Starmer in favour of clarifying Equalities Act

[Apollo441]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/05/keir-starmer-backs-rishi-sunak-rewrite-equality-laws-women/

Behind a pay wall but basically says he backs Rishi Sunak in clarifying that sex means biological sex in the 2010 act. That's it isn't it? Game over for the Gender ideology crowd if they can't misrepresent the law and sow confusion.

I have no faith or confidence in Starmer. As another poster pointed out, he allows Rosie Duffield to be bullied for speaking simple truths and has never once defended her. He can fuck off.

Me too. He’s incapable of speaking plain, unequivocal English because he needs to please those who fund the party and back the Labour Party.; he needs all the support he can get regardless of anything or anyone including women.

That’s a weird headline, as what it means is banning people from opposite sex facilities in some cases, surely? Not from same-sex ones?

This.

I agree he will get a backlash but he'll hope to have dealt with the issue before the election. His cowardice could work to our advantage as I don't think he'll want to open the can of worms again.

If he stays quiet the Tories should be able to make progress on this and on their intervention on the Scottish gender law. The further they get without Labour objection the more difficult it will be for Labour to then unravel. (As in why did you not object when you could.)

It will be a bonus for the Tories if their progress creates divisions/tensions within Labour. That's politics. But also useful if Labour politicians are forced to choose between activist and public support.

That is discrimination against those who are limited in certain areas, I can think in particular of the projected characteristics of those not born here and having learned English from the cradle (not taking about everyone as some immigrants have better English than myself) so race, those young and old so age and those with disabilities, so Keir is a sexist, racists, abilest agest, the most vulnerable groups who are hamed most by this particular ideology, what a sadistic evil man he is.

If Labour support the clarification of the Act then that's the Labour position.
If Keir personally doesn't agree with it but supports it for electoral reasons then...that means the Labour Party is going to stick with it for those reasons. So what does it matter whether he personally agrees with it or not?

Literally the Labour position is becoming more GC by the minute (which is a GOOD THING) and most of the posts I see are just variations on "BUT DOES KEIR REALLY BELIEVE THIS IN THE DEPTHS OF HIS SOUL".

Did all this demand to look inside politicians' souls start with the Tim Farron stuff about whether homosexuality was a sin?

Nice catch. I hadn't noticed that. Wonder who else they want to include 🤔

He doesn't uniequivocally support it, though. There are always qualifiers; and even Steve Reed is now using them.

it is simply an electoral ploy because the doy know it is an issue, but at the same time they have made pledges in favour of Self ID. Still a no, from me.

Is Labour’s current use of ‘safe spaces’ (a) a misunderstanding of correct terminology or is it (b) linguistic sleight of hand to sound like they support women always having single-sex spaces when they actually don’t support this?

(b)

Next?

I suspect it is a way of potentially making provison for single sex refuges and prisons - whilst also declaring there is nothing to fear from males in other types of single sex provision. A fudge.

As PP have already noted, as soon as Reed added the qualifier (“it must mean biological women primarily”) he demonstrated his bad faith.

The rest of his quote suggests that Labour’s leadership only think refuges (and possibly prisons) are ‘worth’ segregating.

Hospital wards, changing rooms, the Hampstead ponds, single sex toilets etc are all still to be an open season.

Labour always use qualifiers like ‘primarily’

They can’t speak plainly because their aim is to obfuscate rather than be clear and honest on the direction they want to go

A load of rubbish indeed

Starmer really does seem to think people are stupid. He is so patronising and dismissive that any respect I may once have had for him has since departed.

A 'safe space' is an informal arrangement, not something that can be clarified in law. Using terms like 'safe space' makes me think you haven't read the legislation but are relying on a briefing written by an advisor.

I'm broadly in agreement with this:
If Keir personally doesn't agree with it but supports it for electoral reasons then...that means the Labour Party is going to stick with it for those reasons. So what does it matter whether he personally agrees with it or not?

I too don't care what his personal views are. I have seen enough of conviction politicians to last me the rest of my life. However I think he's in a vulnerable position and that a lot of the danger comes from within his own party so, as far as I'm concerned, every word he says and everything the manifesto says will need to be dissected for double meanings.

I’m not sure why people are certain he’ll stick to any position

I see so many posts re Brexit statements re no SM and many comfortable that in time he’ll just go in the direction he prefers.

Why would this be different. He wants to reform but ‘take the public with him’

I’d rather not give the chance for the duplicity

Literally the Labour position is becoming more GC by the minute (which is a GOOD THING).

It isn't. They are just rearranging words.

Saying biological women, is saying that there's another type of women. Talking about safe spaces, but not sex segregated spaces is ignoring lots of reasons why sex is important other than saftey.

Labour either really dont understand the implications of not having women as a class independent of men, or really don't want that distinction.

Saying biological women, is saying that there's another type of women.

Exactly. The proposal is to clarify that 'sex' means biological sex. Not to create endless cub categories of one sex class.

It feels to me like a complete fudge.
e.g.
OK to single biological sex spaces
BUT you can identify as the other biological sex

A set of boundaries, where no matter what the boundaries are, the only thing that matters is how you self identify.
The same policy they've had up until now using different words, or the order of the words changed around.
Like a magician using misdirection only everyone can see the trick. Tommy Cooper but not on purpose for laughs like Tommy, genuinely hopelessly bad at it.

Starmer said very recently he met with Rosie and she was an important member of the party. See appearance here:
https://twitter.com/OkBiology/status/1642953606570602496

I haven't seen Rosie deny this happened which I imagine she would. It definitely looks like Starmer is repositioning. Whether it is enough we shall see.

If there is a vote on a Statutory Instrument on the Equality Act it will indicate more clearly what Labour actually stands for.

Yes Actions not words. As I keep saying, there is still nothing from Labour about Tavistock and child-safeguarding. The Labour MSPs in Scotland voted for SNP's GRR. Sarwar didn't have to make them all support it, but he did and they went along with it.
This Law change would be excellent and a great way to undo the damage but it concerns me that it is only the UK showing this political resistance to nonsense anti-science. I know some Republicans in the USA are passing laws to protect kids in school in particular but elsewhere self-id seems to have gone through with little pushback evident. I expect the media has been convinced to go through 'the no debate allowed' stage just like here. Branding people supporting women and children as 'anti-trans' being the method used.

Labour know there is a problem. They are dancing around the issue hoping to find a formula that will please everyone. They won't. Sooner or later Keir will have to take a position.

If you remember, Boris flip flopped a few times, then finally decided that a woman was an adult human female. What was noticeable was how on top of the detail he seemed to be...given he was someone who was rarely on top of the detail.

Keir is on a similar journey.

I think Boris was never that in to the Trans Genderwoo, he inherited it from Theresa May and as we saw he and Truss quickly announced that self-id would not go ahead as planned. I voted Conservative in that Theresa May election and had no idea self-id was in the manifesto (as with all the other parties)..it was under the radar somewhat.
Starmer has offended me far more as an ex-Labour party member as he has tried to silence women.

Given how many kids Boris has, I can only assume that he's known exactly what a woman is for a very long time.