/2023 13:10

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.”

OP posts:
ScrollingLeaves · 19/01/2023 10:48

scratchedbymycat · Today 09:57
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

Sorry to have seemed to harry you, scratched especially with all that sharing you did!

I hope though that anyone here reading what you said about improving the legislation around GRCs, will see the point of signing if they haven’t yet.

SamphirethePogoingStickerist · 19/01/2023 11:51

scratchedbymycat · 19/01/2023 09:58

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

Yes. He does, as quoted a few times here and across other threads - I'm on my phone but I'll try and find you a direct quote. He seems to acknowledge only one aspect of the legislation around a GRC. He has a habit of not setting out the whole issue.

FigRollsAlly · 19/01/2023 12:00

Labour badly need to win back seats from the SNP so why is Starmer essentially backing such an unpopular move? This was his chance to show how much better Labour could be compared with the SNP. All the waffle and fudge just makes him look devious and untrustworthy. I suppose, as already noted, he’s hamstrung by the TRA types in his own party who seem to have a lot more sway than their counterparts in the Tories. Having said that, this seems to be a dangerously divisive issue for both parties.

nilsmousehammer · 19/01/2023 12:10

ScrollingLeaves · 18/01/2023 14:09

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.)

Wasn't this also the bill that Stephen Whittle, TM and with really rather exceptionally dirty hands in all this, said had been successfully slid in under the radar with barely anyone noticing and 'no fuss in the press'?

I think this is the same individual who mentioned lots of cosy cups of tea with key people behind closed doors to manipulate them. The game plan has always included keeping everything as secret and disguised as possible so it slides through unquestioned, with a lot of soothing 'nothing to see here' noises and No Debate as the back up when that began to fail.

This pernicious movement's main fear has always been people waking up to what they were doing in time to prevent them.

scratchedbymycat · 19/01/2023 13:43

ScrollingLeaves · 19/01/2023 10:48

scratchedbymycat · Today 09:57
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

Sorry to have seemed to harry you, scratched especially with all that sharing you did!

I hope though that anyone here reading what you said about improving the legislation around GRCs, will see the point of signing if they haven’t yet.

Please, never assume I've seen anything important. Always harass me. I'm frustrated I can't think of anyone else to sign it.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread