Rosie Duffield, Labour changes radio 4 now

[Lamelie]

Just listening- “still confusion on self ID”

You know what, I'd have taken this a couple of years ago, maybe even last year. But now I'm reserving all judgement until the Shadow Minister stops hiding behind Rosie Duffield and answers some questions about how this will work. Aka doing your job.

But I would also like to tip my hat to the Labour Women's Declaration who I assume are the force behind this shift. Starmer doesn't deserve them. A place for them at the conference please Labour, and a breakfast meeting photocall with them on Twitter, that's if you really want to start rebuilding bridges.

The net is tightening.

I'm always amazed that men really don't seem to understand that women go out of their way, in general, not to anger them.

Hmmmm...let's see if Women's Declaration get a stall at the next conference or whether they'll invent a bullshit excuse to effectively ban them again. My money is that they'll still side with the TRA's because they are a) cowards b) stupid.

I'm inclined to agree with you Apollo441 but I will wait and see what happens at the conference. It will be one of my litmus tests as to whether they mean a word they say.

I think Rosie taking all the interviews is a very deliberate strategy. They're still on the fence.
If their first very minor reverse ferret blows up in their faces and TRAs cause too much trouble, well then they can say, 'Urgh, we didn't mean it like that.' and point fingers at her for being openly GC and not interpreting the party line right
If it goes well, and women start showing an interest in labour again, then hooray that's all official policy.
They're just setting her out as the lightning rod while they test the reaction.

Labour are going to have to move a lot further before I get back on board.

This is still essentially self ID. You can easily get a doctor to say you have gender dysphoria.

So instead of 6k people with a piece of paper that, under the GRA, entitles them to be considered as the opposite sex for all purposes, there could be 600k.

No one should be able to pretend to be the opposite sex. No man should be able to have a passport or birth certificate or any document that says "Sex: F"

It is imperative to remember what a GRC means. The GRA itself needs to be repealed.

It's all very well saying sex exceptions in the equality act will be upheld. But no service provider is under any obligation to use those exceptions and more importantly, if loads of men have pieces of paper saying they are to be treated as women, we are still going to be in the shit.

This new policy just makes it easier to get official confirmation of a legal fiction.

With the roots dug in deep within the NHS, what doctor is seriously going to lay open to accusations of transphobia, by not acquiescing to the request/demand for gender change?

I mean, if this really is going to happen, will there be a reliance on our new female friends having their GRC on them at all times, to be asked for inspection everytime they try to access female only spaces?

Sure, we expect adults who look underage to have ID on them when trying to get served at a pub, and ID is needed in official situations like applying for a passport.

But our new friends going into the female toilets in a busy Wetherspoons? The female changing rooms at Primark? The WI? A lesbian club/dating site? Women only groups/literary clubs etc? Local female only trail run and cycling events etc?

I can't see it.

I don't think anyone can legally ask to see a GRC can they, is that correct? Which is another reason why I will decide nothing until the shadow minister provides some more details.

The only positive in this announcement is that the political Overton Window is moving back in our direction. The correct strategic response to that is to start demanding the next thing in order to keep it moving and that has to be the repeal of the GRA. Otherwise the window will stall in a "compromise/consensus" position which will not serve us well at all.

Yes, people who identify as 'transgender' or claim a 'gender identity' shouldn't be discriminated against in the provision of goods, services, employment etc on those grounds BUT such identities have nothing to do with sex and we should not any longer tolerate a legal fiction that a person can essentially change sex. The GRA was always nonsense but it became irrelevant when same sex marriage came in and now it must go.

Someone from Labour was just on Today about the Farage bank story, at about 8.40 (Wednesday). Justin Webb asked him about Labour's new position on self-ID and if that means Rosie Duffield was right all along etc. Labour person stumbled their way through, admitted there was a conflict of rights but couldn't help bleating out the need to treat transpeople with dignity and sensitivity as if they are special delicate humans unlike us bog standard women.

I am cautiously optimistic, not because I am in any way satisfied with what’s happening here, but any move away from self-ID is huge. Self-ID has been the flagship, no-debate demand for the past few years. It is a significant shift even to contemplate retaining the need for a medical diagnosis.

Repeal of the GRA is definitely something we should probably start to campaign for more openly. It’s going to be difficult to argue, not because it isn’t the right thing to do, but because all the screams so far about women arguing to remove “trans rights” haven’t really been true. The rights being claimed up until now (effectively entry into spaces on a self-ID basis) are not rights as Stonewall have long been encouraging companies and departments to “get ahead of the law” with the prevailing expectation of self-ID.

Removal of the GRA is demonstrably removal of an established right. We will have to be ready with coherent arguments, including the clash with women’s rights that was actually discussed in parliament before the GRA was brought in, the deliberately confusing language in the GRA (conflating gender and sex and never explaining what the former means) and the fact that the human rights case which triggered the GRA is no longer relevant as same sex couples can now marry and pension age is now the same for both sexes.

If Labour are admitting there's a conflict of rights then I think that could be huge - far more significant than dropping full-on self ID but arguably leaving it to happen anyway. But I'll start taking it seriously when I hear it either from the shadow minister or the party leader.

I don't think there's anything that says they can't ask if someone has one, but the GRC holder doesn't have to show it. They could show their passport or birth certificate instead.

Thanks OldCrone

I think you'd have to 'grandfather' the rights of all those already issued with a GRC. That would be manageable, capping it at 6000.

So you are not taking away any rights from anyone who already has them.

But we will never get the right outcome until the GRA is gone.

Don’t know what I’d do if confronted by a man in women-only spaces. Would I be brave enough to shriek “GET OUT!!!”? I doubt it, and would probably pointedly walk out and wait outside until he came out again.

And tell anyone who queries you waiting outside why, to warn others. I have thought of doing that, but I'm not sure if I actually would have the guts.

Just to add to my earlier post. The confusion about whether it is legal to disclose that someone has a GRC is in section 22 of the GRA. Someone who has acquired this knowledge in a professional capacity would be committing an offence if they disclosed this to others. But there are some exceptions to this such as for preventing or investigating crime.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

I'm not even sure I'd even do it pointedly. We've all seen the rage that these men direct at any woman who even hints she's not 100% agreeing with him.
I'd probably carefully leave and hope he didn't lose his shit