Harriet Harman says women are women, or men who are 'certified' women.

[ArabellaScott]

https://twitter.com/roseveniceallan/status/1713176479528300891

'There's a question of what is a woman and what is a man. But I would say a woman is someone who is born a woman or someone who under the GRA 2004 is certified as having transitioned from a man to a woman'.
...
'I support the GRA and don't want to see it rolled back. We brought it forward for a very good reason'.

Harriet Harman, at the Fawcett Society event.

Thank you, Julia Long, for asking the question.

But I don't think anyone in the party has said that they will protect single sex spaces, the wording was all about "safe spaces" with no clarification about who would get to feel safe in them

I believe they've since said 'single sex spaces' Cranky, I can't remember where right now but it might have been the Annelise Dodds article outlining Labour's shift in position.

But (again from memory) that article didn't define 'single sex spaces' and what affect the GRA would have on them, other than that they would make it easier to obtain them.

That's why I very much want to know whether H H was expressing her own opinion or letting slip Labour Party policy.

Has the Labour Women's Declaration people said anything about this? (I mean the Labour Party Women who signed up to knowing what a woman is).

Here's the link to the article. She refers to 'single sex spaces' at least 3 times, including this:

'We will make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access. Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services.'

The phrase 'biological woman only' does imply that a GRA still wouldn't give access to them (it's also the thread my vote is currently hanging from) but they've not clarified, and after this latest from HH, I need them to.

Sorry formatting fail and I forgot the link.second paragraph ('We will make sure....') is taken from the article.

link here

Actually she doesn't say 'spaces' she says 'single sex exemptions' (which is the phrase used in the Equality Act I believe) or 'single sex services'.

I didn't used to be so distrusting but here I am.

Good on her! Glad they're not doing Sunak's populist move of appeasing to the likes of this board.

Absolutely!

What twit would want disabled and homosexual people and people of minority faiths and cultures to want equality of access and rights?
What muppet thinks women should have equality of access and rights to men?
What idiot would care about child safeguarding?

Populist bastard, as if these things matter!

Can you even hear yourself or were you sent from outside to try desperately to smear this thread?

So to recap:

Labour say women are adult females

By this they mean women and certificated men

They plan to make it easier to get a certificate

Its illegal to ask if someone has a certificate

Just how do Labour propose to protect single sex exemptions using this fudgelogic?

They don't. They're hoping people are stupid and desperate enough to vote for them anyway.

They don’t

They just hope women won’t work it out

Of course Labour is also committed to making it far easier to get a GRC - effectively self Id. This will mean lots more 'male women' around who Labour intend to protect as 'women'. There are also many voices within Labour that have suggested that to clarify 'sex' refers to biological sex would be discrimatory to trans people.

When will people start to believe them when they tell us what they intend to do?

First point. The phrase in the Equality Act is 'single sex exceptions'. They're not exemptions. So any politician talking about this and calling them exemptions doesn't really have a good enough grasp on the topic to convince me.

And I have 2 questions for Labour. If single-sex spaces and services are indeed lawful and sometimes necessary or desirable, exactly how do we exclude men who have their sex as female on ALL their ID including their birth certificate?

(My labour party candidate when I met with her thought I was asking how do we know he is male. I had to correct her. No, we know he is male because we can SEE he is male. How do we legitimately and legally refuse him entry to the female only space or service when all his ID says female?)

And then, if single-sex spaces and service CAN exclude those with a GRC then what exactly is the point of a GRC?

From my conversation it seems Labour want to 'bring the public along with them'. Starmer has said it. My local candidate agrees that's what they need to do. So I read this as putting out public messages that seem like they appease women like us here but actually it's just a cover for the real plan which is self-ID. Labour saw how disastrous it was in Scotland but I think they have wrongly concluded this was because of PR rather than a failing of the policy. Therefore they are adjusting their PR but not the substance. The tactics my candidate employed were - it's only a few; they really are very distressed; there are bigger problems to focus on.

But the one positive is the much needed conversation is being had now and it will be an election issue.

This is exactly it.

Take the public with you, these words are doing that but the legal situation is actually moving towards ease for GRC holders.

They want to get to the goal without the ‘heat’

Going by some posts on here it’s working somewhat

You have to be pretty accurate to look at what counts and what doesn’t and why

Labour doesn't need to bring the public along with them.

The public needs to bring Labour along with them.

They work for us, not the other way around.

Thank you for laying that out so clearly StripeySuperNova. I think that's spot on. You've articulated my unformed doubt and discomfort for me.

How dare Harriet Harman and the Labour party tell me, as someone who has survived domestic violence, that if I go into a refuge I don't deserve to have the safety of a single sex space? How fucking dare she.

Harriet was always a bit too Blairy for me. But she was very good in the HoC , as acting PM before Brown took over iirc. Very disappointing - and a bit worrying.

I'm glad that Labour are saying these things. They seem to be moving away from "this never comes up on people's doorsteps" and tacitly acknowledging that it does.

But it's clear from their responses that they have heard women's concerns and they don't give a shit. They're coming out with these carefully crafted responses which make it clear that they don't intend to change their views or their approach at all, but they're hoping that if they say these things women will be reassured enough to vote for them.

It's Brexit all over again. Massive "both sides" energy.

It's become very clear to me that nothing that placates the other side is going to satisfy me, so unless they come out and clearly tell these misogynist activists to get back in their box before the next election, Labour can do without my vote.

Yep, Rishi using the right-wing conspiracy theory that men aren't women to appeal to all the crazies that believe in biological reality.

If your political opponents are able to make political capital out of saying that humans can't change sex, that's a you problem. It means you're a fucking idiot.

I make no apology for still hoping to be able to vote Labour if at all possible. I am also not stupid, which is why I'm following events as closely as I can.

The fact that they could have used the conference to clear up any ambiguity, and chose not to, leads me to conclude that they want it this way.

Ha at this

Yes.

Here, in a nutshell, you can see demonstrated both the respect that Labour have for women and for the electorate, and their plans for honesty with the electorate.

Make your decisions accordingly. How happy are you to be governed by those who think so very little of women, and intend to lie and deceive you because they dare not be open about their intent?

Given the quality of the witnesses we're watching in the JP court case, I honestly wonder if Labour at this point are so locked into their echo chamber that they've lost any lingering awareness that there are still people out there with actual intelligence, unprogrammed, with capacity for critical thought. As opposed to programmable muppets who are madder than a box of frogs.

I'm fucking sick of it.

Labour doesn't give a shit about women who are harmed by men accessing our spaces. If they did they would commit to proper single sex spaces and would either say having a GRC doesn't get a male access or, even better, repeal it altogether.