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

To make the protected characteristic of sex in the EqA denote biological sex only and not fictional legal sex.

This from the Guardian explains it:

A significant change to the 2010 Equality Act is being pursued by the government, which would redefine “sex” to refer specifically to a person’s sex at birth. That would be designed to make it legal for those who are transgender to be banned from single-sex spaces and events, such as book groups and hospital wards.

Currently, trans people can have their identity formally recognised by applying for a gender recognition certificate. This affirms their gender change in law, allowing them to update their birth or adoption certificate and have their gender recognised on a marriage or death certificate.

That process is not expected to change, but the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, wants to make a clearer distinction in law between those who are born a particular sex and those who transition or identify as a gender different from their birth one.

Where ‘reasonable’

No list from anyone

Meaningless

But it's not accurate in, y'know, life. No one asked Starmer for a legal obfuscation. And whether it would be defensible in court is an interesting question which I don't think has really been tested yet - the breath or limits of the 'legal fiction' that something we all know is a lie in real life but is 'true' under the law. It will probably have to be pinned down at some point (or much better, the bad law repealed).

Are there any other ridiculous laws we should assume politicians are talking about when asked questions with real life answers? If asked whether pub landlords should be arrested for allowing customers to be drunk, would Starmer say yes? (Technically they are breaking the law). If asked whether it's ok to carry a plank of wood on a pavement, would he say no (also against the law)? Or would he answer with a real world answer?

I don't think many here are under the illusion that the conservatives have been anything other than a mess around this issue. Think back to everytime a clueless Equalities minister came on here and couldnt answer even a basic question. We know there are gender ideologues in the tory party.

But this is a thread about labour and what starmers intentions are.

Labour has never critised the government for any of the gender ideology they were trying to push. They arent critising the government stance now.

The only difference between the two parties on this issue is their ability to let MPs speak freely against gender ideology. Even now, its clear to hear how managed the language is when Labour MPs speak.

Kemi Badenoch is clear on this

When she’s gone who from Labour will do the same?

Labour destroy anyone trying to get close. But who are people relying on?

Any names?

I'll repeat myself - politicans created the law that allow men to become women, then state that they have no choice but to refer to men as women.

Are they pretending that they didnt make the laws? Are they trying to say that they have no power to change the law?

What are we paying them to do?

If Starmer and Annaliese "Brains" Dodds wanted to be clear and unequivocal, they could be, as pp have pointed out. This Jesuitical talk of 'safe spaces' is designed to be deliberately vague. Gaslighting the public. Again.

Yeah, that's the thing labour said they were supportive of but Kemi seems to be unable to progress.
I had high hopes for the Kings speech but it won't be happening in this term now so let's see if it's in the manifesto.

He is a lawyer so I'd expect he's pretty much certain to use a legal definition in his answer to any question. Lawyers have it drilled into them in training....

I think there are plenty of questions you can ask a lawyer/politician and get a legalese answer. Such as, is Ched Evans a rapist? Why wasn't that acid thrower deported despite being a sex pest? Why do we need loads of border checks between here and France despite having a frictionless border?

The Conservatives are the politicians with the power to sort this out. Why not ask them?

God this stuff

Oppose what exactly in EqA

Reasonable what?

Bloody hell when Starmer said take the public with you they certainly took some wins here

This is pretty clear and unequivocal:
Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access. Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services.

Unless you just don't believe them, I which case they cannot say anything to persuade you.

Which spaces are included

Could you list them?

Don't be ridiculous. That's not how the law ever works.

Why not?

Someone will need to say at some point

This is hilarious though - we can’t say

What an absolute farce

I don't think many here are under the illusion that the conservatives have been anything other than a mess around this issue.

The whole issue is a mess right from the GRA. The wording that a person must be treated as their new gender for all purposes, the constant conflating of sex and gender in the GRA and the EqA. It is no wonder the harms that have happened to women and women's rights have happened and they would have happened whoever was in power.

Lord Falconer said that the Law is not bonkers but this Law brought in by Labour in his day is fucking bonkers, it is deliberately badly written and Labour are oh so proud of this Law.

MPs and the Lords were warned when the GRA was going through, they ignored all warnings, just hand waved them away. After all it was only women who were going to be harmed.

Is it…

prisons and only sometimes maybe in a blue moon

Is that it?

God people will go with anything

Let's use another example that we all know: the "reasonable belief in consent" clause as a defense to rape.
Are you supportive of that clause? If not are you demanding a list of all the "reasonable" beliefs vs unreasonable ones?

Or how about libel? Do you think we should get rid of a defence that someone believed what they wrote to be true? Or should we list out all the data sources that are acceptable and all that aren't?

Honestly, lists are just not how the world works.

Neither of your examples refer to a physical place. A list of places that would be strictly biological women only would by and large refer to actual physical spaces such as toilets, changing rooms, prisons, hospital wards, domestic violence refuges, rape crisis.

Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access. Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services.

It is not unequivocal if Labour cannot state what those places are where they consider it reasonable for biological women only to have access.

Exactly it is no where near ‘unequivocal’ or ‘clear’

This stuff is madness

Exactly. Legal lists are often written as 'including but not limited to', so you could have a definitive list, but which isn't exhaustive so it can be added to on a case-by-case basis.

Oh, and I'm a solicitor. If I'm asked what a woman is, I say 'adult human female' because I'm not an utter fuckwit. I don't go around spouting legalese in my every day life (particularly because you're specifically trained at law school to use accurate, easy-to-understand, language in your communication).

That's not what he was asked though. When he was asked that he said "adult female".
He was asked if it was true that women could have penises. Which it is, in certain legal circumstances. Damned if he answered it either way to be honest.

Quite @NoWordForFluffy . Love your username btw I have a very close German friend who I tease with that refrain!

The answer is no to that too. Because woman = adult human female.

When you think about his two answers, it clearly shows that men are included in his definition of woman. Because if woman = adult female, but also some women have a penis, he clearly can't be trusted on describing a woman.