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

Well said and same

Which economic policies from Labour are you looking to to change things?

Labour dont need policies, people will vote for them generally knowing they are Good and on the Right Side.

I get it why people are desperate to vote Labour; andf I know that there will most likely be a Labour landside at the election. But i also think many people are going to feel very let down when there isn't the revolution everyone is expecting, or hoping for. Starmer has committed to most of the Tory spending pledges, and has rowed back on virtually every Corbynite type proposal he used to be in favour of.

The main one he hasn't rowed back on, but has doubled down on instead, is Gender Self ID.

So, in terms of ecomonics not that much will really change in any obvious way. Fuel prices will still be high, as will the general cost of living. The NHS has issues which cannot be improved without major structural change. Covid was the last nail in the coffin. And it was Labour, remember, calling for longer and harder lockdowns, including for children and schools - which is now proving to have been very damaging.

Add to that rising tensions in the world - with the possibility of war opening up on several fronts - Starmer is going to have to be at the top of his game from the start.

Impending war(s) are probably going to be absolutely critical.

I'd like to know how both parties plan to handle those.

And if you vote Labour, you can have all of that plus the destruction of what's left of women's rights and child safeguarding.

Why is it so hard for some people to understand? Labour haven't said one thing about how they'll fix all the issues you think are more important. All they've said is how they are going to make the gender mess even worse.

This is very true. Labour also haven't said they'll remove the benefits cap and for the life of me, I cannot understand why that doesn't enrage the Labour base.

Apart from self-ID and taxing education - which is surely going to have to apply to all fees including university ones - there isn't a difference between the two.

In addition to not having any discernible plan on immigration and small boats (needed for the swing voters at least) Labour also seems vulnerable to losing their base due to their position on Gaza.

And yet the one clear difference is they want to let men who say magic words steal all our stuff. Then throw us in prison if they protest. Why are they dying on this hill? It's baffling.

Exactly

Starmer has got a major internal problem from the off...because he supports Israel, and many in his own party absolutely do not. They will claim that any other war front that opens up is primarily down to Israel and the West's support of its right to exist and defend itself.

Many in the Labour party ( especially the still devoted Corbynites) actively hate their own country and the West by extension. They have bought into american identity politics and the politics of oppression. Trump is most likley to be elected again at the end of the year as a result, partly, of the excesses of Critical Race theory, intersectionalism and Queer Theory in the U.S. Things are pretty crazy there - and it is gradually going that way here too.

Trump is so unpredictable, that whoever is leader here is going to have to take a very strong and determined lead because we'll not be able to rely on the U.S coming to the rescue.

If anyone wants to achieve more votes for Labour then I suggest tearing Starmer a new arsehole instead of haranguing women who are at the end of their tether.

Maybe start by asking him why he won't commit his party to the proposal to clarify the definition of 'sex' in the Equality Act.

This is very true. Labour also haven't said they'll remove the benefits cap and for the life of me, I cannot understand why that doesn't enrage the Labour base.

Labour seem to have inspired such absolute, unqualified trust in some of their voters, that voters simply assume Labour will remove the benefits cap. I suppose Labour are coasting on brand recognition established by the policies of previous leaders.

Improving the lives of poor people is simply not a priority for the current crop of Labour front-benchers

Assuming that they need our votes, they've made it crystal clear that they'd rather not be in power than compromise on their trans policies. If they cared about working for the benefit of the wider public they wouldn't be willing to set that ultimatum.

Imagine for a moment that a non-resident father told his ex that he would only see his kids over the summer holidays if he was allowed to take them on holiday abroad with his girlfriend of a month, to stay with her parents that the children had never met. He would have made his priorities very clear when he set that ultimatum, surely?

Would anyone really expect that he'd ensure the children had a happy and safe time on holiday with him, when he didn't care enough about his children to want to see them if he couldn't get his way about the holiday? If he cared about doing his best by his children, he wouldn't have set such an ultimatum, would he? He'd want to spend time with them whatever, even if he couldn't go abroad with them. He'd care how much it would hurt his kids if he refused to see them for the entire summer holidays!

The kids might have a nice time on holiday, depending on what his girlfriend and girlfriend's parents are like. However, it would be foolish to expect their father to ensure it, because he would have already demonstrated how little he cared for his children's emotions.

Similarly, I might be economically better off under a Labour government, but there's no need to kid myself that the Labour party has any great commitment to making that happen.

I think I might start Self IDing as a transwoman.

After all your gender is just a feeling and I'm starting to feel like they get the better end of the stick over women. So, yes. I think I'll be a transwoman.

Let's see them try and say I can't be because I have a 'natal vagina....'

The irony.

coasting on brand recognition established by the policies of previous leaders.

This is very acute.

There is only so many times you can distract everyone with another chorus of the red flag before you have to actually do some socialism.

coasting on brand recognition established by the policies of previous leaders.

The main message is "we're not the other lot".

No doubt hoping people will add the factory quoted above in their own heads

coasting on brand recognition established by the policies of previous leaders.

100%

I've never voted tory and can't see myself ever doing so. They've spent their time in power destroying public services, the economy and international relations.
They now claim their priorities are to undo the damage they have done: 'Halve inflation', 'Grow the economy', 'Reduce debt', 'Cut waiting lists', 'Stop the boats'.
I'm very much struggling with who to vote for. If my Labour MP showed any signs of wanting to protect women's rights I would vote for her, but she seems to be keeping quiet on the subject. I think I need to write to her in an attempt to find out where she actually stands.

I think you'll find that biotrans are the most marginalised and vulnerable™....

https://www.heterodorx.com/podcast/episode-55-biotrans-with-kikomi/

Labour don't want my vote because i am a woman that has never had a penis and i don't believe that by having a little chat with the Doctor means that a man can become a woman. I have too many Granddaughters and Nieces to vote for Labour.

If Labour get in, it's game over.

And if Labour and willing to destroy women's fundamental rights and the safeguarding of children in the pursuit of men's feelings (because we all know this is not about transmen), why is anyone convinced they will give a shit about working class women, poor women, prostituted women, disabled women, women that are victims of male violence, women that are victims of rape, the mental health of our children, the education and empowerment of our daughters, the societal inequalities of the two sexes...

I think Starmer believes us silly women will be placated with his twisty words and his ambiguous definition of 'women', he thinks we will fall for the 'safe spaces' spiel and hope that he means 'single-sex'. I think Starmer doesn't actually think much of women, thinks we are not that smart - or maybe that we are all too busy holding society together or that we will put everyone else before us as usual. I hope he has underestimated women.

To be fair, Labour have now started talking about 'single sex services' and 'single sex exemptions'. What I've not seen them explain is whether they intend for their 'modernised' (easier to obtain) GRC to give the holder access to single sex services.

I am confident they could clarify this if they so wished.

I am confident they could clarify this if they so wished.

Indeed they could.

One has to wonder why they won't.

I think we know the answer to that!

I think that's pretty obvious.

Single sex spaces will be for :

-women +
-Men with a GRC with the F sex marker (the process that they are going to make simpler meaning that there will likely be more of them)
-Any other men who claim to be women in reality because service providers (with very limited exceptions) are not allowed to ask for proof of GRC.

So all spaces (potentially with some very limited exceptions) will be open for everyone.

And they get around this because they introduced the legislation which allows MEN to be legally female.

Indeed. And if that's not correct then why won't Anneliese 'let me be clear' Dodds clarify?

If they won't clarify then it looks like I'll be forced to conclude that a) they don't want to and b) they've calculated they can get away with it.

They've still got time to prove me wrong.

The more I read about it, the more I'm amazed that the GRA ever got passed. Didn't it strike anyone at the time that once you enshrine the right in law for (some) men to be regarded as women, you're in for a whole raft of problems? Eh, Annaliese? Frankly, saying how proud you are of it makes you sound a bit of a fuckwit.