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

Of course.

It’s not for women

She's simply re-hashing the Stonewall script. They've been busy little bees at Stonewall HQ this last week or so,

As predicted on this thread, Stonewall are already tearing into Labour for even a hint of considering women*.

https://news.sky.com/story/stonewall-criticises-labour-over-inhumane-medical-diagnosis-plan-for-transgender-people-12926723

*Spoiler: Labour are not in fact considering women, they're just trying to give the impression that they are.

One thing I will agree with her on is that the Tories are trying to stoke up division.

Of course they are. They'd be stupid not to.

Tory HQ:
"Look Algernon, the Socialists are saying that women have todgers! Ha, ha!"
"Really? They look completely insane!"
"Imagine a filly with a todger! I should think the voters will think they're completely nuts, what?"
"Rather! I say, Squiffy – should we use this against them?"
"What – like point out that they're spouting absolute bally nonsense that everybody knows is absolute hogwash?"
"Yes!"
"Well, of course not, that wouldn't be sporting! We are Tories, after all!"

One thing I will agree with her on is that the Tories are trying to stoke up division.

Unlike those nice men who threaten to punch women in the face and Labour MPs say oh yes both sides blah blah

The division is stoked up by those who say Transwomen are women and denounce any dissenting voices as bigots

exactly.

I've seen some discussion on twitter that the most worrying aspect is all this would enshine a concept of gender idenity in law where it does not exist at the moment.

So it is worse than weak it is Stonewall clever - manipulating us all - and will make the situation much worse than it is now. Starmer was breakfasting with Stonewall fairly recently.

Really?

I didn’t know that about the gender identity in law part

Labour are playing us. Or trying to

The division is largely because “the left” (in which I include myself) is heavily bound up with supporting the underdog, the oppressed minority, of being tolerant and open-minded. The rhetoric has overwhelmingly been #BeKind so anyone with GC views is necessarily #Unkind and right-wing to boot.

I suspect many Labour politicians feel trapped in identity politics despite their misgivings, and they seem to think there are more #BeKinders amongst the electorate than, er, women (51%).

After 13+ years of Tory government I cannot bear the thought of being stuck with them AGAIN all because of the ridiculous current gender ideology fad/craze/contagion.

Surely division is inevitable when we're talking about a philosophical belief that some people hold and some people don't?

We're not all going to agree if we believe different things about the nature of the issue, and that's obviously where the division is coming from.

Anyone who says the division is manufactured is effectively revealing that they don't believe that people should be allowed to hold gender critical views. It makes them sound as if the notion that biological sex matters is so implausible to them that they have decided it must be caused by some sort of conspiracy or brainwashing, because how could anyone not agree that TWAW?

She does at least talk about retaining single-sex exceptions for “biological women” but surely to do that requires amending the Equality Act to clarify that sex means biological sex, in line with the Sex Matters demand.

Kemi has blasted AD and Labour on Twitter

The last 2 messages

She does at least talk about retaining single-sex exceptions for “biological women” but surely to do that requires amending the Equality Act to clarify that sex means biological sex, in line with the Sex Matters demand.

As it is at the moment for "all purposes" sex can include those with a GRC, which is why the Labour Party, who wrote the EA very kindly, for those of us who are old dinasours, said it would allowable for a very few single sex (ie based on actual biology) services. The examples given are Rape Crisis support. And although within the existing law any number of services could choose to argue for the absolute need for women to have a single (biological) sex service, NHS care, toilets or whatever, most dont bother as the sheer fact of how the EA is written says biological women aren't not as important as trans women. (And Stonewall has made many think this is true)

If the EA was changed so that every reference to sex in the EA excluded trans women then that would mean it would be much easier for shops to provide single sex changing rooms etc..

Although unfortunately the whole gender woo has so captured large parts of the country including companies, that many wouldn't bother to provide women only facilities or services.

Can people who posts tweets put the actual link to the tweet.

Photos of tweets are barely legible and for those with visual impairments unreadable.

And if wanting to quote these tweets need the link to authenticate them, rather than only having a photo which may or may not be true.

Yeah, they're going to have to wine and dine JKR publicly before I believe a word they have to say on this.

'Leading on trans rights' in reality means 'leading on destroying women and children's rights and equality in law to benefit T+ men'. We might as well be honest about this.

Here's the full thread https://twitter.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1683537279770566656

Brazen stuff from@AnnelieseDodds
. Labour have had YEARS to think of a new policy on gender recognition but they didn’t. Because it’s a very difficult area that requires bravery and being honest with people. It’s a lot easier to copy and paste our policy from 3 years ago…(1/5)

Today Dodds has announced the same policy, pretending it’s new thinking -we announced improvements to modernise 3 years ago and finished them last year! This is bare-faced hypocrisy from Labour…

How can anyone trust Labour on these issues? Today Dodds says a medical diagnosis is ‘important’. Yet here’s Keir Starmer two years ago announcing the complete opposite. Will he tell us why he has changed his mind? Will he admit that he was wrong? …(3/5)

Will Starmer and Labour apologise to all the men and women insulted by Labour MPs for this policy they now claim as their own? Will they work with us to do the right thing? Or keep shouting “culture wars” anytime ministers discuss these sensitive issues? …(4/5)

Make no mistake. Labour are embarrassed at being on the wrong side of history with numerous court cases on this issue and scandals like at the Tavistock. They want to fool people and hide what they really think. They want you to think they have changed. They haven’t. (5/5)

Crikey, you could almost be trans with that volume of stereotypes pouring out of you.

Kemi Badenoch talks that way does she?

I'm not on Twitter so I appreciate those who post screenshots of tweets, they are certainly not barely legible for me so I would hope people do not do what you demand, you do seem to demand a lot on these Boards wanting the Board to accede to your preferred rules.

1. you dont have to be on twitter to read tweets

2. not posting words as a graphic image is in line with disability awareness guidelines - why wouldn't you support accessibility - even on a basic human level it is considerate.

Hardly a demand or preferred rules.

What a very strange response to suggest being more inclusive. I suppose you resent those who have a ramp as well as stairs at an entrance to a building.

And if there is an issue about not accessing twitter, what is the difficulty in copying the text.

Photos are for images not text.

In response:

A few weeks ago that was true, it is not now I clicked your link and got ONE tweet number 3/5 so don't tell me I can read all the tweets because they no longer come up as they used to.

I do support all forms of accessibility, and therefore for me screenshots of tweets give me accessibility.

You could have asked for the link to be included instead of your demand to the poster not to screenshot tweets and include them as a photo but as is par for the course with you you demand that everyone falls into line with you.

As for the comment about ramps, you have no idea what you are talking about in regard to me or indeed who you are talking to.

Copying a wall of text from the tweet wouldn't satisfy you either as it would fall foul of your need to verify stance.

The impression you give on this Board is that you want everything your way, you complain if more than one thread is started on the same subject, you complain how people quote when responding, in fact you complain an awful lot. This Board is not your personal fiefdom.

These days you do have to have a Twitter account to see more than one tweet at a time, so I’m very grateful to those who C&P all the tweets and/or screenshot them.

Posting the link would just let me see Tweet 1 of 5 in this case, for example.

At the moment you only needs 2 medical type reports and a fiver to get a GRC so I can't see AD's suggestion changing much.

I don't think I will ever trust Labour again at this point. I never, ever thought I could be persuaded to vote Tory but Labour have been unforgivable on this issue.

We need to recognise that sex and gender are different – as the Equality Act does. We will make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act.

The Haldane decision said that people with GRCs are a ‘sex’ in law. Biological males with a GRC are ‘legally female’ and biological females with a GRC are ‘legally male’ ( except for biological females inheriting estates and titles or being called their child’s father).

Therefore people with GRCs cannot be kept out of single sex spaces. If GRCs become easier to get, then even more ‘legally female’ males will be allowed in single sex spaces.

Meanwhile as no one can ask to see a GRC anyway, in practice, any one who wants to be can count as gender reassigned and gain entrance to single sex spaces.

So why hasn’t Kier explained how, legally, they will make single sex spaces, prisons, hospitals, rape crisis centres, refuges, health services, sports and all women short lists, genuinely single sex - meaning biological/natal sex?

If she really thinks the GRA 2004 and The Equality Act are Labour’s crowning achievement, then heaven help their kingdom.

And if she really thinks they now understand what transgender people need, that’s a fallacy too. We are only just beginning to find out the many factors involved.