Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Thread gallery
29
EasternStandard · 06/12/2023 21:25

Helleofabore · 06/12/2023 21:23

What do Labour mean? Isn't that what we would all like to know?

Maybe they don’t know beyond please don’t ask and don’t talk about it

GailBlancheViola · 06/12/2023 21:26

So when Labour say they will ‘protect single sex spaces’ what do they actually mean?

They never actually say single sex spaces they say single sex exemptions in the Equality Act which as shown are a dogs dinner and need clarifying which Labour do not want as that will exclude those women who have a penis as per Kier Starmer's beliefs. Or they say safe spaces but never clarify exactly what those safe spaces are.

Original poster
Signalbox · 06/12/2023 21:33

EasternStandard · 06/12/2023 21:19

So when Labour say they will ‘protect single sex spaces’ what do they actually mean?

Show quote history

They are so fuzzy on the detail it's really hard to know. They tend to talk about "safe spaces" rather than SSS and I have never heard a Labour MP detail how they intend to protect women's spaces. Considering that SSS are not protected atm (evidenced by the multiple TW who claim they have been using women's spaces for years) they would need to actually make some changes that would benefit women (maybe by clarifying the meaning of sex in the EA) to protect them. I just can't see that happening.

OP posts:
Peterpieper · 06/12/2023 22:06

Watching that , it’s amazing to see how weak the gender ideology proponents are, when they don’t have a baying crowd behind them and have cold facts in front of them.

Totallymessed · 06/12/2023 22:14

Kemi Badenoch is great. Knows the facts, doesn't get heated, but doesn't take any crap.

TempestTost · 06/12/2023 22:24

BlessedKali · 06/12/2023 21:19

These women like Dodd's & the one that wishes to 'decapitate terfs'.... are they just useful idiots? do they REALLY have no understanding of the impact on women's safety? What is actually going on for them?

Are they simply playing a part that they think will win them the election?

I think most of them are actually rather stupid.

Froodwithatowel · 06/12/2023 22:42

TempestTost · 06/12/2023 22:24

I think most of them are actually rather stupid.

Show quote history

Yes.

There's a lot of questions to be asked about who exactly is rising to the top of political parties, how do they get there, and why. Because we're certainly not getting the brightest, best and most competent minds the UK has to offer.

The first time I heard Anne Ruzylo speak for example I was staggered to realise that talent of this kind existed in the low levels of the local parties but didn't rise any higher. (Or rather, did exist. She was disposed of by TRAs.)

OneMorePlant · 06/12/2023 22:51

Love, love, love Kemi Badenoch. She was clear and concise with good arguments.

duc748 · 06/12/2023 23:02

Have to say Kemi Badenoch was very impressive there. I suppose the difference is, she not only knows her brief, she actually believes in what she's saying. In stark contrast to most of the other speakers. Dodds just sounds like an idiot to me.

BlessedKali · 06/12/2023 23:13

Labour looked like an incompetent, scruffy, baying, idiotic mess. Conservatives on the other hand appeared professional, informed and with the vulnerable in mind.

duc748 · 06/12/2023 23:40

I suppose it's the novelty of seeing a Minister speaking, and thinking, there's someone who is diligently doing their job. A rarity in an era of gobshites.

TempestTost · 06/12/2023 23:57

Froodwithatowel · 06/12/2023 22:42

Yes.

There's a lot of questions to be asked about who exactly is rising to the top of political parties, how do they get there, and why. Because we're certainly not getting the brightest, best and most competent minds the UK has to offer.

The first time I heard Anne Ruzylo speak for example I was staggered to realise that talent of this kind existed in the low levels of the local parties but didn't rise any higher. (Or rather, did exist. She was disposed of by TRAs.)

Edited
Show quote history

I don't know if this applies on the Conservative side, but on the Labour side, I wonder if part of the problem is that to get to the top layer, there seems to be a demand to toe the line on all of the "right" issues. The people who can be forgiven for stepping out a bit are ones with some sort of special identity group (though only so far, Trevor Phillips seems to have stepped over that line pretty well and he is a very moderate person.)

Most really smart people have more mixed and complex views, in my experience, so maybe they don't do well in a party that now seems to prize ideology more than complexity or pragmatic politics? And in a lot of ways seems to despise pragmatic politics, but they are actually a really necessary thing.

ZuttZeVootEeeVo · 07/12/2023 01:04

BlessedKali · 06/12/2023 23:13

Labour looked like an incompetent, scruffy, baying, idiotic mess. Conservatives on the other hand appeared professional, informed and with the vulnerable in mind.

To be fair, the Conservative party have their fair share of genderists. Any number of them could have been Equalities Minister and not been so thorough. There are left wing politicians who understand, and all the braver because they are standing against a largely genderist leadership and parties that are actively stopping debate.

What it does show is that genderist mps are not looking at this from a safeguarding perspective, and have no understanding of the issues. Some of the comments were embarrassing - not understanding what single sex means, and saying this makes gay men unsafe. They made no sense.

Its worrying how many experienced MPs have just accepted genderist theory and refuse to acknowledge the harm it has done to women and children. It doesn't bode well for a labour government. Although not a genderist, starmer has shown that he doesn't understand this at all and may appoint a minister who doesnt either.

WickedSerious · 07/12/2023 08:29

GailBlancheViola · 06/12/2023 21:26

So when Labour say they will ‘protect single sex spaces’ what do they actually mean?

They never actually say single sex spaces they say single sex exemptions in the Equality Act which as shown are a dogs dinner and need clarifying which Labour do not want as that will exclude those women who have a penis as per Kier Starmer's beliefs. Or they say safe spaces but never clarify exactly what those safe spaces are.

It's all just mealy mouthed flimflam.

OceanicBoundlessness · 07/12/2023 08:41

There's a decent report in the Guardian too, about concerns that gender affirming 'care' is conversion therapy for gay children.

helloOP · 07/12/2023 08:54

BlessedKali · 06/12/2023 23:13

Labour looked like an incompetent, scruffy, baying, idiotic mess. Conservatives on the other hand appeared professional, informed and with the vulnerable in mind.

That would in deed be a first for this Tory Government! but what are they actually doing about it?

Reminds me of the mess they ve got into with Rwanda, lots of good talk but zero real action and mega levels of confusion in policy or as Braverman says "No intention of actually doing anything"

KB is a Govt minister, she is, at least in part, responsible for the collapse in womens rights.

MET police have recorded 1,753 sexual offences in NHS hospitals between January 2019 and September 2022, 511 of these rapes
None of these 511 rapes resulted in charge or summons (overall rate for rape charge is 2.7% in MET)
During this time period, there were 36,879 mixed-sex accommodation breaches across the NHS. This does not include data from the period between March 2020 and October 2021, when reporting was suspended due to the pressures of the Coronavirus pandemic.
The findings also showed that there were more than 9,000 mixed sex accommodation breaches across the capital’s hospitals

As far as i can see, based on this, people like KB are very good at talking and little else, they ve had 13 years to ban conversion therapies.

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 07/12/2023 09:00

TempestTost · 06/12/2023 22:24

I think most of them are actually rather stupid.

Show quote history

“Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed.”

-- C.S. Lewis (The Magician's Nephew, Narnia series)

They're trying.

Original poster
Signalbox · 07/12/2023 09:01

OceanicBoundlessness · 07/12/2023 08:41

There's a decent report in the Guardian too, about concerns that gender affirming 'care' is conversion therapy for gay children.

Does this mean that any “conversion therapy” ban will include those pushing gender ideology onto children? Might be a case of careful what you wish for.

OP posts:
PronounssheRa · 07/12/2023 09:03

EasternStandard · 06/12/2023 21:19

So when Labour say they will ‘protect single sex spaces’ what do they actually mean?

Show quote history

Starmer did a chat on MN a while ago, and this very question was asked.

It wasn't answered of course.

In absence of any clarity from Labour I take their position to be single sex spaces (though Labour call them safe spaces) include women and some men who feel like women. They might intend for this only to be GRC holders but we know that can't be enforced.

OldCrone · 07/12/2023 09:07

Some of the comments were embarrassing - not understanding what single sex means, and saying this makes gay men unsafe. They made no sense.

Chris Bryant, after suggesting that measures designed to protect women and children made him unsafe as a gay man (why?), then asked questions which made even less sense.

I will ask the Minister two very simple questions. First, how many people does she think today’s decision will affect—a precise number? Secondly, she will know that there are lots of people in the UK who have entered into a same-sex civil partnership or marriage and would like that to be recognised in other countries around the world, so that they can live their lives there, wherever it may be. What has she done since being in power to ensure that more countries recognise same-sex civil partnerships and marriages?

A precise number of people that a law will affect? Unless you think the number is zero, or only applies to one specific person, how can you be expected to provide a precise number?

And what power does he think a UK government minister has over the laws of other countries? And what has same-sex marriage in other countries to do with legal gender recognition in the UK?

IcakethereforeIam · 07/12/2023 09:14

In answer to Chris Bryant's first question, the law will effect every single person in the UK, living here or even visiting, particularly women and children. If holding a GRC only affected the person holding it, there wouldn't be a problem.

bananabug · 07/12/2023 09:20

OldCrone · 07/12/2023 09:07

Some of the comments were embarrassing - not understanding what single sex means, and saying this makes gay men unsafe. They made no sense.

Chris Bryant, after suggesting that measures designed to protect women and children made him unsafe as a gay man (why?), then asked questions which made even less sense.

I will ask the Minister two very simple questions. First, how many people does she think today’s decision will affect—a precise number? Secondly, she will know that there are lots of people in the UK who have entered into a same-sex civil partnership or marriage and would like that to be recognised in other countries around the world, so that they can live their lives there, wherever it may be. What has she done since being in power to ensure that more countries recognise same-sex civil partnerships and marriages?

A precise number of people that a law will affect? Unless you think the number is zero, or only applies to one specific person, how can you be expected to provide a precise number?

And what power does he think a UK government minister has over the laws of other countries? And what has same-sex marriage in other countries to do with legal gender recognition in the UK?

I think what he was trying to imply was that there are such a small population of trans people that there are other pressing issues the government should be concentrating on. BUT he's missing the point that the laws affect women and girls too! Which is 50% of the population! Being a selfish Gay man he literally couldn't care less about women's safety as it doesn't affect him at all, it doesn't even register on his radar.