I posted this on the David Blunkett thread but since I watched the clip of him I have been mulling over what he said, and the then Labour government’s role of bringing in the GRA and it has lead me to really think about my own position and what I want the end point of this to be. It’s sort of crystallised into the following…
The thing that bothers me is that Labour brought in the GRA with no consideration for women. Wasn’t DB part of the upper echelons of Labour at the time?
I can’t help but feel that for all his welcome talk today DB was presumably happy enough with the original GRA not to resign over it so does he really mean ‘women’s equality above all else’ or does he mean ‘women’s equality above else except for the small number of men we (politicians) feel are ok to be included in women’s spaces’? Are we really just back to males can be women but only the right sort of males.
And I don’t know about anyone else but for me that is not acceptable. It has to be no males in female spaces. No exceptions. No ‘but these males are harmless’ or ‘these males have radically changed their bodies and are distressed by being males’ or ‘these males have paperwork that says they’re really female’ so they’re ok.
No one who is male, in any shape, form or identity in female spaces at all. For those males unhappy with that they need to find an alternative that doesn’t involve co-opting female spaces.