Janice Turner on Labour u-turn

[southbiscay]

Is it safe for women to trust Labour again?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b5a6df40-2d70-11ee-aede-28bc53acbdb8?shareToken=463658bee75ab918efe6b0320e42aad3

Quite. If it's going to be tried to shrug and go 'well we'd love to stop male people raping women and removing their sex based rights and excluding them all over the place, and yes it's effectively subordinated all women to male people if they have the right piece of paper, but it's law. Hand wring. Drats that we can't do anything,'

Then yes. The obvious answer is 'then the GRA has to be repealed'.

And if the next witter is 'yes but EHRC' - then let's debate that in detail too, because belonging to that group is doing fuck all in protecting women, homosexuals, children, people's right to faith and belief and many other things it was set up to do WHILE being used by a political lobby as a sword (to use Kemi Badenoch's analogy) to coercively control and harm the rights of others.

People who think it’s sorted and they’ve done a ‘u turn’ are going to be a bit surprised when more Ilsa Brysons come along

Of course getting in matters more than any surprises women may have.

As if that matters.

And then we lose more stuff, children get indoctrinated and it gets harder to reverse in law. Brilliant they played a blinder

Sorry to say, but I firmly believe it is actually that. There’s a reason Dodds refused to go on radio to explain their position.

I don’t understand how it can be anything but making it easier to change legal sex

They are staunchly defending the Eq A (against any proposed changes from Cons) and won’t drop the GRA

So legally what’s new?

Froodwithatowel · Today 09:28
Quite. If it's going to be tried to shrug and go 'well we'd love to stop male people raping women and removing their sex based rights and excluding them all over the place, and yes it's effectively subordinated all women to male people if they have the right piece of paper, but it's law. Hand wring. Drats that we can't do anything,'

Then yes. The obvious answer is 'then the GRA has to be repealed'.

Yes. They're very much mistaken if they think this is going to stop women asking questions. The net is tightening, and the corner they are painting themselves into is getting smaller.

I would like them to answer the question, so you don't think that men who do not have a GRC are women, in that case? Let's just clear that one up.

If they're going to hide behind a GRC, then let's see them admit that transwomen non holders are men.

And if they feel as though the GRA is sadly forcing their hands, then yes, what's the point of it?

Also, if you're not allowed to ask to see a GRC what's the point of it? And, if you're reducing the criteria down to anyone who wants one, WHAT'S THE POINT OF IT?

if you're not allowed to ask to see a GRC what's the point of it? And, if you're reducing the criteria down to anyone who wants one, WHAT'S THE POINT OF IT?

As there is no point in talking about human rights in response, since the obvious reply is 'but those born and identified at birth as female (I can qualify that all day if you want to be difficult about it) have human rights TOO which do not involve being used in various ways as therapeutic resources', I suspect the only real truth at the bottom of this is the emotional pleasures involved for male people.

Which then begs the question: why are only male people's feelings important and not those of women excluded, used, required to strip in front of a male, assaulted, raped? And why is it you have absolutely no difficulty thinking of sex in very clear and binary terms whenever you are identifying who wins and who loses, who matters and who doesnt?

I had resolved to stop banging on about the Labour Sex Fudge, but it's all they're selling.

You make it sound better than it is! 😀

Cheesy Sex Fudge?

Eew! 😀

I’m sure I remember Starmer using this line ages ago, back when he first was coming out with his assertions around who has a cervix or a penis. He said something like “and that is the law”.

I remember Starmer saying that too although I don't have a source.

If only politicians could do something about laws, eh?

Ha yep

Ultimately the difference to me is the attitude to exceptions.

Labour are fully on board with it not being changed to biological sex, inclusion being the default, and women having to beg and struggle for services against this, with a raft of trans and trans inclusive lawyers, unions and Stonewall members invoking trans human rights against women.

It's clear that the Conservatives are taking the opposite position with Kemi Badenoch as the Minister for Equality backed by many conservatives in government and quite a few labour ones too. Nokes is not getting any traction with her idiocy and it's good to see that flushed out.

Once the vexatious complaints against Baroness Falkner are resolved the government have a clean slate to implement the biological sex amendment.

Once the vexatious complaints against Baroness Falkner are resolved the government have a clean slate to implement the biological sex amendment.

I really hope they find a way (and maybe the will?) to do this before the general election. Labour's response would be soooo instructive.

Good point.

Once the vexatious complaints against Baroness Falkner are resolved the government have a clean slate to implement the biological sex amendment.

People are hugely invested in the status quo and expanding further, this really is a battle that takes time and energy

Meanwhile over in Ireland they are about to (hopefully) pass an amendment to their gender recognition bill to stop Males (regardless of whether they own a shiny certificate) being housed in Women's prisons once and for all. I can't help feel that once this amendment is passed it will open up the stupidity of the original GRR bill. If prisons are unsafe then what about hospital wards, children's homes, schools.

Meanwhile over in Ireland they are about to (hopefully) pass an amendment to their gender recognition bill to stop Males (regardless of whether they own a shiny certificate) being housed in Women's prisons once and for all. I can't help feel that once this amendment is passed it will open up the stupidity of the original GRR bill. If prisons are unsafe then what about hospital wards, children's homes, schools.

Quite.

If there are any times when men are not women, then any time a man is supposed to be a woman is debatable.

And needs to be. It's been destruction tested on women and there's a body count of women harmed during the experiment process.

Men can be transwomen. Transwomen can campaign for their own facilities. Women need facilities and resources of their own that exclude all men of any identity, feeling, or ownership of a kind fiction on paper.

Wow, really? Do you have a source for this, at all? That would be astonishingly sensible, and would show up the 'it's not causing any problems in Ireland' bollocks.

https://thecountess.ie/historic-bill-drafted-by-laoise-de-brun-bl/

Three long years in the making

Thank you @mrshoho