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?

@ArabellaScott

We can ask how many males are in women's prisons, and we will be answered with the number of men who identify as women but have no GRC. Those males who have a GRC will be counted as females and not reported.

Now, after looking at a report of the numbers of trans with a GRC in prison, you'll be comforted to know it's very low (11). As to the "not counting" part, I seriously doubt it, unless they themselves don't disclose it.

The question isn't just how many trans prisoners though.

The question is also how many women does just one trans prisoner impact on?

I'm kinda sick of this part of the equation being totally overlooked and sold as irrelevant.

It's massively relevant. One male can negatively impact on hundreds of women - this is true in prisons and in health related data and on gender pay gap calculations.

Anyway, I think this is starting to show why far right authoritarian politicians are attracted to the GC movement and why the ultra GC position is dangerous.

Can't apply the ultra GC thinking politically because of the Equality Act? Change it.

Can't legislate that people can't change sex because of the ECHR? Pull out.

Meanwhile give up a load of legal protections for the most vulnerable in society so that authoritarian governments can take us back to Victorian style society and squeeze anyone less fortunate till their pips squeak. No thanks.

@AdamRyan I don't think many of the so called "ultras" want a law that says everyone has to use sex based pronouns, just that they should be free not to. If you want to call a friendly TW colleague 'she' I doubt anyone here is trying to make that illegal.

Men impact on women negatively every day. That's the patriarchy for you.

I'd rather see us deal properly with male violence across the board rather than focus on one tiny subset of males and expect that to make a difference.

But again, there is a strong undercurrent of "NAMALT" in lots of people's thinking. We believe Pakistani men are the worst groomers, so let's focus our efforts on them. We believe trans women are the biggest threat in womens spaces, so let's focus on them.

Meanwhile other predatory men are just left to operate with impunity in a society where rape and violence to women is effectively decriminalised. Because NAMALT.

Likewise, I'd say making yourself the authority on a political movement, deciding who is in and who is out based on your self appointed definition of the group,

Lol, TRAs often say this about womanhood. Words have meanings and some people don’t fit the definition.

Show me one other GC feminist campaigning for reforms to make it easier for men to get a GRC? Since the Haldane judgment we know that a GRC confers additional rights to men who say they are woman. They must be treated as women for the Women on Public Boards Act in Scotland and for the purposes of associations. Did you read the Michael Foran analysis I linked up thread? The law as it stands is bad for women and gay people. As a “GC feminist” why on earth would you advocate for something that will undoubtedly make the situation worse?

You also say you think pronouns are a right granted by having a GRC. No other GC feminists say that pronouns are a right. The most I’ve seen is some saying they will use pronouns as a courtesy in certain situations but crucially, when it is important for discussion on policy or in court or any other time it matters it is vital to be able to speak clearly and without censure.

There are examples up thread of the actual harm done to women when we can’t describe TW as male. There are numerous real life examples now especially in the courts where those arguing their case have been admonished for using sex-based language. But here you are saying pronouns are a right for those who have a GRC and (iirc) that there’s no “need” to refer to TW as men!

Really? My sense from this board is the vocal GC view is "men cannot become women" and that needs to be written into law. Get rid of the GRA, update the EA etc.

I did an interesting poll around Christmas that showed strong support for a third spaces kind of option, but those people are not true GC according to some, so can be discounted.

There are actual harms done to transwomen when it's prohibited to discuss sex not gender.

Let's not forget this.

This puts both trans people and those serving/caring for them at risk.

This isn't anymore ok than harms done to women and homosexuals.

You also say you think pronouns are a right granted by having a GRC.

Show me where I said that.

I mean you do you, but why would you respect something harmful to women?

Yesterday evening around 23.20 (ish)

”In fact I said it should be a way of validating a "trans" identity and giving people someof the rights women have (basically pronouns and respect their belief).
Stop putting words in my mouth for me.”

Massive eyeroll.

I've said quite explicitly in the last few pages that I think there needs to be separate protections (and by extension potentially 3rd space provisions).

I've said that language matters and this concept of 'polite' speech needs to go in the bin because this is still in effect compelled when you label it polite or respectful. That means it being widely accepted that it's ok NOT to use pronouns without any judgement being passed. That also doesn't stop others doing it, but we need very clear and unequivocal about why calling it polite is problematic in its own right. There's definitely a time and place for language not being mangled. As we know from various court cases it matters massively to use accurate language in legal and medical situations. It is also massively important in social situations at times - it is NOT ok for males to call themselves lesbians. There needs to be another word for those who regard themselves as same gender attracted as it is NOT the same as same sex attracted.

But you choose to ignore this, time after time again.

Shrug.

Because I'm an adult and can recognise other people have different beliefs to me, and are entitled to hold them, even if I don't like them.

Damn right I'd be more actively protesting if we started trying to embed religious beliefs into law. E.g. banning abortion or making certain privileges only accessible to married people. Writing the teaching of religious beliefs into education like they've done in America.

We aren't there yet so I just do my best to contribute to a peaceful society by respecting others beliefs and not trying to assert my views on others.

I'm choosing to ignore you. Quite a different thing. I am not interested in discussing with someone who's only goal is to "win" a debate. Plus the head girl thing.

“Really? My sense from this board is the vocal GC view is "men cannot become women" and that needs to be written into law. Get rid of the GRA, update the EA etc.”

This is just becoming absurd. No GC feminist has ever said they want it written in law that “men cannot become women”. where on earth have you come up with such a notion? It would be like putting “dogs cannot become cats” into a law.

Yeah that's not the same thing at all.
The black and white thinking can be a hindrance.

You are so frequently misunderstood Adam by so many different people. Doesn’t it ever begin to dawn on you that you are not expressing yourself in the clearest terms. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by giving TW rights in relation to pronouns if I have misunderstood your meaning rather than blaming my black and white thinking.

Men can't become women. If the GRA were repealed, it still wouldn't be illegal for anyone who wants to to call a man, a donkey or a bag of spoons a woman.

But we need very clear and unequivocal about why calling it polite is problematic in its own right.

Yes it’s only recently dawned on me how using words such as “kind” or polite” or “courtesy” when referring to an individual making a personal choice to use wrong sex pronouns in certain situations potentially results in positioning those women who choose to do otherwise as “rude” or “discourteous” or “unkind”. I think slowly this is dawning on women more and more.

I'd like to know how I'm NOT an adult for recognising that holding two conflicting oppositional thoughts at once is deeply problematic in terms of law and law enforcement. Given that good law rests on the very premise of explicitly and widely understood definitions to avoid confusion and the possibility of circumnavigating the law.

I'd like to know how I'm NOT an adult for recognising that holding two conflicting oppositional thoughts at once is deeply problematic in terms of data integrity and interpretation. Especially in health care.

I'd like to know how I'm NOT an adult for recognising that holding two conflicting oppositional thoughts at once is deeply problematic for those working in healthcare with people who are trans and how this impacts on diagnosis and treatment.

Hell I'd like to know what name I'm being called if I'm by definition 'not an adult' for seeing inherent problems which we somehow aren't supposed to talk about not resolve known issues with, in the name of 'being polite'.

More than that.

Why is it respectful to women for a man to demand to be called a woman?

Why is it respectful to lesbians for a man to demand to be called a lesbian?

Why is it respectful to men for a woman to demand to be called a man?

Why is it respectful to gay men for a woman to demand to be called gay?

Respect should be mutually and earned.

Demands are not compatible with respect. They are by their very nature disrespectful.

We need answers to this point.

I'll remind you that I joined this conversation to ask you not to impose the arbitrary terminology of "lite" and "ultra" GC. This started with your imposing self appointed definitions.

I think if you read my posting history you'd be quite surprised how far away I am from the strawman you have created to argue with.

Or perhaps not, given that you have demonstrated a clear desire to disregard what people are actually saying in favour of what you believe they really believe.

It is entry to much more than that for example allowing transwoman ( male) police to strip search women

And the numbers of GRCs which were originally intended to be for about 5000 discreet Gender Dysphoric transsexual transwomen ( who had had genital surgery) like April Ashley, would be vastly greater than ever envisaged.

The Haldane decision in Scotland also made it more difficult by saying that gender really is ‘sex’ in GRCs and the Equality Act (I am not a legal expert. Some posters can correct this.)

This Parliamentary Committee discussion with Dr Michael Foran a year ago, regarding the Scottish Parliament wanting easy GRCs, helps see the legal ramifications.
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/12639/pdf/

In Spain where self ID GRCs have been brought in a male soldier who likes his body and loves women, and who wears masculine clothes, is now legally a ‘woman’ - to show he can be.

Here is another article which might help explain.
Ministers must grasp the nettle on equality law | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
https://thecritic.co.uk/ministers-must-grasp-the-nettle-on-equality-law/

I asked you for shorthand as you don't like ultra/lite
To summarise your position came across as anything that doesn't fit a definition you gave, is not GC. Therefore no need for shorthand like ultra/lite as what I call "ultra" is the only GC position, anyone not in that position isn't GC.

If I got that wrong, let me know and my previous question still stands.

If I got it right, I'm confused what you think I'm strawmanning

We aren't there yet so I just do my best to contribute to a peaceful society by respecting others beliefs and not trying to assert my views on others.

A shame that a belief that gender shouldn't trump sex, even with a GRC, isn't respected and women are harmed or excluded in society as a result.

The TRAs are particularly disrespectful of women who don't think the wishes of males should be put in front of the needs of women. Death and rape threats are not unheard of, women hounded out of jobs, and then you've got the likes of Russel Moyle, Lammy & Nandy who don't identify as TRAs but have no worries about women's rights so long as demands of the gender identities of men can be accommodated. Nandy hasn't retracted her belief that trans identifying rapists belong in women's prisons has she?