Starmer: “Gender recognition will not be one of the priorities of the incoming government.”

[Rainbowshit]

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-says-snp-lurched-29479637?utm_source=app

He also appeared to aim a dig at MSPs who passed the legislation: “What’s happened in Scotland is a reminder that if you want change, you have to carry the public with you.”
He also said: “Gender recognition will not be one of the priorities of the incoming government.”

Interesting. Are they finally beginning to read the room...?

modernise the process of gender recognition to remove indignities for trans people, while upholding the Equality Act, its protected characteristics and its provision for single-sex exemptions.

I read that as 'introduce self ID' which would be in direct conflict with the latter part about single sex exemptions.

First time I've seen them use the correct phrase rather than the weaselly 'safe spaces', but still. I don't see any mention of women in there at all, though other groups are named. Its like theyre brushing us inconveniences under the carpet.

Can anyone explain why a person without gender dysphoria might need a gender recognition certificate so badly?

Probably not without getting a ban from mumsnet

So ‘not prioritised’ basically means ‘look, squirrel!’

Has Lachlan Stuart popped up yet to explain why this is brilliant and women should totes trust Labour with our votes now?

A Labour manifesto hasn’t been published yet, but these ambiguous headlines will be being written out in more detail in the near future. All of the major parties will be doing this in advance of next year’s election.

So now is the time for us all to write to MPs to demand clarity and detail from the final manifestos of all of the parties. I don’t want to be expected to take anything on trust from any party on this issue. They can do us the courtesy of being explicit if they want our votes.

As Politico says of this latest outline from Labour:

’Starmer’s speech promised “laser-targeted” policies with “clear, measurable outcomes,” which he contrasted with “Rishi Sunak’s five promises to clean up his own mess” announced in January. But missing from Labour’s five-page document is a list of deadlines, hard numbers, or full detail. Labour said it would only set out “a measurable goal” and “timeline” for each mission “in the coming months.”

https://www.politico.eu/article/labour-party-keir-starmer-sets-out-five-missions-promises-detail-later-2024-election-manifeto/amp/

If party manifesto commitments are seen as binding by governments if there is enough political pressure put on them (say- enough to force through the complete shitshow of the Brexit ref in 2016, for example) then as many of us as possible need to write and demand that manifesto policy detail is made explicit.

I live in a 'weigh the Tory vote' constituency, but I will certainly write to my Labour candidate.

Momentum want "trans-inclusive refuges" to tackle VAWG. They will be lobbying CLP for this, it's safe to assume:

peoplesmomentum.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/NCG-Policy-Motions-Matrix-.docx-1.pdf

I’m not holding out much hope (and none of us know whats in Starmer’s head do we) but the GRA does need reform. As well as causing lots of problems for single sex provision, it does contain indignities for trans people.

Take the example that GRC holders can’t revoke their GRC, if they later detransition. GRA is bad law, uncritically built on sexist stereotypes for later life male transitioners who have competed their families. That’s why it doesn’t cover how to handle younger, female transitioners’ issues like pregnancy, fertility treatments etc. As seen in the Freddy McConnell case. That’s presumably why being intended for use in later life, it also never allowed for detransition.

Presumably detransitioned people would have a strong legal case against the UK government about the denial of their human rights to change their minds on their own legal sex, by disregarding their ongoing consent.

There’s no public interest in forcing people who no longer want GRC legal status to have to keep it. There must be great individual harm from that. Better to use EqA to protect everyone’s right to express their own gender (sex stereotypes) however they wish to, and then also make legal sex no longer legally changeable by anyone, while also giving a legal right to detransition to current GRC holders.

I want all the parties to commit to EqA reform (as per Sex Matters’ well-argued points) to clarify sex and gender. At the same time they should also commit to review the GRA with the aim to scrap it, so everyone relies on the reformed Equality Act, if they got into power.

I think that to make a deal with the Lib Dems the Labour Party have to agree with self ID, but before that in the run up to the General Election they know that female voter is very much against self ID, and it is a vote loser.
It makes sense that they throw the policy overboard for now, but tied to a rope so that they can haul it back on board if necessary.

Hence all Starmers skipping around and always seeming to have a hidden agenda; Starmer manipulates his words to benefit himself but as for his personal view I don't think that he cares one way or another.

I'd also be interested in the money that has passed between Labour, LibDems and tax payer funded pressure groups such as Stonewall.

There have been hints before from people like Whittle that they have been told the minute a Labour govt is in power they will get what they want.

My sole voting aim this time around will be to retain women's equality and identity as a sex based class. Because frankly when thats gone, it will be rather like asking a slave class if they'd like a say on what colour their masters' fences should be painted and whether or not their masters should pay more tax.

The more I hear, the more I am understanding that Labour are going to be a disaster for women.

I’m in England so YMMV but names and/or contacts for MPs or prospective Parliamentary Candidates to write to are at:

Labour via main website
https://vote.labour.org.uk/

Lib Dems not seemingly via their main website but some listed here

https://www.markpack.org.uk/167842/liberal-democrat-prospective-parliamentary-candidates/

Tories still seem to be working on it https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/exclusive-tories-step-up-candidate-selection-amid-spring-2024-election-speculation_uk_6425645be4b02a8d518cc6ce/

unclear how to do this from the Green’s website
https://voting.greenparty.org.uk/

PPCs for the next general election also may not be in the same constituencies due to boundary changes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candidates_in_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

The GRA does not properly cover things like maternity leave because its impossible to write meaningful legislation for that situation while at the same time changing legal gender for all purposes.

People who want to have it both ways can suggest how to word the new legislation in a way that makes sense.

I do agree with you that the onus is on those proposing magical thinking but I don’t think it’s possible for even the most committed TRA have it both ways in reality. And as we have seen when there is a toss up of conflicting rights, women’s rights seem to come out at the bottom of the pile.

Which is why I think it would be better and safer for women for EqA to be reformed to offer good legal protections to everyone’s gender non conformity, and to distinguish between sex and gender, and then to repeal the GRA.

remove indignities for trans people
What indignities; what does this mean?
Is it code for legalising self-ID.

While inflicting much worse indignities on females.

But that's ok, cos only female.

Remember what happened in 2017? All those remainers lent their votes to Jeremy Corbyn to try and get the Tories out and Brexit watered down, or even a second referendum. And then all we heard for the next two years was that 80% of voters, including everyone who had voted for Labour, had voted to "get Brexit done"

Make no mistake, if you vote Labour and they go ahead with self ID, you will be told, in response to any protests, "But we made it clear that we would reform the GRA. You voted for this

abso-fucking-luteley!

There's no debate proposed about reforming or abolishing the GRA; but there is an upcoming debate about the definition of 'sex' in the Equality Act.

I look forwards to Labour explaining in clear terms how they intend to have it all ways. Starmer is a solicitor, it should be a shoo in.

remove indignities for trans people
I think that KS should concentrate on a larger section of the population. Across the nation people are gearing up for the end of the academic year. I'm sure that many are indignant that they have to prove worth through the medium of external exams. They should start a campaign so that they can identify as any grade they want. I'm sure only a tiny minority will identify as an A*/First.

If KS wants the youth on board then he should concentrate on this instead. It will be a sure-fire vote winner!

Anyone who thinks applying for a GRC involves indignities has never applied for PIP or DLA - or been a female expected to undress in front of a male because of his feelings.

The problem is that the people proposing magical thinking aren't being challenged. Those in power are just nodding and saying, "Yes, that makes sense!" and ignoring those of us shouting, "No it doesn't!!!"

A pantomime where everyone's shouting 'oh no it doesn't!' and 'oh yes he did!' and 'look behind you!' is precisely what it feels like. The joys of being a voter in this God-forsaken decade.

Very well said!

Take the example that GRC holders can’t revoke their GRC, if they later detransition.

Doesn't that question the reliability of the diagnosis process?

Every word in TRA seems to be a euphemism, but its really odd to talk of what is supposed to be documentation around a medical diagnosis, as needing modernisation. Is it the diagnosis that needs modernisation or the process of obtaining a certificate? I would support more transparency about the whole diagnosis and panel process.

I want Starmer to explain what he means by sex and gender, and stop side stepping the issue. Are 'female' and 'woman' sex or gender, or both?

He really needs to explain why he's comitting to protecting sse, but talks of "gender inequality". If sex is different to gender, why isnt he talking about sex inequality? Or is he really more concerned about gender than sex.

Basically, can he defining gender, and say how its different and the same as sex? Because otherwise i have no clue if his policies are worth voting for or not.