Starmer rowing back on self ID - what do we think?

[JohnnyMcGrathSaysFuckOff]

The Times is reporting in its live politics feed that KS has explicitly said Labour will not push for self ID without public backing. I know not everyone can access their content so here is a copied n pasted version: what do you think?

Sir Keir Starmer has shifted Labour’s position on transgender rights as he said the bitter rows over Scotland’s Gender Recognition Bill showed the party must consider public opinion on the issue.The leader of the Labour Party has previously insisted it was committed to updating the Gender Recognition Act to introduce self-identification for transgender people.However, in a significant shift in Labour’s policy, he said the backlash over the SNP’s gender reform bill had made him think again. The SNP passed legislation this year that would make it significantly easier for people to acquire a gender recognition certificate and reduced the minimum age for doing so to 16. The bill was blocked by the UK government.Starmer said: “I think that if we reflect on what’s happened in Scotland, the lesson I take from that is that if you’re going to make reforms, you have to carry the public with you.

“And I think that’s a very important message and I think that’s why it’s clear that in Scotland, there should be a reset of the situation.”

Couldn't help reflexively flipping the bird when he mentioned heat, light etc. And obvs the Keir line on Scotland has sunk in.

I wish someone would hold him to account about that Facebook group. But overall, better than previously.

https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/04/new-scorecards-show-under-1-of-reported-rapes-lead-to-conviction-criminologist-explains-why-englands-justice-system-continues-to-fail

Well that's the most sensible thing I've heard anyone from Labour say yet. Mixed sex spaces for those who want them, and female only spaces alongside: job done. IF the number and proportion work so that no females are forced to use mixed sex spaces or be excluded, and IF there will be gatekeeping against male people who will intentionally try to force access to female only spaces for their own reasons. And IF those female only spaces will be robustly protected from the relentless attacking, bullying, harassment and 'heat' provided by the TQ+ political lobby.

If that happens - a lot of the 'heat' goes away on the spot. BUT as mentioned above, bullshit constantly being sneaked under the radar by this lobby and its minions, and I don't trust that women's rights won't be constantly undermined in law by anti-women activism, AND it's easy to make all these nice noises in principle and then do fuck all once in power.

It's going to take more than this for me to start considering a change of vote.

Bearing in mind too all we've been told by the TQ+ political lobby about the 'cosy quiet chats in back rooms' where democracy and transparency and public service values such as impartiality were all sent to fuck by paid public servants?

Who'll take bets on the panic at Labour involving more cosy chats going "yes yes yes we know, but we HAVE to lie our little balls off until we get into power and then we'll do what we promised, just wait a while".

Suspicious as fuck? Yes. I have basic pattern recognition skills.

Thank you, but I was hoping for a link to what KS actually said. Anyone?

The OP provided a link to an article in The Times which says "In a speech in Stoke-on-Trent, the Labour leader will outline how his party will aim to achieve its four ambitious targets on fighting crime if it wins power at the next election." I'm looking for a link to that speech

Anyone who thinks that Wes Streeting has seen the light should read this Twitter thread about the doxing and intimidation that he helped orchestrate against GC women.

Here are the rules of the group to which he belonged:

It was at the end of a speech he gave on crime afterwards in the Q&A. The video doesn’t appear to be available yet. I’m reluctant to link Pink News but they’ve quoted quite a lot of what he said. Presumably the video will become available soon though if you’d rather wait.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/03/23/keir-starmer-labour-scotland-gender-reform/

Labour Against The Rising Tide of Women Wanting Equality.

Yeah. Says it all.

Also the actual speech is on the Labour website but doesn’t include the Q&A

https://labour.org.uk/press/keir-starmer-unveils-mission-to-halve-serious-violent-crime-and-raise-confidence-in-the-police-and-criminal-justice-system-to-its-highest-levels/

Here's the Janice Turner article in that thread from Feb 2018. So that's 5 years that the Labour party has known about its problems:

Labour’s purge of the trans-rights heretics

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aba062c6-0852-11e8-8e80-008642e5faa1?shareToken=09a897afdb2af8db20c7592a04740dcf

I remember watching that play out. They had a spreadsheet of women with their incidents of wrong think listed next to them. They actively sought out women to expel from the party.

I have no idea the extent of streetings involvement, but it really is something he needs to explain

He was very clear about his beliefs - was he lying then or is he lying now?

don't trust him. He campaigned for Corbyn to be PM even though he didn't think he should even be in the Labour Party. And now this.

I don't think he would know the truth if it bit him.

@Signalbox Thank you

Maybe he has changed his mind and Isla peeked him?

Be nice to think so.

Although does beg the question: how stupid are you that you couldn't see that coming a mile off?

This.

I wrote to my Labour MP about the petition to establish that sex means biological sex in the EA 2010.

He replied to say that gender reassignment under the act is a protected characteristic, with or without a GRC. IE in his mind self ID is already enshrined by EA.

He goes on to say that the law assumes the inclusion of trans women except in specific circumstances where exclusion is a proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim. And that is the position that he supports. I guess that means male criminals in women's prisons until there's a complaint about a particular TWcriminal.

Have people pontificating here actually written to their Labour MP, if you have one?

The Labour position is TWAW.

He goes on to say that the law assumes the inclusion of trans women except in specific circumstances where exclusion is a proportionate means to achieving a legitimate aim. And that is the position that he supports. I guess that means male criminals in women's prisons until there's a complaint about a particular TWcriminal.

He has shown he has missed the point of the petition.

None of his answer is a response to the request of the petition to clarify that ‘sex’ in the Act is biological.

No doubt this lack of understanding is typical.

The Equality Act has sex based exceptions. These exceptions were never originally intended to presume trans women are included.

That’s why it needs clarifying that ‘sex’ here means biological sex as it did when the law was drafted.

Just the same as ‘same sex attracted’ in the Equality Act protected characteristic of Sexual Orientation means same biological sex attracted, not attracted to a trans person, but needs clarifying.

Or a gay man needs his protected characteristic of Sexual orientation protected against unfair dismissal when a company could say they have not discriminated against him because they also employ a ‘gay’ transman with a GRC so they are not prejudiced against him.

Or in the protected characteristic of Pregnancy, a pregnant female/woman who identifies as a man needs their biological sex protected to recognise her pregnancy rights even if they have a GRC saying they are a man.

He replied to say that gender reassignment under the act is a protected characteristic, with or without a GRC

Unfortunately, this is the current position. Although it's not made explicit in the EA, the Government has since issued the following guidance (this excerpt is from the EHRC, but it is quoted on Govt websites as being their position):

The Equality Act 2010 says that you must not be discriminated against because of gender reassignment.In the Equality Act, gender reassignment means proposing to undergo, undergoing or having undergone a process to reassign your sex.To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any medical treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender.You can be at any stage in the transition process, from proposing to reassign your sex, undergoing a process of reassignment, or having completed it. It does not matter whether or not you have applied for or obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate, which is the document that confirms the change of a person's legal sex.

No, people with Gender Reassignment are not included as the gender they say they are for the purposes of the Sex based exceptions under the protected characteristic of ‘Sex’ in the Equality Act. People are only thinking this is true thanks to confusion and ‘Stonewall law’.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/equalities-and-rights-conflict-and-the-need-for-clarity

However, Lady Haldane’s judgement said that people with Gender Recognition Certificate would be included as the sex they say they are - on the grounds that they have changed their sex in the legal sense, because she said the Act never specified that sex was biological.

No one has legally challenged this judgement from last December, but in 2010 ‘man/woman meaning a male or female of any age’ was a biological definition.

As mitigation, especially against self-ID coming in, the petition is to clarify that sex in the Equality Act is indeed biological, not ‘legal’ as modified by a GRC.

Here is Maya Forstater with a short video about it on IWD.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=UsvQQFx-dRI

Discriminated against doesn't necessarily mean treated as a woman wrt accessing single sex spaces, does it? I would have assumed it was more to do with employment, etc.?

Surely blocking access to women's spaces doesn't actively discriminate against a male bodied individual. I thought the comparator for fair treatment was another biological male?

I thought the comparator for fair treatment was another biological male

Yes.

But for someone with a GRC, (not just gender reassignment), since Lady Haldane’s judgement, the comparator for fair treatment would be people of the
‘sex’ they have the certificate to say they are.

That is why the petition has been set up to clarify man/woman meaning make/female as being biological so that GRC sex (sex by lie) can’t be compared to it.

But for someone with a GRC, (not just gender reassignment),
i.e. Gender Reassignment is not the same as having a GRC.

No, people with Gender Reassignment are included as the gender they say they are for the purposes of the Sex based exceptions under the protected characteristic of ‘Sex’ in the Equality Act

I agree. There are two separate points here:

1. Does the EA allow for the exclusion of natal men, even those with a GRC, from single-sex facilities, in some circumstances? Yes, it explicitly does.

2. Do the protections in the EA for gender reassignment apply, whether or not that person has a GRC? Yes - they do. This point is often misunderstood on these boards, but is the one that I think the MP was making.

Oh, Jesus 😱 Have I completely misunderstood again, or does your 2nd point mean self ID is effectively in operation? 🤯