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

This seems to be their strategy. They firstly make placating ambiguous statements that get twisted by some people to be proof of Labour’s full support for women and children.

Then more comes out and shows that, no, that is not full support at all because of that ambiguous language it is actually rather weak support. If it is any support at all…

Then in 6-12 months it all happens again. It is typical political strategy. I am always surprised when some one tries to make it definitive and a certainty.

Well, I really did have hope that Labour were belatedly and reluctantly coming to the view that destroying women's rights and child safeguarding was sufficiently unpopular with the electorate to make the GII goals not worth pursuing. Obviously not. They are as wedded to GII and as misogynistic as ever. I've always been a left-of-centre voter, felt Labour's heart was in the right place, even if I didn't agree with the policies. But that's it, now. Never again. I've had enough of the duplicity, talking out of both sides of their mouths, the belief that they have a divine right to my vote.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Few would describe womens public toilet as a 'safe space', even though men claim to have to use them because the mens toilets aren't safe for them to use.

I think the use of safe space is to ignore the dignity part of the need for single sex spaces and services. Therefore this language removes lots of services out of the need for them to be single sex.

Safe space for trans activists also means not being offended. So where phobic language may not be spoken. Its slowly moving the need for single sex spaces because of dignity - because of our culture and different bodies, to spaces of 'safety' where as long as violence (physical and spoken) are vastly reduced, it meets its aim. That isnt single sex.

I find the use of the term ‘safe spaces’ to be problematic for the reasons you mention illinivich. I have found Labour’s continued use of it has led to a lack of clarity. And then there is always, always that hook on the tail… that labour fully support people who have GRCs to be treated as the sex they have declared rather than that they materially are.

They should say exactly what they mean:

"We want to make it easier for anyone who wants to, to falsify their sex on their birth certificate."

Then see how much support they get for this insanity.

The idea of 'balancing rights' is a euphemism too. Its not about allowing everyone dignity saftey and opportunity, its about enforcing 'gendered' spaces where ever possible.

Why does anyone have a right to abolish single sex toilets because they want gendered ones instead? Why are politicians concerned to get that balance right? Its forcing gender onto society.

The PC of GR has been interpreted as women having to justify any single sex space and service that they have had for years. Was that the aim?

I think there is an underlying problem with the whole idea of rights around gender.

The most central one being, what is gender really supposed to mean here? The right to dress in clothes or use names or grammatical constructions culturally associated with the other sex? It's not clear at all to me why any of those things fall under human rights legislation.

Tbh, I think there has been an error with the more general cultural claim that it's really important for people to be allowed to wear whatever they want in all settings, including the workplace, and particularly if that means crossing customarily sexed styles. It's a questionable premise that has led to these claims that it's really important that people be able to do this kind of thing, to be their authentic selves.

Once we've made the claim that there are some kinds of inherent rights around gender, whatever that is, people feel those need to be balanced against other competing rights.

And yes, I totally agree that the emphasis on safety only is a problem, and I think has been a strategic error in dealing with this. It's not the only reason we want single sex spaces, and it never has been.

In some settings it's not even the main reason. There are places I don't want mixed sex, but I feel, and am, perfectly save even if they are.

Sometimes I think we concentrate on this because there is a desire not to have to acknowledge that men are also entitled to single sex spaces.

Remember this letter from FOVAS (female survivors of male violence) about self ID a while ago?
fovas.wordpress.com

and the WPUK evidence of trans lobbying to end ALL single sex exemptions , female boundaries and bodily privacy from males.... Like rape culture....
https://womansplaceuk.org/2018/06/25/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

Shelia Fogarty is going to be discussing this on LBC at 3pm today

It's a negotiation strategy, when you suddenly add a very extreme position to one of the sides, then the center / the balance / the middle "where we can all agree" - suddenly moves towards the formerly extreme side.

Instead of refuting the opposite point due to scientific/medical/ethical/women's right reasons, you'll find yourself negotiating about a new position in the middle between irreconcilable point of views.

This is what makes the political navigating so dangerous, they are trying to "balance" sides which cannot be balanced.

My daughter wrote a letter, a few years back, to our local Police and Crime Commissioner - in which she mentioned issues around child safeguarding and gender ideology in schools. The PCC ( a Labour Party member) wrote back with the predictable talk of " balancing the rights of women and children with those of trans people"

My daughter wrote straight back saying that she was shocked that she ( the PPC) might think that children's safeguarding issues could be compromised or " balanced" in any way. The PCC realising the actual inferences her comment had suggested wrote back again saying " Of course, child safeguarding should never be a matter for compromise".

Rights and protections are just that; if they have to be watered down or compromised then it is suggestive of a clash of rights......not this fantasy pie or cake in which there is enough to go around everyone ( which is the other usual trope )

Yes that was the one 👍 ..thank you

Julie...Bindel🤞in the Telegraph on labour's, specifically Dodd's, latest gender nonsense

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/21/labour-trans-self-id-anneliese-dodds/

https://archive.ph/zJL47 flip-flop over the paywall

Absolutely. Yes safety is a factor, but it is also about dignity and privacy. For that reason trans-identified females should not be using male toilets. No they are probably not a threat, but men have a right to privacy and dignity too.

Even if it were only about safety, that still does not justify males entering female spaces. I absolutely recognise that there is a safety issue for some trans-identified people, and have always supported the addition of toilets designed for a single user. That provides them with safety, dignity and privacy and yet it is not enough for many of them.

IMO the only possible reason is an underlying desire is to inflict themselves on women who do not consent, in order to exploit us for their affirmation or sexual fulfilment.

TempestTost

What is an example of a men's single-sex space?

And can you explain why is it that you think that "there is a desire not to have to acknowledge that men are also entitled to single-sex spaces"?

Men dont need single sex spaces because of the threat of violence in mixed sex spaces, but do need them for dignity and privacy.

Lots of men dont want to be changing alongside women and girls, when talking about mens health, they want to speak with people who understand, not just sympathise with them.

But to acknowledge that negates the inclusion of men with gender into womens spaces. The argument is that men with gender should be in womens spaces because they are in need of the safe space. But the spaces dont always exist for saftey reasons.

OldCrone · Yesterday 10:13

^She also still talks about womens safe spaces rather than single sex spaces.
They should say exactly what they mean:^

"We want to make it easier for anyone who wants to, to falsify their sex on their birth certificate."

Whether they've thought through that implication is questionable. It's exactly the result certain types of men want, for nefarious reasons, yet they refuse to accept that it can and does happen. The mental gymnastics required to say that making it so simple to get a birth certificate changed isn't de facto self ID is worrisome.

Anneliese Dodds is hugely hypocritical, accusing the Tories of stoking the flames of a culture war, even as she and Starmer throw another bucket of coal on.

Didn't Dodds say exactly the same thing last year in the guardian? 5 quid for a gp certificate.

The price keeps going down, Labour obviously considers women are a low value commodity, only worth a notional fiver to men.

All the Tory haters will be happy.

Largely the same ones women would like to have.

Obviously toilets, change rooms, and so on. Most men are not at all happy to have women in these spaces. Some men, in some religions, cannot use those spaces if they are mixed.

But then there are other kinds of single sexed spaces that both men and women might like. Social clubs, group therapy settings, sports clubs.

Many women don't want to allow for groups like this to be men only, even though they want to legitimize women only versions. So the argument becomes limited to safety, or oppression hierarchies. The idea that maybe sometimes women just want companionship with other women would be too easy to flip around.

Well looks like we’ll have GP Self ID soon.

Men will get as they wish.

Obviously toilets, change rooms, and so on. Most men are not at all happy to have women in these spaces. Some men, in some religions, cannot use those spaces if they are mixed.

But then there are other kinds of single sexed spaces that both men and women might like. Social clubs, group therapy settings, sports clubs.Many women don't want to allow for groups like this to be men only, even though they want to legitimize women only versions.

Thanks for getting back to me.

I don't think women do oppose the second sort of men's single sex space - unless it's somewhere like the Garrick Club (before the vote to admit women), but even in that case, many women aren't that bothered. Obviously I can't prove any of this, but it's really not my experience and I think the discussion on this board backs me up. Remember that it was women who set up The Shed network, where men talk to each other about their feelings while doing a task.

I've got no problem with a men-only football club - it's the absence of a female-only club, or a club which has teams of both sexes, which is the problem. A club can be single-sex, but the sport of football/cricket/swimming etc isn't and shouldn't be. In a small town or village, there may not be enough interested girls/women to make a separate club viable. So the men-only club comes under pressure to let girls/women use its facilities now and again. That is just practicality. There is no suggestion in such a situation that the men/boys cannot be allowed their own team. It's just that there aren't enough resources - volunteers, buildings, pitches, coaches, etc - to sustain two entirely separate clubs or teams.

I think women's focus is on wanting to get away from men and the male gaze and the emphasis tends to be on safety because that's seen as the strongest argument. Some women feel strongly that women-only book clubs (as an example) shouldn't have to include men with GRCs (that's how I feel) - even though safety, dignity and privacy aren't really issues in that situation.

We understand wanting the companionship of others of your own sex. I do, certainly. Some of the reasons women need space away from men are different to the reasons men need space away from women. Additionally, the relationship is not symmetrical - you can't ignore the power dynamic in society, or the axis of oppression - whatever you want to call it. Nevertheless, I think most of us women are quite chilled about, or in favour of, men having their own groups. As long as we are able have our own, single-sex spaces, the majority of us don't care what they get up to.

I've got no problem with a men-only football club - it's the absence of a female-only club, or a club which has teams of both sexes, which is the problem. A club can be single-sex, but the sport of football/cricket/swimming etc isn't and shouldn't be. In a small town or village, there may not be enough interested girls/women to make a separate club viable. So the men-only club comes under pressure to let girls/women use its facilities now and again. That is just practicality. There is no suggestion in such a situation that the men/boys cannot be allowed their own team. It's just that there aren't enough resources - volunteers, buildings, pitches, coaches, etc - to sustain two entirely separate clubs or teams.

Are there really 'men-only football clubs'? Seems to me what actually happens is that football clubs (and rugby) start up women's and girl's teams if there is sufficient demand. then facilities can be shared. My rugby team are playing a double-header game next month, with the women on first, then the men, in competitive league matches.

*Well looks like we’ll have GP Self ID soon.

Men will get as they wish.*

Yes, we're done for.

That's essentially what I'm saying.