Did Keir Starmer just say

[Helpuschoose]

To Nick Ferrari on LBC that transwomen with a GRC will not be allowed in female single-sex spaces? It sounded like it. Is this a clear move or does it still leave wriggle-room? I’m not sure.

I predict that it's going to take attacks on females by males, perhaps even deaths, in "single sex spaces reserved for females" to make anyone give a stuff about women and the havoc these policies have wreaked on our lives.

Even after that, I don't think it'll make any difference. Politicians and police etc, bleat and commiserate and sympathise about violence against women and girls being awful (wring hands, thoughts and prayers, always in our thoughts, blah blah blah) but nobody actually does a thing to help.

I'd actually accuse our current authorities of DELIBERATELY making the world more dangerous and hostile for women and children. I'm actually kind of convinced now that there is absolutely no way they can be unaware of the consequences. They just don't care.

There have already been attacks. But because they happened to females in prisons, it doesn’t seem to count.

And a little girl in a supermarket Ladies’.

And all those other countless incidents where women and girls feel unsafe, creeped on and scared that we don't hear about. The only incidents that make it to the press, such as the NHS nurses, is when women come together and whistleblow usually at great cost to themselves.

And in psychiatric units and hospitals.

Nobody cares, do they? Not even some female politicians. I'm finding that really difficult to deal with. How can I be so unimportant to them, that my basic civil right to be safe in normal society is now a deeply bigoted thing to ask for?

Yes, if sexually assaulting pre-teen girls at knifepoint doesn't do it then what will? Even deaths may not bother them.

I don't think they care. Ultimately they think that discriminating against all men to allow women dignity, privacy and safety is too high a price to pay. The argument will always be "we can't discriminate against all men/TW because of a few bad apples".

Yes it's this.

Something a man wants must always count for more than anything a woman or girl might need.

It's really not that dissimilar to regimes that Labour would hypocritically say are regressive for women - regimes where a single man's word is worth more in law than the word of several women put together.

Is it weird that they can't see it? They can't see their own patriarchy?

I've always assumed that those with attitudes like this know full well what they're doing, that they're favouring males irrespective of the harm it does females.

Is it truly so ingrained that it's invisible? How is it starkly obvious to so many of us yet many men and even some women seem oblivious?

Theres a difference between the practicalities of stopping men entering womens and girls toilets and potential governments ministers tell the public that a subsection of men have the right to be there.

Given that she knows that convicted rapists have been given GRC, she is lying about the safeguarding standards. She is also not being truthful about only allowing men with a GRC in, unless labour are proposing to force men with a GRC to carry proof when they enter womens spaces.

It's ingrained into society that women are/should be self sacrificing. Everybody's mother, everybody's caretaker, givers not takers so on and so forth.

Only defective women would deny a man something he says he wants, he says makes his life easier, happier, more pleasurable.

Nice, kind women always say yes and budge over even if it makes their lives more difficult and uncomfortable. Nice, non defective women do this with good grace and a smile on their face.

There are lots of incidences of rapes and assaults and deaths in public toilets. It’s a difficult issue that I try not to highlight the individual cases too much for obvious reasons. There have been girls, boys and women (able bodied and disabled) followed or pushed into fully enclosed toilets. These can be toilets leading directly into very public places such as shopping centres and train stations.

The problem is privacy (because of mixed sex) has taken priority over safety.

I spoke to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission who gave me an incident form and told me to fill it in after October when I could prove that a death or sexual assault was because the new toilet design had prevented that person being rescued in time (!). So I have to wait for the inevitable. There’s enough evidence out there already. What’s the point of having defibrillators outside the public toilet when the person collapsed is hidden from view a few metres away. It’s common sense safeguarding.

I agree it will take a big incident (maybe multiple deaths like a fire evacuation gone wrong, or a famous person dying/assaulted) before people start to listen. But it’s happening now in mixed sex toilets that are fully enclosed. It’s just that at the moment many of the single sex ones aren’t. Yet.

DD has described going to the women's loos at university, finding a large pissed male student in a skirt there, and rapidly reversing out hoping he wouldn't see her and pursue her, because then she would be the one criticised for transphobia. They have those twee little signs up specifically telling women not to have thoughts or feelings about this, as the large male person there 'knows their identity better than you do'.

As she says, how the fuck is that fair?

See my above post about social expectations of women and girls.

I think about this saved SS a lot. It haunts me & never more so than the run up to this election.

They are absolutely tying themselves in knots because they can't grasp, apparently, that if you want to protect single-sex spaces you can't simultaneously make it easier to get a GRC, if you also believe that a GRC entitles you to enter the single-sex spaces of the opposite sex. They've had a long time to get their act together over this, but they haven't done it, either because they're too stupid or because they have decided it's not sufficiently important.

To quote from Victoria Smith on Twitter:

It's kind of funny to see Labour wading in, all mature, to solve "the culture wars". Feminists worked out years ago trans activists will not accept compromise of any kind. They also pointed out this was creating an open goal for the right.

It would have been a lot easier to manage this if you'd listened to feminists back when self ID was Tory policy and the UK was one of the only countries with a predominantly left-wing, pro-feminist and pro-LGB response to the problem.

But no, you thought we were stupid. Silly older women, clutching their pearls, making up problems that didn't exist. All that work, research, writing, speaking ignored because we can't possibly have anything important to say.

https://x.com/glosswitch/status/1805335079067034040

I have to say I do feel they are on the crisp of an epiphany moment on it. They think they can just be nice about it, but haven't really thought it through in full.

Whether we can push them over that edge one by one remains to be seen.

They want to appear nice and the trouble is this conversation isn't about being nice to everyone. It's about what is legally coherent and what is legally practical and workable.

This is the exact issue with Brexit which has gradually hit the wall of reality.

That's the only thing that gives me some hope, combined with fallout in Canada likely to hit soon, legal rulings and other outside political changes influencing the landscape of this.

It's all about timing and priorities now.

If this is a shit show subject for Labour both publicly and internally they are likely to deprioritise. That buys time for fallout and research dropping (which I think we have a fair idea in terms of direction of travel).

We WANT to force this. Buy time. Buy as much as we can. It gives us the most chance of retaining the rights we should legally have now.

Fight starts 5th July. Not before imho.

They haven't understood it's not a war about culture.

It's a battle between ideology belief and practical issues and reality.

Ideology can be exceptionally powerful yet fragile at the same time. It tends to collapse under the weight of its own bullshit.

It's a religious belief, and as unreasonable as any other religion in its demands on women.

Exactly.

The conflict between the desire to be nice and what reality is, is a really difficult want to wrap your head around.

I've been through the process of this. I get it inside out.

Ultimately it comes down to behaviour and what you would normally otherwise find unacceptable.

Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

But it frustrates me no end this narrative that GC don't care and hate. The opposite is true in the majority of cases. The difference is we can see that you can't just make excuses for someone based on identity or if you are related to them because there is a recipient of unacceptable behaviour.

I should stress that unacceptable behaviour it's just being a sex offender.

Having disrespect for others (women) and huge entitlement that ignores the concerns and dignity of others (women) also crosses a line.

She seems to think all men who apply to GRCs have had genital surgery - how can she not know this isn’t the case?

Something occurred to me about letting more people into women's toilets: we're going to need considerably bigger toilets blocks for women.

Women currently have to queue while men don't (see 'Invisible Women') & women need more toilet provision right now, just to give them equality of service. But we never seem to get it. Funny, that.

Now take some users out of the Gents & put them in the Ladies. Far fewer users will migrate from the Ladies to the Gents, I assume, though I know some already have. Result? Toilet provision skewed even more in favour of users of the Gents.

What are Labour's proposals for dealing with this inequality?

I have to say I do feel they are on the crisp of an epiphany moment on it. They think they can just be nice about it, but haven't really thought it through in full.

I really am now at the point of 'Labour, are you seriously this thick, or are you very shy about your male supremacism?'

Because let's stop beating about the bush, this is what it is. In fact, in truth. Male humans matter and female humans don't. Male humans should have more rights and privileges that females are not entitled to equality with. And female humans are resources for male humans and should not be allowed to withhold consent.

It's that straight forward.

Seriously. If they can try and lie and pretty-word their way around removing a woman's right to leave her marriage when a man unilaterally changes the contract and even the person she chose to marry? And call that removing 'spousal consent' because poor bloke? It's a natural extension to removing the marital rape prohibition. Which is also some uppity bloody woman wanting consent and equality of humanity while poor bloke with rights.

We have really got to stop being coy about this, there's 8 days. And no, there's no epiphany coming, just a hope of conning you long enough.