Annaliese Dodds: "sex and gender are different"

[CheshireSplat]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/24/labour-vows-to-modernise-simplify-and-reform-gender-recognition-act

JoyceMeadowcroft1 · Today 09:29

my focus is on ensuring there are safe and dignified spaces for women and girls based on sex segregation

I think that is most people’s aim. However, laws would need to be changed or amended to make sex segregation legally possible, especially if there were an increasing number of GRC holders following from a one doctor rule.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Labour Party members did not seem to back up the position to make clear sex in the EA is biological sex (which trumps a GRC) during the debate.

RebelliousCow · Today 09:42
Regarding the spousal veto.....Discussion of this needs to be ramped up so that the public are fully aware of the nature of AGP, and of the stories of the increasing number of women and families being held hostage by their obsessive and narcissicstic husbands

Has Woman’s Hour ever made a programme about thus? It is a good subject for a women’s programme.

You can imagine that would have happened many years ago - when Jenni Murray was a presenter - but somehow i think that would be a step too far for the BBC now. It would lay bare the reality that most MTF are now AGPs.

I think we'll have to rely on the print media for those sorts of revelations for the forseeable future.

Emma Barnett seems to be the only Woman’s Hour presenter who will tackle these issues and she’s on maternity leave. Anita Rani is full on TWAW…I used to listen to WH a lot, but I can’t bear its refusal to address what I and many others think is one of the most important issues to women of our day, for fear of offending the Traliban.

Not sure what the point of the doctor is anyway. You can’t physically change sex, trans it’s not considered a mental condition anymore as much as a political right.
Better off going to the local council and getting a license to say you are changing gender officially.

This.

That Labour article has managed to annoy me more than most things so far

The idea you slightly irritate both sides in a bid for votes because you know you have an issue. Fark

Ok take ‘keep the Equality Act provisions that allow single-sex spaces like domestic violence refuges or rape counselling services to exclude the opposite sex, where that’s a proportionate means to legitimate ends – essentially, when you couldn’t reasonably provide the service otherwise’

What happens elsewhere? Which spaces mean the equivalent of a GP note (if that) where men gain access

And this last line

’The ultimate reward for going through this painful process is that in a decade’s time the nation hopefully looks back – as we did with gay marriage, and countless other LGBT reforms – and wonders why extending trans rights ever seemed so controversial.’

What does that mean in reality? That women have finally rolled over and accepted loss of rights. As extending trans rights always means a clash with women’s. And framing it with gay rights is always the gotcha from the classic TRA. That they try to look balanced to suck women in is more the insult.

I’m reminded of that line by Starmer - ‘take the public with you’. Throw a few slops out, refuse to answer questions and let women sleep walk into their own reduction of rights

Honestly they can jump. Fed up with the gaslighting on a grand scale.

I mean Guardian article

Although…

Except they're not competing rights. It's women's rights and TRA demands. The "competing rights" narrative is designed to make us think we have to bargain. We don't. They have to stop just demanding our rights as theirs

Just look at the Hampstead Pools.

There are three pools. They used to be: male sex; female sex; both sexes.

They could have renamed the mixed sex pool as “all genders” to be “inclusive”.

But no, a female-only facility could not be allowed to exist; it had to be ceded to the Male Sexual Entitlement lobbyists. So now it’s: male only; mixed sex; mixed sex.

They were asking for listeners’ ideas for topics yesterday, I emailed them suggesting they discuss this.
Not holding my breath though!

TRAs have been railroading organisations and political parties using 2 key mechanisms - 'no debate' and 'trans women are women'. This is what allowed them to get as far as they have with establishing 'norms'. The ones pulling the strings knew that this strategy might not last, and knew that 'removing rights' was an important back up.

You missed “trans people have always existed” and “you’re denying trans people’s existence” coupled with a determination to steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that they are including both individuals with genuine dysphoria and erotic cross-dressers in that umbrella term, so that the sympathy which the public feel for dysphoric individuals can be appropriated by erotic cross-dressers to avoid any challenge, scrutiny to acknowledgement of their motivations.

I note that there’s a thread now which seeks to brand as bigots anyone who finds Helen Joyce’s analysis of the term “trans” persuasive.

First para should have been a quote, sorry.

Where’s that thread please, @LoobiJee ? I looked in this folder but none of the titles seemed likely candidates.

Can't be certain, but maybe this one
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4856908-no-trans?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

Thanks for posting screengrabs of Kemi’s tweets @BellsMoon The recent Twitter changes/lock out for non users are a pain in the arse.

I note that there’s a thread now which seeks to brand as bigots anyone who finds Helen Joyce’s analysis of the term “trans” persuasive.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Anyway, anyone who wants to take a look can do so and decide for themselves.

I'll stick with this discussion instead as I find it more productive.

Yes, this was a great Tweet. Very encouraging. She has a fantastic grasp of the issues and a concise way of putting it.

I would love to see Kemi up against Dodds more. She’d wipe the floor

I can get what she’s saying, no vague gaslighting blurbs

Absolutely!

So much is now hinging on the definition of sex in the Equality Act. If Dodds has conceded that sex and gender are different, Badenoch can lead the charge to straighten all this out. Ideally with Rosie Duffield and Miriam Cares at her side to build on everything they have done so far from a non-partisan perspective.

Gender can continue to mean whatever it needs to for those that believe in gender identity.

Politico EU Playbook for yesterday - which often has internal contacts has this to say on Labour's new position:

"United Labour latest: Labour has officially ditched plans to introduce gender self-ID for trans people, Playbook’s Eleni Courea writes. Keir Starmer had been previously committed to introducing self-ID — which would change the process to allow people to self-identify as their chosen gender without needing to get doctors involved — and reaffirmed this to PinkNews last summer.

But but but: Starmer has moved to a significantly more gender-critical position in the last few months, particularly as the Scottish National Party got into political difficulties over its Gender Recognition Reform Bill.

Fast-forward to now: A Guardian op-ed by Anneliese Dodds was rushed out this morning after the Times reported that self-ID wasn’t included in the final document produced by the National Policy Forum, according to a party official. Dodds’ piece argues that the requirement to get a medical diagnosis to change gender was “important” and “upholds legitimacy of applications and confidence in the system.” Labour aides nervously checking outspoken gender-critical MP Rosie Duffield’s Twitter feed this morning were relieved to see she retweeted a Labour Women’s Declaration welcoming the change."

https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/london-playbook/london-playbook-pm-less-than-net-zero/

There is a bunch of internal Labour politics going on here. We shall see where it ends up, BUT the key take away pro-woman faction in the party is in a way better position than they were before this.

Hence Rosie getting to speak out even more.

This is the Brexit of social policy. Cuts across all natural political divides. Thus "GC equals Alt Right" is such a bad take.

That Politico commentary seems to reinforce the idea that this announcement is indeed some kind of progress. I think it will be extremely important to scrutinise labour on this, keep up the pressure and not take the progress for granted as a done deal. But on the other hand it is also important to acknoweldge that there has been a constructive change in the right direction.

Without that acknowledgement (and the associated confidence for the party leaders that this is the right direction of travel in order to win back women's votes) the danger is that they won't see this move towards relative sanity as a vote winner. And we have seen in relation to ulez just how appallingly eager they are to sacrifuce any kind of principle or urgent policy need on the altar of a few more votes.

It is a pain, but I'm more than happy to take screenshots, if I am around.

It certainly is. There are Tories who are TRA on the grounds of Individual Freedom.