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

If its an issue they arent willing to talk about openly until the time is right, or are willing to compromise on to get something they are really passionate about through, they arent helpful.
Yes and I think this is the flaw with contacting your election candidates privately to ask them where they stand. If they're not willing or able to speak up in public then frankly they're going to be of little use when they're in government and the Chief Whip comes calling.

And I don't envisage any support whatsoever from an influx of new Labour MPs who will have had to toe the line to even get selected.

Strengthen legal protections for working mothers
https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/a-new-deal-for-working-people/

Review laws on stalking, whistleblowing and cohabitation to better protect women

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/women-being-let-down-in-our-justice-system-says-thornberry/5117512.article

Labour have actual tangible policy targeted at making life better for women.

The Tories have no policy targeted at improving womens lives that I'm aware of. With the possible exception of their unworkable childcare plan.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2023/jul/29/nurseries-in-england-warn-governments-plan-to-expand-free-childcare-is-undeliverable

Nice campaigning there

Still a no thanks to a gender ideology based party

In your top item, there are 19 uses of "workers" and 2 of "pregnant women" with no unmodified uses. 2 of maternity and paternity. Your emphasis on "working mothers" is interesting but seems misplaced unless you think that all uses of "family" are a proxy for mothers.

"Considering focusing on better education of boys to support [halving violence against women and girls]

Just consider it? With thr aim of what, truing to get boys not yo harass anc assault girls in the mixed sex toilets Labour mandates in schools (see, Wales)?

Childcare -from the Graun piece -considering creating thousands of nursery places anf asked Sir David Bell to find new ways to increase levels of childcare.

You can't improve the lives of women (you know, the actual biological half of the population who are female with their specific issues) when all you mean by 'woman' is 'human of either sex'.

There are no policies for women, there's just policies.

All their policies are costed, as you know.

Meanwhile the Tories have spaffed unknown hundreds of billions on an unworkable policy to send refugees to Rwanda.

And lost £16bn to covid scheme fraud

And fucked us all over with a completely crazy "mini budget" that ignored any expert input, with the entirely predictable result that the market rejected it, it nearly crashed lots of big financial institutions, required a financial rescue package and now we are all paying ££££ more for housing through increased mortgage costs (and associated rental increases).

Of course you can.

A policy to better criminalise stalkers so they don't go on to escalate to murder will benefit the victims of stalkers, who are overwhelmingly people with vaginas

A policy to provide more affordable and accessible childcare will benefit people who have given birth.

A policy to increase rape convictions will criminalise rapists, who currently can rape with impunity. Those are all people with penises.

The language doesn't actually affect the outcomes here (which is why I'm being sex based in my language, not using man/woman).

Exactly! We always come back to this

if Labour defines woman as “adult human female plus men with special lady feelings” then they can write woman as much as they like. It still doesn’t mean “adult human female” to them

Can you not refer to me as 'people with vaginas', thanks. It's unbelievably offensive.

Oh god that ‘costed’ line

They have VAT and Nom Dom

The first will probably bring in little as parents move and the second even less when the most attractive to other countries do too

Gimmicks both

If people are relying on that it’s barely a couple of days of NHS alone

All their policies are costed, as you know.

Links please

Agree

I don't find my vagina offensive. And if I wrote the response saying "women" then posters would be "but that makes no sense if you aren't defining what a woman is"

My point is the outcome for women of those policies is positive and sex based, regardless of if the definition of woman includes males or not.

See?

Must be the biggest test of gullibility there is.

They have two gimmicks that might bring in 0

I personally find it much more offensive to live in a country where government policy had effectively decriminalised rape, and then said government thinks saying "a man is a man and a woman is a woman. No women have penises" is enough to win my vote.

Patronising and infantilising. Yes I know. Now please can you do something about the fact said men are able to use those penises to rape people and get away with it scot free.

Or start to take women reporting an escalating pattern of violence seriously and deal with the men before they murder her (and maybe her children).

Shame Kier Starmer can't say that. And stand next to Rosie Duffield whilst he's saying it.
Deeds not words.

BTW, Labour could do with some competent proofreaders / editors.

Right at the beginning of the page on "A New Deal for Working People", one paragraph reads:

"From day one, a Labour government will strengthen workers’ rights and make Britain work for working for people."

Every woman with half a brain and some self-respect finds it horrifyingly offensive to be labelled by private parts. Just because you're not some slimy dude on the street yelling "nice ass" does not make it any better to go "people with vaginas" , a denigrating term used by incels in the past, on a woman's forum. Shame on you.

None of these policies will have any effect if the police are too busy arresting people for stickers while ignoring women who get stalked like they are doing right now. The escalating of "hate crimes" will keep the police so busy they will need a lot of extra bodies in the police force.

Also how do we know they wont reverse ferret all these promises like they have done with a lot of others? (scrap private schools charity status, scrap two child limit and benefit cap, scrap tuition fees, increase income tax top 5% earners, nationalisation public services, freedom of movement, green prosperity plan, what is a woman,...)

Promises are meaningless.

The words that carry weight are how they demean and denigrate women every bloody day. They aren't looking to help us, they are looking to control us.

😬

I have the ability to find multiple items "offensive".

I find your language objectionable and unclear ("people with vaginas" when there are a number of TW who claim not only a vagina but a cervix) but that's your choice and preferred method of engagement.

Rejoice that you don't feel despairing or politically homeless and unrepresented: I feel all three.

Every woman with half a brain and some self-respect finds it horrifyingly offensive to be labelled by private parts. Just because you're not some slimy dude on the street yelling "nice ass" does not make it any better to go "people with vaginas" , a denigrating term used by incels in the past, on a woman's forum. Shame on you.

This. It's alienating, dehumanising, disrespectful language.

Froodwithatowel · Today 10:36

You can't improve the lives of women (you know, the actual biological half of the population who are female with their specific issues) when all you mean by 'woman' is 'human of either sex'.

Pretty much what I thought - "How can you protect women when you don't know what they are?"