Starmer: "trans-inclusive" conversion therapy ban, "modernise" the GRA, all hate crime to be aggravated offences as part of making every child "proud and confident"

[ResisterRex]

Exclusive in Diva, following a reception at a LGBT+ Labour event in Parliament on 29 Jan:

https://diva-magazine.com/2024/01/29/exclusive-keir-starmer-lgbtqia-rights/

"“We’ll strengthen the law, so every category of hate crime is treated as an aggravated offence,” Starmer said. “We’ll cut NHS waiting lists for LGBT+ people waiting for urgent physical and mental health care. We’ll modernise the Gender Recognition Act. We’ll implement a full, trans-inclusive, ban on all forms of conversion therapy. We fully support the view that conversion therapy is psychologically damaging abuse.”

“We are committed to a decade of national renewal and will work with all the organisations in this room tonight so every child can feel proud and confident in who they are, to stand up for LGBT+ rights at home and abroad and to get Britain’s future back.”

The mention of children is unclear but must have a background to the full speech? LGBT Labour hasn't tweeted about it but others have. Rayner and Dodds also in attendance.

https://x.com/djrm94/status/1752057964767101041?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

https://x.com/stevenatkins/status/1752256944843162016?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

x.com/anuox/status/1752094930074325420?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Good point

We might almost be one of the few countries to head that way

The amount of work trying to decipher lawyer responses is ridiculous

On nearly every statement from Labour, bar the full on gender ones

You'd hope that a politician had the skills (and ethics) to stand back and observe the dangers of allowing the Isla Bryson's of the world to share changing rooms alongside teenage girls. You'd hope that even a basic understanding of science would confirm that allowing men to take over women's sport is unfair and discriminatory not to mention prisons, hospital wards etc
None of this is complex. The fact that the KS has taken the side of the Isla Brysons and is either too scared or personally compromised to speak out against women being harassed and bullied speaks to his character and values. Massively disappointing.

It's Labour who want my vote back - they're the ones knocking on the doors insisting they can be trusted with women's votes. They need to do better.

Why anyone is voting for more of that I don't understand.

We're telling you why and you're not listening.

Or you just don't want to hear it because it's not as important to you. Rights for women is the single most important issue for me personally.

We cannot even define ourselves at the moment.

If Labour would commit to protecting the word woman, our single sex spaces, prisons, sports, etc. then I can breathe a sigh of relief, let go of that issues and focus on the others.

But as long and they stop short of stating exactly what they mean, I can't give them my vote. I'm not giving my rights away.

It's an open goal for Keir if he just had the balls to go for it.

I've seen enough shit in my life to see how repression and abuse of girls and women impacts individuals, families and the wider society. It is a single issue that has far reaching affects. I've had enough of it and I am not going to risk voting a slippery party who's trying to be clever with words and can't engage with us empathically.

The Tories reduced the GRC price. That was their commitment to 'making the process easier' dramatically reducing the price to getting that certificate. What is it that Labour are going to do in reality to 'make the process easier'? Has that been fully confirmed and discussed?

Because it seems that the two pledges are not comparable at all and it is dishonest to try unless Labour has been clear.

I'd like to get some meat on the bone. What exactly do you mean by

We’ll implement a full, trans-inclusive, ban on all forms of conversion therapy. We fully support the view that conversion therapy is psychologically damaging abuse

and how do you square that with Cass, Sir Keir? And

We’ll modernise the Gender Recognition Act

How, exactly?

How are you defining 'hate crime', and how are proposed to modify existing legislation?

To me it's not a question of voting Tory but of keeping Starmer out because this policy is dangerous to children. I want to vote for the support of public services. But this issue is too important, I would vote Tory to keep him out.

@AdamRyan Yes he's a lawyer - so he can say some people with a penis are legally female as they have a gender recognition certificate. When he just says some women have a penis he's not being a lawyer, he's being a fool.

Re moderniding the GRC process...

The latest I can find is Starmer and Didds saying last July that thr process would involve a diagnosis od dysphoria provided by one doctor instead of teo with approval from a registrar instead of a medical panel, and no mention of "living as the acquired gender".

Also I can't find any mention of changing the current situation where official ID documents like driving licence and passports can have sex markers chsnged without a GRC. In the absence of any pronouncements, I will presume Labour will let this continue.

I see it more as Conservative listened to people's concerns, took notice of responses to the consultation. That is what a government should do.

With Labour it feels like a done (backroom) deal, when they talk about this there is no mention of consultation, no mention of talks with women's groups even within their own party.

And no, I can not trust a man who has stood by and done nothing about the abuse faced by Rosie Duffield. He doesnt even have to agree with her, just offer some support. That tells me a lot about the person he is.

Yes I'm really getting the Brexit vibes with this issue. Like Turkeys voting for Christmas, or you must be stupid wasn't a vote winner in the end was it? Attempting to shame people into voting for something they don't agree with, doesn't sit well with the electorate.

Rather than address the valid concerns of women it's easier to pretend to be righteous because 'left wing'. I used to vote Labour anyway because they were not Tory. I'm not doing that again.

That is my recollection too. So, not quite the same as just reducing the cost despite how it is being sold on this thread.

Yeah Dodds wrote about 'the requirement to obtain a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.... by one doctor'(from the same article I linked upthread.)

I've seen it suggested that it could be done by another healthcare or even social care practitioner but to be fair, I don't have a source for that plus Dodds does stipulate 'one doctor'.

I didn't used to be so mistrustful.

They can't "modernise" it because the Tories did that as a result of public consultation. And they put the process online. The only modernising it needs is repealing and consideration to grandfather clauses for those with a GRC.

The amount of work trying to decipher lawyer responses is ridiculous

Quite.

Who has head space, time and capacity right now to be trying work out the nuances of what might possibly be going on between the ears of a politician and what the word salad might actually mean?

Prove there's some capacity to actually have a clear, accessible, comprehensible plan and to carry it out, ffs. The last thing this country needs is a bit more waffle.

'the requirement to obtain a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.... by one doctor'

Another income stream for gender GP and the like.

There is a rather significant difference from a panel of medical doctors assessing a gender dysphoria diagnosis and one person who may or may not be a medical doctor.

Has any figures ever been published for how many certificate applications have been rejected? I would predict that this number, if there is any, will be significantly lower under such changes.

Again, there is a huge difference between lowering the price and making it a less robust process. We already know that there are male trans people who have stated they have been helped with giving the right answers in any case to get their application approved. And that is with the current panel.

I doubt that Labour will do another consultation on it. And I suspect they will simply ignore the results from the previous consultation.

SidewaysOtter · Today 15:40

So if that makes me “right wing” in your book well, I guess I’ll just have to find a way to live with your disapproval.

Wanna borrow my jackboots? 😃

Somebody upthread posted a story about how he helped women, when heading the CPS, by improving the numbers of rape convictions. Great, bully for him, but what went wrong? It's how he's behaving now, that's relevant.

If he's too cowardly to take on Weremaids and Stonewall, what hope can we have that he'll be bold on social injustice, or the NHS etc etc? He's already told the RW press that he's more or less continue Tory policies on refugees, the economy, cutting benefits.

If it's going to be mostly same shit, different sandwich, what's the point of voting for them?

Has any figures ever been published for how many certificate applications have been rejected?

"1.8% of all decisions led to an application being refused"

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition-certificate-applications-and-outcomes#:~:text=1.8%25%20of%20all%20decisions%20led%20to%20an%20application%20being%20refused

Yep great if you’re a lawyer being paid by the minutes to decipher language

Everyone else - they need to try some plain English

Absolutely. Lawyers and lawyerly types talking amongst themselves and/or formal legal documents? Knock yourself out with the legal wrangling and clever turns of phrase.

But that’s absolutely not how politics should be conducted because it excludes everyone else who doesn’t know how to interpret the legalese. Communication should be clear, not an unending exercise in untangling what someone meant from what they said. If you think politicians are bad for this, they’ve got nothing on a lawyer…

I’m terrified about all the same things you are Adam as are many women here except that I don’t see Labour talking about how they are going to handle any of those. All I see is more and more talk about the T and how they are going to remove women’s rights to same sex protection anywhere. And how they are hoping to make things like misgendering an offence which will make teachers lives completely intolerable and they will leave in droves - it’s the major issue female teaches I know talk about and they are scared for the children and scared for what will happen to them if they make a mistake on a preferred pronoun.

What I won’t do is vote for a party that holds me and my views in contempt. They have frequently stated they don’t want women who don’t believe a woman can have a penis to vote for them. So thats easy I won’t. I even voted Labour when Corbyn was in charge because I vote Labour. I’ve been spoiling my vote but that isnt registering with Labour.

This time I’ll be voting Tory in a Tory seat the LibDems have a chance of winning because Labour terrify me more than Tory.

So you are terrified about those things, but you are going to vote for them on the basis Sunak says women don't have penises?