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

you are a Tory-Supporting, Right-Wing, Religious Fundamentalist, Trumpian, Lying Bad Person.

Thank you loads Kuchingham. Hubby has just said how much more interesting this makes me! He's told the kids I'm exciting now, not a boring, retired old woman with an old anorak and dodgy hips 😜

Lawyer - We will only take your house in reasonable situations

Ok you might want to define that further before I sign

They are referring there to the Conservatives wanting to rewrite the whole thing, not to the Conservatives wanting to strengthen sex based exemptions.

Given the Conservatives continuously want to remove laws and protections for vulnerable people, and given the EA is what provides a lot of those protections labour are right to see they don't want it undermined. Women potentially have a lot more to lose from rewriting than they have to gain (e.g. maternity protections, ability to challenge sex based discrimination, disability discrimination would all be at threat by a whole scale rewriting).

They would be a shit opposition if they agreed to support the government without seeing the details of what was proposed!

Why haven't the conservatives made progress since April? Until they do, or until we get to see manifestos or have an election then it's all a moot point, we can only go by what has been said in the past.

No one knows what they mean and it’s exactly how they want it. Spin in the hope women will wash over detail.

Anyone who claims to know what they do oppose and don’t oppose have greater imagination than Starmer and Dodds do clarity

Starmer - ’Take the public with you’ they have some advocates helping them out here

Same for the Tories - what are they proposing?
I'd rather not lose my abilities to claim I've been sexually discriminated against thanks. And I want younger women to continue to be protected against maternity discrimination, as far as possible.

I would like to see the Tories bring in their proposal to get rid of NDAs but they need to do the sex based definitions first, that is a bigger priority for me

What other parts of the Equality Act have the Conservatives proposed amending/altering?

So far all I can find is biological sex to mean biological sex so that single sex spaces will be based on biological sex and nothing else.

It's a shame Labour MPs don't represent women's rights as well easily
"Trans my butch lesbian aunt ". Yep certainly
"Could we have single sex spaces, because trans women are biologically men" - BIGOT

They would be a shit opposition if they agreed to support the government without seeing the details of what was proposed!

Kemi Badenoch asked and received views from the EHRC regarding the proposal for amending sex to mean biological sex in the EqA, Labour have seen this document and I recall a female Labour MP, I believe it is the one who holds the Shadow Equalities brief, poo-pooing the idea of the change on Politics Live on the BBC stating just how proud Labour are of the EqA and won't be altering it.

Face it @AdamRyan Labour have NO intention of securing women's rights to single sex male free spaces, their Leader believes some women have a penis fgs.

They will fudge and obfuscate and bring out all the tropes of most oppressed, tiny number, how proud they are of the misogynistic, sexist, homophobic GRA which opened the door to the current shit show and of course the EqA with its unclear, obfuscating language around sex and gender reassignment.

You trust them if you want to, I fucking don't.

Has Labour been clear about how exactly the government has implemented the GRA and EqA incorrectly?

Did labour, as the opposition party, speak up when the NHS switched sex for gender identiy on the databases? Have labour actually explicit said that men, even ones with a GRC should not be in womens prisons, on hosptal wards? Has labour spoken about gender identity taught in schools?

As far as im aware, labour were quiet and their current stance is to say the GRA needs modernising and they want to increase protections of SSE in the EqA. Great, but thats like saying that they want to increase growth and reduce inflation - its a woolly aim, not a fully formed plan or a clear statement about what is meant by the aims.

If the GRA and EqA are good laws, but implement poorly by the Conservatives, why dont they just state what has gone wrong? And why do we need to modernise and increase protection if both are good laws?

When labour get in, id rather they left everything alone, because i dont trust them to develop and implement laws that protect women and children. Too many within the party are gender ideologues who would prioritise the wants of men into law at the expense of women and children.

Does anyone truly believe that starmer has it in him to define a woman without the inclusion of some men?

The problem is gail that under a legal definition some women do have a penis, so Starmer is in a cleft stick of either lying or getting pilloried for saying some women have a penis.
He choice the opposite pathway to Sunak is all. I prefer politicians that don't lie, even if the truth is unpalatable.

To all intents and purposes at the moment Labour and the Conservatives have the same policy: strengthen the law to protect single sex spaces whilst also streamlining the GRC process to "be kinder" (to use Truss terminology).

It's your right not to trust them of course, I just object to the politically motivated misrepresentation that goes on.

sorry, are you implying labour got us here despite not being in power for 13 years??? That's a bit odd. A lot of this happened on the Conservatives watch, starting with Maria Millers bonkers consultation and commitment to self ID. Including males in womens prisons and people losing their jobs for saying single sex spaces are important.

Has this been answered?

Plus which spaces Labour think are ‘reasonable’

I thought she was pretty unhappy about the race aspect, the idea women can claim discrimination on the basis of pesky female things like menopause, and the risk of "positive discrimination" (which is a phrase that up until now I've only heard MRAs getting in a flap about).So I thought she was providing "stronger advice" across a range of topics.

She also wants to get us out of the European Court of Human Rights (along with various other Conservative MPs like Braverman).

Similar to how posters on here don't trust Labour, I don't trust the Tories on anything to do with legislation. That's the consequence of 8 years of Brexshit.

sorry, are you implying labour got us here despite not being in power for 13 years???
That's a bit odd.

Has Labour ever stated exactly how The Conservative party implement the GRA and the EqA incorrectly? What would they do differently?

Starmer stands by the GRA, then uses the law to state that a woman can have a penis. If he said that the law forces him to say that a woman can have a penis, this is obviously wrong, and the law needs changing, I could begin to trust him. But he supports the law that makes a man become a woman.

Labour did get us here

The GRA was their policy

Idiocy but there you go

What are the conservatives doing about it? They are in power and have had a fat majority for 5 years. Its almost like they don't want to sort it out.....if they thought it was that much of a threat to society surely they would have fixed it?

Starmer and Dodds have clearly said they will protect single sex spaces ("spaces for biological women only") to quote Dodds. Fine, don't believe them but I personally am not going to get too het up about it until I see what's in their manifestos. Otherwise I'll take it on face value and continue to believe the Conservatives have no intention of doing anything other than spouting empty rhetoric.

The GRA is about who is legally defined as a woman.
Allowing trans rapists into female prison is nothing to do with the GRA and happened on the Conservatives watch.
Ipso reporting guidelines on gender happened in 2016, which means trans sex and violent offenders are called "she" and "her" are is nothing to do with the GRA and happened on the Conservatives watch.
The government consultation about "gender equality" in 2015 that didnt consult any women and recommended moving to self ID was led by a Conservative minister and happened on their watch.
The "Big Society" idea that led to education being decentralised and farmed out to charities, leading to questionable content from LGBTQ charities was David Camerons brainchild and happened on the Conservatives watch.

There is a pattern here you know

Starmer and Dodds have clearly said they will protect single sex spaces ("spaces for biological women only") to quote Dodds

Where and when? So far all I've heard them say is they will protect safe spaces without any detail of what those are. If they want to protect single sex spaces ALL of them on the basis of biological sex only then I have not heard them explicitly confirm this and they are already twitching about the amendments to the EqA to do just that.

The problem is gail that under a legal definition some women do have a penis, so Starmer is in a cleft stick of either lying or getting pilloried for saying some women have a penis. He choice the opposite pathway to Sunak is all. I prefer politicians that don't lie, even if the truth is unpalatable.

Oh come on. He didn't say 'well the legal definition is x', he said 99% of women don't have penises. He'd also previously said that 'only women have a cervix' is something that shouldn't be said, that a literal biological truth shouldn't be uttered - that's not about a legal definition is it, that's just plain biology, and he bottled it.

I don't understand how you can say you prefer politicians who don't lie, then back Starmer who has clearly and demonstrably lied on this issue.

Labour policy is to overhaul the GRA and "make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act"

That doesn't fully sound like standing by the GRA

What are the conservatives proposing?

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/24/labour-vows-to-modernise-simplify-and-reform-gender-recognition-act

Labour policy is to overhaul the GRA and "make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act"

So no change to the EqA definition of sex being biological sex only. The single sex exemptions as we have seen are being rode roughshod over due to the wording of them and the wording of the Gender Reassignment protected characteristic.

If they are truly serious regarding reforming the GRA they would remove the ridiculous clause that shrouds a GRC in secrecy to start with.

Odd definition when a "lie" is a legally accurate statement that would be fully defensible in court

I think Sunak is bending the truth more when he says "a man is a man and a woman is a woman" knowing there are legal women with penises, and knowing he has no intention of doing anything about that. Each to their own though

What are the Tories proposing that makes you think they are "truly serious"?
I never get an answer to this question 🦃🌽🎅🌲