Labour Women Declaration responds to the UK Labour party’s “pivot” on sex and gender

[IwantToRetire]

We welcome –

• Rejection of self-ID as Labour’s policy: this is a major and significant shift.
• Labour’s new emphasis on distinguishing sex and gender.
• Indication of support for legal definition of sex in the Equality Act to make the operation of the single-sex exceptions (SSEs) more effective.
• Wes Streeting’s account of changing his mind when he realised that he needed to listen to women.
• Reference to the need to include consideration of sex offences in granting GRC.

Concerns/questions/flaws in Labour’s proposals –

• Spousal exit clause – not a veto, but a method of initiating a process to ensure basic rights for a spouse and needs to be retained not scrapped.
• NPF mention of need to look at international evidence: little comparable evidence is available, but there is emerging evidence of self-ID and puberty blockers being withdrawn in countries where previously available.
• Needs of detransitioners are not mentioned but must be understood and addressed.
• No mention of Section 22 of the GRA, which creates problems for SSEs, “effectively providing an ‘invisibility cloak’ for the characteristic of sex for one group of people”, see article.
• Keir Starmer’s reference to “safe spaces”, despite the correct term being single-sex spaces (needed by women for dignity, privacy and more).
• No rationale yet provided for one doctor rather than two; also concerns about lack of specification in qualification criteria for doctors to provide the diagnosis, given the prevalence of private doctors willing to supply report on request.
• Reduction to one doctor opens door to acceptance of more countries onto the approved UK list for apparent GRC equivalence.
• Inaccuracies in Guardian article, including claim that Panel involved in current process is made up of ‘anonymous doctors’ – it is a group of doctors and legal experts.
• Claim that “The process is intrusive, outdated and humiliating’ has never had evidence to support it – see, for example, this article by Fair Play for Women (particularly the latter sections).
• Using inaccurate language like “futile indignities” contributes to fear mongering.

Labour Women’s Declaration Working Group 2nd August 2023

The above is a summary. For full response go to https://labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/lwd-responds-to-the-uk-labour-partys-pivot-on-sex-and-gender/

I know there have now been lots of threads about the Labour Party but thought LWD deserve to be acknowledged given the struggle they have been directly involved in.

So started this as a new thread rather than tagging it onto the end of an existing.

I’m wondering if labour have decided not to bother about getting the women’s vote. My instagram is inundated with Keir interacting with men and declaring his love of football and flaunting his arsenal season ticket. I know women like football as well but it is definitely more men who follow it keenly.

If he's pinning all his hopes on the 'working man' vote, he's going to have to actually get out of his ivory tower and try a bit harder than 'I like football'. Currently all Labour have going for them is that they're not the conservatives.

Well they are going the right way about it, if that's the objective! Witless beyond belief. This 'blokiness' doesn't impress anyone. Then again, most of his actions have that ring of insincerity!

Poor you. Can you switch that off?

Not sure how you can follow it

I follow Keir deliberately, I also follow Rishi Sunak KJK and a few others to see different views . Incidentally on the same day Keir was posting about watching the football Rishi was going to see the Barbie music with his daughters.

*film

Have the politicians who applied on behalf of LWD asked for a reason for the refusal? And been given a reply? And researched how plausible any reason provided is? And asked whether the refusal is because the Labour party's officials / conference organisers disagree with LWD's stance, or because they envisage unpleasant protests from the other side, and can't / don't want to cope with them, or don't want the negative PR of those protests being recorded and reported on?

Come on, Labour, let's have the truth here.

I won't hold my breath

I think Labour is relying Labour women to either spoil their vote or carry on voting labour out of habit.

Labour politicians comment Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, one of the stand applicants on behalf of LWD, said-
‘The NEC business board’s decision to reject our application for a stand is short-sighted and authoritarian. Banning voices one disagrees with usually rebounds and in this case it damages the party’s ability to further develop robust, evidence-based and consensus-led policies on sex and gender.
The chilling effect of the years of “no debate” needs to be dealt with by the party. This includes acknowledging the poor treatment of women within the party for merely proposing what is now the party’s official position’.
Diana Johnson MP, one of the speakers at LWD’s fringe meetings, said-
‘The party’s newly agreed position on reform of the GRA is sensible and is now broadly in line with the seven statements in the Labour Women’s Declaration.
I’m pleased that for a second year running the party is including the LWD fringe meetings in its conference guide and delighted to have been invited to speak on “How can Labour support freedom for women and girls?” in Liverpool on Monday 8th October.
However, it’s disappointing that conference delegates and visitors interested in these issues but unable to attend the fringe meetings will be denied the opportunity to discuss them with LWD, due to the party’s rejection of their conference stand application’.
Tonia Antoniazzi MP, one of the applicants for the stand on behalf of LWD, said-
‘Women are constantly having to fight for their sex based rights when they are struggling to make ends meet and keep a family in a cost of living crisis. As a single mum I know first-hand how real this battle can be. Politically it’s not an either/or choice between tackling the cost of living crisis and defending sex based rights. Both are a priority.’

Karin Smyth MP, who attended LWD’s fringe meeting last year, says she stands by her views expressed in these tweets from July ’22
‘Wandering @UKLabour Conference, talking with stall holders about their interest is an important part of the political experience and education. I’ve learnt so much about different issues and causes, I’ve agreed and disagreed, enjoyed the discussions and the free chocolates’.
‘So disappointed @LabWomenDec currently not allocated a stall and trust we can find space in the coming weeks so everyone leaves Conference more informed and more united in our campaign to defeat the Government. It’s their attack on all our rights needs that needs to be our focus’. ‘

No one is taking this lying down clearly. However the reality is we are in a huge power struggle here. LWD has made a step forward, a big one. Remember though we are fighting against huge vested interests inside Labour and the corporate/ academic/NGO sector.

Every step forward will be met by furious resistance. However the only way to win victory permanently is by fighting through. The conference is going to be a significant event the battle over next manifesto will be joined.

So as far as I can see the only reason for the refusal that is even hinted at in the sympathetic politicians' statements is "Banning voices one disagrees with".

Highly unlikely to convince anyone that the Labour party has changed tack in sny meaningful way on this issue.

Bit daft, if so. There's more of us'n them.

I would think they are afraid of the negative publicity and who will pull out and scream if they permit the stand.

Which yes, tells voters very helpfully, how sincere they are about women's rights (you can have the ones that don't upset male rights activists) and exactly who they are in hock to and interested in pleasing.

By their deeds shall ye know them.

They are in fear of terrorism.

Hmm. It seems to me the Labour Party's proposal on the GRA is simply self ID by the back door. I was struggling to believe that they had a genuine desire to engage with women. The decision not to allow LWD a stall at conference confirms to me that they don't. It's simply sleight of hand. No thanks. I think they have pushed me past the point of spoiling my vote to holding my nose and voting Tory. Can't believe I'm saying this! What has happened to Labour? So sad.

Agree.

Starmer has now criticised the UK government for blocking the SNP's GRA.

2 u turns leaving him facing the direction he started.

Any women still planning on voting Labour now?

Got a link for that? My Google-fu is failing me.

Bloody hell, although I think he's throwing women and children under the bus under the guise of devolution

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12410691/Rishi-Sunak-accuses-Keir-Starmer-putting-women-girls-risk-U-turn-trans-self-identification.html

Well that's weird. Just read pieces from both BBC News and Sky News on the Rutherglen speech, and neither of them mention anything about Starmer saying this. Unless I'm missing something.

https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-softens-stance-on-two-child-benefit-cap-amid-snp-attacks-ahead-of-by-election-12940684

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66497844

So either Starmer didn't say it, and Rishi is just making it up, or he did say it, and the Beeb and Sky omitted some pretty important stuff.

the Beeb and Sky omitted some pretty important stuff

They both do this regularly. I dont think it is always because they are being pro trans.

They just think only women will care so its not worth bothering with.

Is he just thick or does he not realise the two face hypocrasy in saying this after the weasel words re women's sex based rights.

I know he's a barrister and no doubt used to being clever in court on any point, but in political live this just makes him look like a rat.

I am not and have never been a member of the Labour party, but I remember being embarrassed for them when Blair was elected as he was / is so obviously a chinless wonder with all the sincerity of a charlatan.

But I think Starmer now out paces him. If it wasn't so serious you would want to laugh at such overt political arse licking. Here's hoping the Scots see through his false hoods.

I suppose the best excuse you can expect from him is that he is just commenting of Scotland having independence, and Westminster shouldn't interfere. In which case it makes him even less fit to campaign to become UK prime minister.

NRTFT but thank you so much LWD

Well if that's the case, @IwantToRetire , that's bloody awful. When it was mentioned upthread, I went to Google 'Starmer' and 'News', and saw nothing. So either there's a news black-out, and we live in a Looking-Glass world where only the Daily Mail is telling the truth, or....

Realistically, the Mail can't just make it up, the rest of the media would be all over them. So my conclusion is, that's what Starmer said. I've remarked before about him; every time he opens his mouth, I like him a little less. I hold to that view.

Does he even know what Annalise Dodds wrote in the Guardian?

He wouldn't have blocked it as he agreed with it.

He's obviously not bothered about any problems it creates, and if he's contradicting Dodds it's because he's unlikely to have paid much attention at all to what she wrote.

A few days before he was with Stonewall promising them allsorts. They want hormones on demand and if he's heard theres a plan that they get certified on-demand in a one stop shop with hormones why would he care?

He's not actually paying enough attention to even recognise that this is contradictory. This is of little importance to him.

Well if that's the case, that's bloody awful.

I know isn't it. There was another thread, I think a Daily Telegraph article and like you thought no one else is saying that.

But then realised whether a tabloid or a broadsheet they cant just make stuff up.

So depressing (as has been said so many times) we have to rely on the full facts from the DM & DT.