Labour canvasser today

[SirSamVimesCityWatch]

I'm in one the constituencies with a by-election coming up.

Just had a labour canvasser (woman, mid/late fifties) knock to ask if I was voting. I said yes I would be.

She asked if I knew who I was voting for. I asked if she knew what a woman was. I told her I was a single issue voter and that was the only issue that was going to decide how I voted.

Her response: "I believe a woman is anyone who believes themself to be a woman".

I told her in that case I have nothing else to say to her, and closed the door.

I would have loved to have actually put some of the issues to her (rapists in prisons, assaults in mixed sex spaces, including schools, destruction of women's sports etc) but my heart was already racing and I knew it would be like talking to a brick wall anyway.

But anyway - at least that's a clear pile in the eye for the whole 'it doesn't come up on the doorstep' nonsense.

So, I'm either voting Tory or SDP.

I always find it interesting how it's acceptable to care about things that disproportionately affect women such as childcare and social care and low income issues (and I agree these are likely to hit women harder), and yet caring about an issue that unapologetically centres women is viewed as a side issue. I think it's very telling.

I've seen him say this on at least one TV interview - cannot remember which ones...maybe 'Laura Kuennsberg' was one of them?

I'm just a bit confused about how you could go even further than self ID. Did he expand on that?

Good question. What does he mean by " not far enough". I suspect he is simply repeating lines from Stonewall - who would like for the category of 'Gender re-assignemnt' to be replaced with 'Gender identity' - in line with Self ID. I don't think he knows what he is talking about.

https://www.christian.org.uk/news/labour-leader-gender-recognition-law-does-not-go-far-enough/

https://unherd.com/thepost/what-keir-starmer-told-pink-news-is-a-sign-of-things-to-come/

This is concerning

“it’s time for tougher hate crime laws so every LGBT+ crime is treated as an aggravated offence.”

Does this include saying a male is male?

This is dystopian stuff if so

I don't need convincing to not vote Tory (never have, never will) - but I do need convincing on how Labour will be different from the Tories on economic policy. Or on anything beyond identity politics.

It's a genuine question. As far as I can gather, their economic policy is the same if not worse; and they have a bloody track record when it comes to bombing other countries.

Starmer attempting to keep one foot on the genderist train as it gathers speed.

I honestly don't think he's thought everything through, or even has a grasp of the issue and its complexities at all. The Labour ledership group are still meeting with Stonewall, and now have Ian Anderson on the backbencches too.

They are repeating the things that Stonewall tells them to - verbatim as far as can see.

The Labour party in Scotland backed reform of the GRA - in all its ill thought through mess.

Scottish Labour's performance in the GRR debate was risible. They kept repeating the assertion that they would cover all the issues raised by women with extra clauses (disallowing rapists from accessing a GRC, for example).

And looked a bit shell shocked when every single one of their clauses was struck down and thrown out.

This makes me quite concerned that they think they are somehow able to 'balance' the rights of women (occasional sop by referring to 'safe spaces') with those of men who want to be women. And will push through something like Self ID in the same clueless way they did in Scotland, and watch helplessly when every single safeguard falls. Just as women have been telling them it would. But they won't listen.

Every day that passes, is a day that convinces me that I'll never give my vote to Labour.

We're soon to find out both how unprincipled Starmer will be in power, and how unsuited he will be to the role.

Sex based rights will be roadkill.

I’m pretty sure posts on mn used to be deleted for stating the sex of a person

That has lessened but I’m very concerned under Labour we’ll go back, actually worse as it could be a crime

Can you imagine?

Is anyone else worried about this to same extent

It’s scary 1984 stuff

That's one of the articles I found (from 2020).

Sir Keir Starmer has said that people in the UK should be able to change sex by ‘self-identification’.
Last month it was revealed that the Government is set to scrap plans to make it easier to change legal sex.
But the Labour leader told ITV’s Good Morning Britain that the current law, which has built-in safeguards, “doesn’t go far enough”.

He said he wants self ID, and the current law doesn't go far enough.

I agree he has given no thought to this.

He does have a wife and one or more daughters, you would think he could see the pitfalls for them. Unless he is rich enough for it to never matter to them.
It's ok for every other woman to use mixed sex spaces or even just withdraw from life because they cannot. Because the women in his life wont be impacted.

And having given it no thought, we are supposed to elect him? Leader of the country who cares nothing for half the population, has given no thought to how half the population might feel if nothing is single sex ever again. He is stupid, we dont want stupid leaders, we would be insane to vote for that for ourselves.

Gah, I wonder at those that scold us regularly, how much thought they give this, how little they care about women.

Starmer really cares about his career and getting elected

He will say and do pretty much anything to anyone to achieve that

If there is a bit of noise from some quarters, too late he can’t hear you. No one is talking about it

Dangerous

The vast majority of men throughout history who have thrown women under the bus have wives and/or daughters. It makes no difference. And of course he is privileged. He will make sure the women he thinks are worth bothering about are ok, don’t you worry

Would rather like a list of questions, data and rebuttals to write down on a piece of paper to refer to if one ever knocks on my door.

I personally can't get over the Pink News 'hostage videos' Starmer and Sturgeon both did. I think it was when Boris Johnson correctly decided that the T should not be included in the proposed conversion therapy ban.
Before that it was the 'hate group' thing during the Labour Leadership Contest.
What on earth has Stonewall got on these politicians for them to be so in thrall to their every whim? It still makes zero sense.

Could be Starmer is just lying about Self ID . After all he dumped all the promises he made to get the Leadership , with nary a backward glance.

That is wishful thinking, unfortunately

He's had such blowback from the Owen Jones faction, he's making amends. Just sod the rest of us.

Me too. News round here this morning is the fact that our (Plaid led) council have voted over £300k to provide free meals over the summer for children from low income families. Welsh Labour pulled the funding for this last week.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxeknyl762mo

@SirSamVimesCityWatch did the Tory candidate contact you? I don't know which constituency you are in, but the SDP have candidates in two of them.

The Tories put the T back into the Ban on Conversion Therapies following objections from TRAs within the Conservatives.

And now Sunak has kicked the T ban into the long grass. Maybe what he'll do with school advice.

Is this really what it'll come down to. Zero impetus from Tories other than vague promises at the GE. A Labour win. And a necessary change of Tory leadership to Badenoch or Cates to properly draw a distinction. And a forlorn hope that they prosper in 2028 to reclaim TERF Island.