Will Labour introduce Self ID & curb free speech?

[Heylo]

I’ve never voted Tory, but as a lesbian woman who plans to have children (and obviously as a woman!) I am and will be part of the three groups most affected by Gender Ideology; women, lesbian and soon I hope a Mother. I am really worried about what happens when Labour takes power. The Tories have been rubbish no arguments there but at least they are finally moving against the steam rolling of Gender Ideology. I’m thinking Labour are not that fiscally different to the Tories and have said they will not cap bankers bonuses and they don’t intend to increase public spending in a significant way.

Really concerned about more gender identity clinics popping up under Labour and Keir Starmer possibly curbing free speech via so - called hate laws (in the feminist circle i run in we all agree this is a euphemism for silencing women about men in female prisons, rape shelters and other areas where women are vulnerable).

wonder what everyone else thinking?

Because to me there appear to now be 3 different statuses -

Woman biological - women
Woman gender - males who identify without the GRC.
Woman legal sex - males who have the legal sex of woman through holding a GRC.

I think that until and unless the LP confirm otherwise they intend women's single sex spaces to include biological and legal women.

How they propose to exclude women gender people is beyond me from a practical perspective as providers of single sex spaces can't ask for a copy of the GRC except in very limited circumstances.

This is what women mean when they say that the above, and making the GRC process easier is de-facto self ID.

Since GC is fundamentally a rejection of the assertion that mental gender is meaningful, interchangeable with and takes precedence over sex, painting that position as "ultra GC" is misleading. It is GC - anything watered down from that position even just to be courteous is not GC.

By the same token, a position that accepts gender as interchangable with sex in limited circumstances or accepts the appropriation of female language to label males who meet some criteria of "womanlyness" even just as a courtesy can't really be considered GC given that GC analysis wouldn't recognise a non-sex-based criteria for womanlyness in the first place, so I think rather than "lite" your position is better characterised as being partially GC and partially gender-over-sex-accepting.

I personally consider that a contradictory position (being a bit GC is like being a bit pregnant - you either believe in mental gender and that female people don't need exclusive female-only language, or you don't) but if that is your position partially GC describes it better than GC lite, so let's go for GC and partly GC as the neutral shorthand.

To be clear, none of this means we can't find common ground. Simply that common ground is easier to find if you don't misrepresent the people you wish to work with.

Asking me questions when you well know what my answer is going to be is not good faith.

Well to me it's not "watered down" GC. I became gender critical when self ID was a real threat, when the widely accepted political position of all parties was "trans women are women" and was called a transphobe for disagreeing with that.

I see being "gender critical" as being critical of the idea gender trumps sex, not as completely rejecting the idea of gender altogether. I see "gender" as like God - important to others not me.

My version of "gender critical" is common, in fact maybe the majority position in the real world.

Well you post for lurkers. Am I not allowed to do the same? Or is it one rule for thee and another for me?

I think that lurkers have the right to understand exactly what you are supporting.

So when you said "If you want a different shorthand term for the position let me know, but otherwise I'm going to keep using it" what you actually meant was "I've made my mind up and my world view overrides yours" then? Somewhat ironic don't you think?

FWIW I agree your fudge of "of course men can't be women but we don’t need to be mean and tell them that, women don't really need exclusive language anyway" probably is the majority view across the general public. It's not gender critical though, and I doubt its the majority view of people who would call themselves gender critical.

And - sorry to labour the point but I think it's really important to emphasise it - your "lite" is not even a zero sum game but a negative sum game. Female people lose something really important, the ability to express in language (social, cultural, professional or legal) that a given group of people is specifically female. Male people gain only that a small number of men do not feel the distress of being labelled male.

I'm sorry, but I don’t see that as some sort of reasonable position at all.

To take your God analogy, we limit the expression of religious practices that harm others or are too far outside our cultural values even though the practioners may deeply believe they are doing God's will andeven though to prevent them causes them deep and genuine distress.

I'm sorry for the people who suffer from disordered ideas about their sex but the solution for their distress cannot be to play along and thereby condone something which we do not in fact believe to be true and which has such a disproportionate cost on women.

We need to find a way to accomodate, even welcome and celebrate them as they are not deny our own self knowledge and twist ourselves out of shape to accept them as they are not.

Well no, because your short hand involves defining "gender critical" in a way that means I can not describe myself that way, and it's important to me.

GC and "watered down GC" is a bit shit as shorthand for two different but equally valid views really.

I have said it on other threads, I think we need to acknowledge trans men and trans women as their own value identity. For me doing that has precisely no impact on my female identity.

The definition of GC has moved recently and it is absolutist to start describing people like myself, Janice Turner, JK Rowling etc as "not GC" because we don't comply with your view of what the moment is.

FWIW I agree your fudge of "of course men can't be women but we don’t need to be mean and tellthem that, women don't really need exclusive language anyway" probably is the majority view across the general public. It's not gender critical though, and I doubt its the majority view of people who would call themselves gender critical.

Just to be clear, that isn't my view. Trans women are trans women. I don't agree that we need to go around telling them they are men. (Or telling Trans men they are women).

I think the GRC is required to support the trans identity (e.g. stop any random hairy arsed man claiming to be trans for any random reason) and I think trans people should be treated the same as the sex they identify with except where there are valid reasons not to (like the EA exemptions).

GC and "watered down GC" is a bit shit as shorthand for two different but equally valid views really.

I didn't say "watered down GC". That's more like your "GC Lite" framing. I said "partly GC" - as in some parts of your position are GC and some parts aren't.

A position that accepts some men are interchangeable with women in some circumstances because some men are in some non-sex-based way more like women than other men are is not a GC position. A GC position is "either all men are included, or none of them are. Mental gender is not a differentiator between men".

I guess I don't understand why it's so important to you to label your position as GC at all, when it manifestly isn't.

I find this quote helpful when I read the ever changing, oppositional word salads used on threads like this to repeatedly smear women:

"When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master——that's all.”

"Watered down gender critical" is an utterly meaningless phrase.

You can't be gender critical and say well actually sometimes being female IS just a feeling in your head because you think it.

Describe gender without using sexist gender stereotypes. You can't do it. It is impossible. 'Presenting as female' IS all about sexist gender stereotypes.

This is the problem. Water can't be a little bit wet and a little bit dry at the same time. It just is wet by definition. The same is true of sex. You are just male or female and this INCLUDES DSDs.

"Watered down gender critical" means not recognising sex at certain times and there are no circumstances in which someone is the other sex even if they've had surgery.

This is my ultimate problem with the GRA. It created a fiction that's now untenable and is being exploited by people who aren't 'genuine'. The screening isn't robust for a GRC in the way the public think it is. You don't need surgery and this shocks people when they find out. And the EA has a loop hook you can drive a bus through because of the 'undergoing reassignment clause' which amounts to 'how long is a piece of string' in practical terms. And THEN Stonewall came along and took it further by creating the trans umbrella to include people who just dress up on Fridays and people who don't believe in sex at all but think they can go where they like because they are special.

It's an untenable position in practice because it doesn't work and it's harming women.

And yes I am concerned about all those people who got a GRC because they are screwed. But one of the things that has struck me is how few have stood up and defended their status and the point of a GRC and seemingly are happy with Self ID.

They don't give a shit about women and the impact on women. So I'm kinda at the point of saying this is utterly ridiculous and has proved unworkable so it just needs to go and we need to rethink the entire bloody mess because you can't change sex and it was stupid trying to pretend we could as not to upset some. I am bloody upset about the lies and falsehoods promised to trans people and it's a scandal that it was facilitated in the first place.

However you do this, you end up with the same problem 'what is genuine trans and what is not and how do you tell?' If you can't tell the difference and you can't ask the question, you create a situation which always harms women.

The question here then becomes, which women is it acceptable to harm and how many is it acceptable to harm? And who decides this?

If you are a woman who is likely to be in the group that loses out most, then you are being told your value to society right there.

I DO think there should be legal protections for trans people. But having this notion that men are women is unworkable. And being unable to tell the truth and say transwomen are male isn't ok because there are plenty of circumstances when it's important to be able to do this.

Blurring the boundaries, comes at a cost.

Someone is going to lose out. It's always women who do. That's not ok. Why should it always be women - usually socio and economically deprived women at that who already are at the bottom of the pile. Just so the rich and privileged ones get to say how nice they are because they sacrificed other women to get that badge of 'moderation' and 'a totally valid position'.

Either All Women Are Women or Transwomen Are Women. And only men can be transwomen and are all male by definition.

The issue is though, for you and those others you mention, it is "fine" up until the time it impacts upon you and makes demands upon you that you feel under pressure of censure or punshment to go along with, and which you would not have chosen, or voted for, if you had prior awareness or knowledge.

Most people are not naturally political creatures; they only register matters when they impinge on personal daily reality. It is most often up to those that are naturally attuned to matters political to alert others and to take actions to avert what could be socially destructive and/or harmful outcomes.

You can't be gender critical and say well actually sometimes being female IS just a feeling in your head

Noone GC thinks that. You are conflating two ideas.

I can believe for someone else they have a gender identity and it is core to their sense of self. Those people want to cling to gender identity as the way of categorising themselves.

For other people (including me) gender identity doesn't mean anything and I prefer to categorise myself based on the real world, aka biology.

It's a debate like the one between atheists and Christians about God. It's a debate about individuals belief systems.

I'm not in the business of judging other people's belief systems, that's their business. Nor am I in the business of banning other people from deciding what's important to how they live their life.

We don't dictate what religion people adhere to any more. Its not up to me to dictate to other people how they define themselves either.

You are conflating a respect for someone's belief system with the idea that you can either have sex or gender, not both, and so people like me think that "sometimes being female is just an idea in your head". No. Sometimes recognising someone's belief that they are a woman doesn't conflict with the real world where they are male.

Like people's belief in the book of Mormon doesn't conflict with my lack of religion in the real world. But it would if suddenly the state was Mormon and we all had to convert or die.

I think that's right, which is why I'm less focussed on this now the threat from self ID has gone away. There are still pockets where trans gender impinges on reality (sport, prisons etc) but the Overton window has moved and we are able to state womens needs and have a debate about if and how trans women can be included in those areas. That wasn't the case 5 years ago.
I'm still interested in those cases but a blanket "TWAM and TMAW" is a different faction imposing their belief system and I don't think that's reasonable. I prefer moderate and nuanced, to borrow from upthread.

I'm going to ask again.

Which women are you willing to sacrifice so you can say you are nice?

Which women are the ones who have to suck it up?

How many are you willing to throw under the bus in order to centre men and for you to feel like you've achieved a gold star and compromised?

How many women are you willing to let be harmed?

You can not be 'wet gc' and not being privileged.

This is the issue. You clam to be a Labour supporter through and through and yet you are happy to hang the most vulnerable and marginalised biological women out to dry.

This is not a socialist position.

You claim to be supportive of free speech but are happy to force people to say things they know to be untruths and you want them to stay silent because it 'offends some'. Whilst never considering how it impacts on them.

This is not a liberal position.

However you do this, you end up with the same problem 'what is genuine trans and what is not and how do you tell?' If you can't tell the difference and you can't ask the question, you create a situation which always harms women.

Firstly, no-one who is GC is saying "you can't ask the question" so that's a straw man. We have free speech in this country. It's not illegal to ask questions.

Also, not being able to tell "genuine trans" doesn't create a situation which "always harms women", unless you are arguing for full sex segregation at all times.

Some men are dangerous to women, yet men and women interact and share spaces all the time. There is no additional "harm to women" in those contexts for respecting some males belief that they are women. Similar to respecting peoples religions and cultures. That's what inclusion is about, recognising different world views and respecting people's rights to hold them.

I'm not interested in "saying I am nice".
I'm interested in not forcing any belief systems on other people - that is dangerous and how we end up with wars and terrorism.

And I'm not "hanging women out to dry". That is offensive hyperbole, that you are using to prevent other people engaging logically with what I'm saying.

No progress can be made while people are entrenched in their position that they are right, and everyone else is the enemy.

No. Sometimes recognising someone's belief that they are a woman doesn't conflict with the real world where they are male.

Sorry but it does. You cannnot recognise this belief in any practical sense without (1) imposing a sexist construction of womanhood on actual female people, (2) debasing the sex specific language we rely on to accurately describe/define/deliminate female only groups, and (3) reallocating resources or opportunities intended to support female people to male.

Basically, where it doesn't matter, we won't be treating men and women differently anyway, and where it does matter, we shouldn't be misrecognising some men as women.

it doesn't matter whether you personally believe TW really are women or ust believe you are extending compassionate courtesy to someone in distress. That distinction is only meangingful inside your head. Outside in the real material world, what matters is what you do and what you say. That's what impacts other people.

I'm sorry about this. I wish there was a separate construction that could accomodate what trans women (and indeed people who identify as cis women) feel is their identity without appropriating the language, protections and life experiences of women. But taking these things from women to accomodate the needs of (some) men is not ok.

Just to be clear, that isn't my view. Trans women are trans women. I don't agree that we need to go around telling them they are men. (Or telling Trans men they are women).

Out of interest Adam did you watch or follow any of the recent ERCC case?

It really highlighted the issues around not being able to use clear sex-based language when communicating important information about a person's sex in a situation where that information was of the utmost importance. The claimant found herself unable to reassure clients that their counsellor would be female because it was against ERCC policy to divulge the sex of the employees. It was not against ERCC policy to divulge the gender identity of employees however so she was permitted to state that no men worked at the centre. But she knew this was a lie because the centre is run by a TW. She found herself in deep water for even asking the question about how she should deal with a client who wanted to know the sex of their counsellor rather than the GI. This is where it ends if you are not able to state that a TW is male in because it is "unkind" or "mean" or "discourteous" we create a culture that eventually leads to women unable to effectively communicate even in situations where it matters.

I prefer moderate and nuanced, to borrow from upthread.

But your position is not moderate and nuanced. It is blinkered and inflexible. You are hung up on the 2 dimensional assumption that the compromise is to put trans people somewhere on a line betewwn women and men. You are accepting that something in a man (or woman)'s head justifies treating them as if their body was like that of the opposite sex.

But sex and gender are different. Whether you beieve gender variety is a genuine human attrribute or a made-up belief system, it is manifestly different to sex. So a meaningful, satisfactory, moderate and nuanced solution is not going to be found anywhere on that sex axis, any more than the solution to alcoholism is can be found by getting just the right amount of drink.

Let's use the example of a hospital.

For medical reasons - which benefit trans people - we need to be clear and unequivocal that transwomen are male.

Thus all documents relating to that person should reflect this.

If we don't, we risk a situation which endangers the life of that person.

Being 'nice' in this situation and fannying around trying to establish the truth, wastes valuable time (and resources).

The confusion isn't in anyone's interests.

And ableist of the same poster who thinks that being ‘uncomfortable’ in a single sex toilet with a door gap is more important than medically vulnerable and disabled people that need that gap for safety.

It is more than uncomfortable having to try and revive someone. It is incredibly distressing if you can’t access them.

Funny that mixed sex toilet door designs go down to the floor. It’s almost as though everyone knows about reality really and starts getting very uncomfortable. Wonder why?

And ‘Abolish prisons’?!?! lol. Perhaps a little chat about behaving more nicely instead? Pass the soap please.

As PPs have said, posters can not be relied to be who they say they are.

@AdamRyan I really struggle with where you are on anything. It doesn't matter where you think that you are, the one thing that you aren't is a gender critical feminist.

You are a sort of soft feminist in that you are aware that women get the shitty end of the stick but believe that Labour will scrape a bit of the shit off while doing more important stuff.

You do not exhibit any belief in gender critical feminism. This is a form of radical feminism that holds that gender is a social construct that works to reduce the female sex class to a set of roles and behaviours that work against the interests of women. Gender Ideology can only exist in a world that places gender as a social essential. To be 'soft' gender critical is to be non gender critical. It's like being a little bit pregnant.