To think there may be a few silent Tory voters amongst the GC contingent

[IrnBruLolly]

Having just skim read both manifestos I'm now wondering if there will be quite a few silent Tory voters from the GC contingent.

Tories are saying they will: 'introduce primary legislation to clarify that the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. This will guarantee that single sex services and single sex spaces can be provided, for example in healthcare and sports settings, to ensure women and girls are protected.'

^'We are clear that on fundamental matters of personal identity there should be one approach across the country, so we will also legislate so that an individual can only have one sex in the eyes of the law in the United Kingdom.'^

'Labour are saying they will: 'protect LGBT+ and disabled people by making all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence.'

'So-called conversion therapy is abuse – there is no other word for it – so Labour will finally deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, while protecting the freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity.'

'We will also modernise, simplify, and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law to a new process. We will remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance; whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor, enabling access to the healthcare pathway.'^

Tbf, they also say 'Labour is proud of our Equality Act and the rights and protections it affords women; we will continue to support the implementation of its single-sex exceptions.'

Thing is, I'm not sure they know what a woman actually is. 🤔

All of which are illegal.

I'll ask you the question I have asked numerous MPs who want such a ban:

Please name a practice that you want to criminalise that is not already against the law?

Do they believe that?

I've never met a conservative of any kind, and that includes some pretty conservative people, of the American type, who believe that.

I have known of some that do but they are extreme, marginal viewpoints.

I really think this is a very strawman version of the typical conservative understanding of gender roles and it's rather a shame it keeps being repeated.

OK, a bit of a caricature but I have had the dubious delight of meeting several Reform members who refer to their partners as "her indoors" or "the little woman" or "Mrs X" where X is their surname.

Wow, this thread really blew up!

Apologies for plopping and disappearing. I've been flat out since 5:30am today and just got in. Going to have a catch up now.

Pretty much my dilemma although I guess I'm more politically moderate, wooly as that categorisation is (I've not really liked Labour or Tory for quite a while).

What's wrong with calling your spouse Mr or Mrs X?

You seem to have totally passed over the point of the post, which is that endlessly stupid comment that gets repeated at intervals that the Tories have had 14 years to make changes.

It was laying out that initially the tories were going to amed the GRA to make it closer to self id.

And it was only in reaction to that proposal, that women started organising and lobbying against it.

So idiotic comments like they have had 14 years is just totally ignoring reality.

Initially the Tories were closer to where Labour is now.

But thanks to lobby by women as groups and individuals, the Tories withdrew those intentions and started to look at clarifying sex in the EA.

And as said over and over again, given that in that time period other issues such as Covid, Ukraine etc., took up Parliamentary time, it was extremely lucky that Kemi Badenoch in addition to being Business Secretary listened, clarified issues around toilets, schools, etc., and would bar the GE being called have brought forward a Bill to amend the EA.

So just to dismiss that is not only insulting to her, but to all the many women who helped turn the Tory self ID proposal around.

And it is clear from everything that Labour has said whilst in opposition that had they been in power they would have bought in self id.

three letter acronyms

If you dont understand acronyms that are used on FWR better just to list them than to be personally rude.

As they are a feature on most threads it would help it you learnt them.

And learnt that every one has their own writing style.

Just sounds like an excuse to not engage with the issues being raised.

OK, a bit of a caricature but I have had the dubious delight of meeting several Reform members who refer to their partners as "her indoors" or "the little woman" or "Mrs X" where X is their surname.

Its possible to know that sex is a biological fact and believe that societal norms you should therefore behave and dress in a particular way.

And it is also possible to know that sex is a biological fact and believe that it is not necessary to conform to societal roles.

The point is that if you believe sex is a biological fact, you aren't going to be supportive of laws or customs that allows someone to claim, and in some instance get a ceritificate saying to are the opposite sex.

Once that concept is secure, the breaking down of gender roles is something that has been done before and can be done again.

If your primary concern for the future is whether people can be said to be legally the other sex, when they aren't, and some groups agree with that concept then you might work with them to help achieve that aim.

Which doesn't mean you sign up to their agenda, just that you recognise there is one aspect of what they say that you agree with.

These are men who only refer to their wives as "Mrs X" and never use their given names. I find it quite dehumanising.

It seems to me that you're saying the Tories had 14 years to form a decent policy on self id and only did so when pressed by a group of campaigners.

I really appreciate the work of those campaigners and the outcome will benefit us all. However, the Tories only bought into it under duress and because they thought it was a vote winner.

Kemi Badenoch seems to me the sort of person who stokes division for her own gain political gain, she certainly seems to enjoy stirring division. But again, if her work on this is productive I salute that.

Also, if you wish to engage with a wider audience then the three letter acronyms do exclude posters who are not regulars on this board. Excluding a broader audience might make the board an echo chamber and miss out on stimulation input.

Also, if you wish to engage with a wider audience then the three letter acronyms do exclude posters who are not regulars on this board.

They don't exclude anyone. If you don't understand an acronym, just ask. On another thread recently someone did that, and within 5 minutes, 2 or 3 people had replied with an explanation.

The original post to which I replied had four different acronyms, some repeated several times. It made things hard to understand for me and stopped me engaging. I could have asked, but why make people just through hoops if you're trying to get a message across?

How you (royal you) vote is none of my business. That's exactly how it is, and I'm fine with that.
I expect I have among my friends and acquaintances, people who will vote for all the different parties.
No factor. your vote, your business.

Still voting Labour 💯

I won’t be voting Labour 💯

Not voting Labour but wish I could.

I have decided : wasn't a difficult choice, given the options available in my seat.

Still no comment from Starmer about Duffield feeling unable to attend hustings….What about democracy? It should be such an easy win to make a supportive comment about one of his own PPC’s

I'll open this up to the floor then; anyone have an answer?

I doubt they walk in the front door and say "evening Mrs Smith". 🤣 Could it be like how some men just want to be addressed as 'Mr Smith'?

I have no idea how he speaks to Mrs X at home but in public he says things like "Mrs X and I are going to Paris for the weekend" or "I'll have a pint of bitter and Mrs X will have a gin and tonic".

It's not really relevant, what you think. Their wives might find it endearing.

Nah, leaving this intra-thread conversation.

To my mind it is foolish to cast your vote based on single issues. Parties can and do, very often, reimagine or completely drop particular policies and policy focuses. Even if they still hold a particular idea dear as a policies, other stuff can occupy parliamentary time and get in the way of implementation.

someone upthread mentioned casting a vote based on promises to change the rules on summer-born children and school admissions. It’s 11 years on from where this started to become an issue, and the law has not changed at all. There is still no right to have your child educated out of chronological age group. You can ask and the Govt kindly asks the school to consider the request but that’s it…