Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

254 replies

ResisterRex · 19/05/2024 21:56

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
TicklishLemur · 20/05/2024 18:43

Sausagenbacon · 20/05/2024 18:27

But I thought the whole point was that they HAVEN'T made a U turn?

Oh no, not truly. I mean in reference to them claiming to support moves to protect female spaces and saying they were wrong to call a trans-identified man a woman. I don’t believe it for a minute, of course, but I think they have recognised the strength of public feeling on it so are offering what they think will placate people.

cavalier · 20/05/2024 18:43

I cannot stand Labour or their leader …

Wherewerewerewear · 20/05/2024 18:52

cavalier · 20/05/2024 18:42

I was totally peed off when I received a letter about my smear test which said is for women and people with a cervix …
I’ve never known such rubbish in my life and this was tbe NHS ! I am still angry about this crap

You’re absolutely right. I was ‘pleased’ my letter said ‘women and’ rather than only ‘people with a cervix’.

Shows how the bar has been lowered. I need to remember!!!!

blackcherryconserve · 20/05/2024 18:57

Sadly my female MP is Labour and likely to retain her seat with a higher majority. I've disagreed with her on another, different issue but I will have to pull up my big girl pants and write to her again about this latest debacle from her Party. 😡

duc748 · 20/05/2024 18:58

That's a point that should be hammered home with trans-friendly politicians; if trans is this universal experience they claim, how come it's never about "men and penis-owners"? Why is the definition of 'woman' up for debate, and that of 'man', not?

cavalier · 20/05/2024 20:26

illinivich · 20/05/2024 05:17

Every party leader needs to be asked "Do either India Willoughby or Eddie izzard have a right to be in womans and girls changing rooms or womans and girls toilets"

They need to have a picture in their heads of actual men using specific women's spaces when girls are likely to be present.

They are side stepping the issue by talking about imagined men in places where its easier to stop these men entering - like prisons and hospital wards.

They need to answer when everyone can picture eddie izzard following a girl into a confined space.

I totally agree!!! I saw that photo of Izzard .. honestly I was seething. Creepy

southbiscay · 20/05/2024 20:53

One interesting thing is that the TRAs seem less than impressed with Dodd's comments. They don't even want the bother of visiting a GP in order to get authorisation for their certificate. Which should be a lesson to Labour: if you try to please everyone you'll end up pleasing no one.
This issue won't keep them out of government but it will be a running sore once they are in government.

JanesLittleGirl · 20/05/2024 21:12

cavalier · 20/05/2024 20:26

I totally agree!!! I saw that photo of Izzard .. honestly I was seething. Creepy

Show quote history

Is this the one?

The Times: Labour plans to simplify ‘dehumanising’ gender change process
ConstructionTime · 20/05/2024 22:12

parkrun500club · 20/05/2024 09:11

I am not sure whether the semantics matter that much. Back in the day if you were divorced you couldn't remarry in a Catholic church, so you'd want your previous marriage annulled if you were determined to get married again in a Catholic church.

Otherwise would anyone really care whether they got divorced or had an annulment? They can't stop you divorcing your DH if he becomes your not so dear wife, you can get divorced for any reason. I don't really see that you could possibly be trapped in a marriage you don't want (for that reason, obviously finances are a big factor, but that's different).

I can see the timing might matter if you want everything done while the name is still male, but I guess you just have to move quickly. I don't think gender changes should have retrospective effect anyway, but that's also a different issue.

Depending on time of marriage, spouses accrue some rights. Would they be the same under an annulment?
And the church could recognize that a divorce due to gender change is a no-fault-situation (for the other spouse at least) and make exceptions.

Perhaps it would be helpful if a gender change automatically triggers a divorce, unless both spouses want to stay in the marriage and actively confirm this towards the register office.

However it is spun, though, obtaining a GRC more easily could shorten the timeframe for the other spouse to reorganise their life and finances and childcare and put them at a disadvantage also that way.

I agree that whatever changes are made, they couldn't be applied retroactively, that would affect so many areas of law and create a lot of complications for the other spouse and for the children.

ConstructionTime · 20/05/2024 22:17

Snowypeaks · 20/05/2024 08:52

At the moment, the law allows a spouse to opt out, get a divorce and sort out all the financial and custody arrangements while the husband/wife is still legally male/female and the name on documents and bank accounts etc is the same. This happens before the GRC is granted. So the divorce may delay the actual issuing of the certificate, but the spouse has no say in whether it is granted or not.
What Labour are proposing would remove the right to divorce for that reason.

Edited
Show quote history

I saw this too late after posting my previous comment. So the new proposal removes the rails...

Thelnebriati · 20/05/2024 23:32

I feel the only fair way to manage this situation is to introduce a rule that transitioning triggers a compulsory annulment.

TicklishLemur · 21/05/2024 00:09

JanesLittleGirl · 20/05/2024 21:12

Is this the one?

Edited
Show quote history

What is he doing with his hand?? 😡

Boiledbeetle · 21/05/2024 00:32

TicklishLemur · 21/05/2024 00:09

What is he doing with his hand?? 😡

Show quote history

it reminds me of when little boys are desperate for a wee so they end up fiddling!

TicklishLemur · 21/05/2024 01:10

Boiledbeetle · 21/05/2024 00:32

it reminds me of when little boys are desperate for a wee so they end up fiddling!

Show quote history

If only it were so innocent. I can’t believe the bare faced cheek of it to be behaving like that in public around three young women. Well actually I can believe it, not that it sickens me any less.

miri1985 · 21/05/2024 04:31

I really fail to see how taking away the spousal "veto" is not gay/straight conversion. If a woman has consented to marry another woman and then that woman is now a man, the woman has been forced into a straight marriage without consent.

In reality its not a veto though, the person wanting to transition is free to do so post divorce which can happen very quickly now there is no longer any waiting period. I don't know why its seen by Labour as a bad thing to allow the spouse some autonomy in their life.

Its almost as if they're worried if people can't transition the moment they decide they want to or if theres any kind of impediment, they'll just give up.

SoundTheSirens · 21/05/2024 07:23

God, this makes me so fucking angry. You want “dehumanising”? Go through a PIP assessment, where you too can be treated like a performing seal and rushed through a series of physical acts which are meaningless in terms of measuring the impact of your disability on your daily life. But Labour don’t give a shit about the disabled, or about women. They only care about the special men who claim to have it soooooo much worse while openly laughing at us as they indulge their fetishes.

I have no one to vote for. No one. And if anyone reads that and tries to spin the “hold your nose and vote for the least worse option” line they can fuck right off now. As they say, I didn’t leave the Left, the Left left me.

BionicBadger · 21/05/2024 07:34

Aah, a huge fuck you to safeguarding women and children from dear labour. Why is anyone surprised? They are truly beneath contempt.

Wherewerewerewear · 21/05/2024 07:53

SoundTheSirens · 21/05/2024 07:23

God, this makes me so fucking angry. You want “dehumanising”? Go through a PIP assessment, where you too can be treated like a performing seal and rushed through a series of physical acts which are meaningless in terms of measuring the impact of your disability on your daily life. But Labour don’t give a shit about the disabled, or about women. They only care about the special men who claim to have it soooooo much worse while openly laughing at us as they indulge their fetishes.

I have no one to vote for. No one. And if anyone reads that and tries to spin the “hold your nose and vote for the least worse option” line they can fuck right off now. As they say, I didn’t leave the Left, the Left left me.

Agree with every word x

Original poster
ResisterRex · 21/05/2024 08:24

This nonsense about another consultation. It's been done to death. People do not want this - Times readers even agitating for repeal now.

Labour flip flop and u-turn all over the shop apart from this one thing. They're too far gone. When someone shows you who they are and all that.

OP posts:
illinivich · 21/05/2024 08:34

You'd never guess from Dobbs comments that issuing a GRC gives the recipient a birth certificate in the opposite sex.

They are speaking as if sex and gender are completely different things, but not explaining if that is the case, why is a new birth certificate is issued.

She also still talks about womens safe spaces rather than single sex spaces.

Beowulfa · 21/05/2024 08:48

RedToothBrush · 20/05/2024 13:02

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.

I respect your opinion, RedToothBrush, so this gives me food for thought. I'd love to vote for an independent who's strong on local issues, but sadly (in South London at least) the independents always seem to be religious and/or rightwing nutjobs.

Signalbox · 21/05/2024 08:59

illinivich · 21/05/2024 08:34

You'd never guess from Dobbs comments that issuing a GRC gives the recipient a birth certificate in the opposite sex.

They are speaking as if sex and gender are completely different things, but not explaining if that is the case, why is a new birth certificate is issued.

She also still talks about womens safe spaces rather than single sex spaces.

She also still talks about womens safe spaces rather than single sex spaces.

This is Starmer’s made up lingo isn’t it? They’ve obviously all been told to use it. I wonder what the thinking behind it is? Is it because a “woman’s safe space” will also include TW? Or is it because Labour can’t face the fact that women are humans of the female sex and to protect spaces on that basis is still considered to be transphobic?

EasternStandard · 21/05/2024 09:06

Labour splurge word salads and get people going on about ‘change’

Of course not. Using GPs for GRC certificates is Self ID