The Times: Labour plans to simplify ‘dehumanising’ gender change process

[ResisterRex]

Read it and weep, vipers

"Labour will make it easier to change gender and is considering allowing a single family doctor to sign off on the decision under plans to “simplify” the process.

The party is considering how to make the legally binding certificate easier to obtain while still having guardrails to prevent mirroring controversial ­proposals in Scotland that would have ­removed doctors from the process ­altogether.

The plans include ditching a panel of doctors and lawyers that approve ­gender recognition certificates, the document allowing transgender people to have their affirmed gender legally recognised, and only requiring one doctor to be involved in the process.

The Times understands that one option under consideration is that the doctor could be a GP. Labour would ­also ­remove the ability of a spouse to object to the change. A source said the party wanted to make the process “less medicalised” but added that the plans would retain the involvement of a doctor and would not allow people to self-identify in order to obtain legal changes.

They said it had not yet been decided whether the medical professional would be a GP or a gender specialist, with the issue likely to go to consultation if the party wins the next election.

The discussions centre on concerns that if the single doctor was a specialist, a GP would still need to make the ­referral, therefore retaining the two-step process that Labour wants to drop."

Labour plans to simplify ‘dehumanising’ gender change process

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/604c739c-70b7-4819-866f-370ae67da6ab?shareToken=2a1dede2a48c5ec7388167f16bdd6cbb

I am not interested in Keir Starmer's children. I am interested in what he says and what he does.

Anyone who's conflicted due to their home situation needs to recuse themselves from this. Across all parties.

x.com/genderreceipts/status/1744370327470104806?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

x.com/famedtrust/status/1744330831236051059?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Some do but I’d focus on the words and actions

His lawyerly approach to screwing over women is where I think the problem lies

Plus appeasing TRA lobbyists

Harrop and Webberley will be throwing themselves at that gig.

Exactly, thank you.

His motives are irrelevant to me. HIs children are quite possibly still minors and one of the few things left that I still admire about him is that he protects their privacy.

This proposal is just another method to abuse heterosexual women who can't pretend the man who got them pregnant is a woman, and don't consent to being recorded as a lesbian by the state when she is heterosexual. It is forced state sexual orientation conversion for spouses- usually heterosexual women who married men.

When the state issues a GRC saying a man's a woman, the marriage also becomes registered as a same sex marriage in law, unless the spouse has already used the exit clause.

And it will have significant interference with freedom to practise religion for those who don't consent to their marriage being changed to a 'same sex' one in law, and who will face lifelong religious consequences eg not being able to remarry within their faith etc.

Misogyny, cruelty and contempt for female human rights on steroids.

He doesn't. Not if one moment he's stating their views on moving to no10 and then the next he's saying they're not the sexes he said a few moments ago.

His motives are relevant. We should all be concerned if politicians are acting on the advice of teenagers. Like I said - all parties. That applies to all parties.

What other areas of public life, law and policy are to be directed by children?

Ok but if this is the direction this discussion is taking then I'm out. I want nothing to do with it.

There are two dangers:

1. Labour get a big majority. Lots of new MPs who don't have life experience beyond student Unions and activist politics.
2. Labour have a small majority and need LibDem/Green support. Not unlike the position Sturgeon was in in Scotland.

Either way our next Government will be in hock to activists. And women's rights are the sort of bauble they might give away for support on things Starmer et al deem more important.

I don't think it will take that direction. But denying there's an issue is how we got here. It's not exclusive to Labour either.

A coalition would be the very worst outcome. They will each seek to blame each other. Far better to make Labour actually own this if they win, and explain it to the whole country.

A thought on voting and why spoiling your ballot
or tactical voting isn't the best idea

TV channels (BBC, itv and C4) have to consider balancing aired views in line with the popular vote.

Therefore there is logic and reason to voting for someone who 'has no chance' in your constituency.

Just saying.

Agree with this

I find this such a baffling stance. Why SHOULD it be easier and less formal? Changing your legal sex (esp since we know there is no route back again under the GRA) should be a big deal!

I agree Red. I have spoilt my ballot before but I won't be this time. But I can't disagree with someone who does. I know how I felt when I did it so I get how it feels when you're at the "this is my only option" stage. I wouldn't rule it out in the future for me either. It'll depend who's running and what the election is for.

Isn't it strange that they can't see it? While they're about it, why don't they make it easier and less dehumanising to register as disabled?

But the real question is why would you want to allow someone to falsify a core component of their identity in the first place? When government and other agencies collect data from people, the two demographic pieces of information they typically require are sex and age. You don't allow people to falsify their age on their birth certificate, so why allow them to falsify their sex? If you just came to this as an outsider who knew nothing about it, you'd regard this as quite mad.

Help! I don’t know who to vote for!

You don't allow people to falsify their age on their birth certificate, so why allow them to falsify their sex?

Presumably it's mainly financial. If people could falsify their age there would be all sorts of financial benefits they could claim. They could go back to school or get a pension early or make use of saving schemes aimed at children or young people.

Now that that the pension ages have been equalised for men and women, men can't get a financial benefit from claiming to be a woman (well apart from when they claim women's awards and prizes but that isn't the state that pays) and the state aren't that bothered about things that only adversely affect women so here we are.

This

You can spoil your ballot with a message explaining "this is my only option"; the message will be noted. If you vote for the no-hope candidate they won't get your message. And your no-hoper will count your vote as validation.

I think Yvette Cooper's son is gay.

I agree with you but they seem determined not to. God knows why

x.com/noxyinxxprisons/status/1791749989925851464?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

x.com/fondofbeetles/status/1792233925680513063?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ