The Times Lead Story - Labour Set To Annihilate Women's Rights

[Arealnumber]

Labour to simplify ‘undignified’ gender transition process

www.thetimes.com/article/29648ec1-5b29-4b35-97df-2a443c71d7e0?shareToken=fd3bf0c5a080ae78044dd82770d8e1a7

So, all those people claiming Labour aren't going to bring in self ID?

Right, could you please now tell us how Reform or the Conservatives are protecting women rights before I reconsider voting for a bunch of dishonest liars or a chauvinist racist party? Thank you.

Wilson IDK. All options are shit.

Phillipson said she was “genuinely sorry to hear” of Rowling’s doubts and she had a “real degree of respect” for the author and added: “I would say really, do judge us on what we’ve done in the past to support women”.

Yeah that is what we're judging you all on Bridget.

Wilson, they stop the selfID in Scotland. Have provided assurances to keep sIngle sex spaces; many of their women MP get it. There is reasonable guidance for schools on the way. Just of the top of my head.

it’s a shithole but I think Labour And all the other leftists parties, so open minded that their brains have dropped off, will only add insult to injury.

Glad i’m not voting. Something i would never have thought I would say or do.

I've said it on other threads, I'll say it on this one too: the Conservatives stink to high heaven. I'm voting for them anyway, because god help us we are getting a Labour government this time round and there is no party other than the Tory party (Reform isn't remotely serious, please let's not even go there) that is going to try, even, to stand in the way of Labour pushing through laws that will break down women's rights and child safeguarding in the name of trans rights. The closer we get to the election, and the more certain Starmer and co are that they are going to win, the more they let slip out about how much of the rare good work done by the current government they are going to undo. Think how bad it's going to get once they've been elected with a large majority.

IMO wouldn't it be more useful if each time someone started a thread about the threat to women's sex based rights, instead of turing it into the same old back and forth about Tory vs Labour, could we stick to the core of the article ie the possibility of Labour bringing in virtual self ID.

Unless of course it is only one person, this question about why not to vote tory because right wing, etc., etc., is trotted out any time someone points out a problem with Labour.

What is hard to understand is why those (or the one poster) who thinks it is wrong to vote Tory doesn't start a thread about that. Maybe if there was a focused discussion about it may convince some on FWR.

But endlessly popping up with whatabouterry over and over again, when the issue for discussion is Labour policy, not only gets grating but backfires as it seems intended to derail thread.

I think it is really important to understand this policy, which they have referred to before, so would be good to hear in more details what it is, and the impact on women.

(Currently) Officials insist on two years’ worth of documentation to ensure the person is prepared for a permanent change. However, The Times has learnt that Labour will ditch the requirement in an attempt to “remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance”.

Instead, transgender people will be required to undergo an effective cooling-off period for two years after their application for a GRC is submitted. A single doctor specialising in gender issues will be able to provide a medical report supporting the change to their new gender.

The party will also ditch the panel of doctors and lawyers which now approves GRCs.

However, an idea to have them signed off by a single GP has been jettisoned, after party figures including Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, raised concerns about the impact on family doctors.

As well as simplifying the application process, Labour will also get rid of a requirement to have consent from the spouse of the person wishing to change gender.

A Labour source said: “Our intention was always that we don’t want to change how the diagnosis [of gender dysphoria] is made. It’s not about how it’s diagnosed but we do want one diagnosis.”

The source described the requirement to show two years’ worth of proof as “nonsense”.

They added: “We’ll replace it with a reflection period. It counters the idea that you can put on a dress and then the next day you’ve got a GRC. It’ll be a considerable period of time of two years. But of course you are still protected under the Equality Act even if you don’t have a GRC … There are protections so you can’t legally change your gender overnight.”

As well as simplifying the application process, Labour will also get rid of a requirement to have consent from the spouse of the person wishing to change gender.

There is no "consent to change gender"

It is consent to continue the marriage, and therefore for it to be re-registered as a same sex marriage in a central register, OR for time to be given for the marriage to be dissolved (either by divorce, or importantly for some people an annulment) when an interim certificate is issued.

Nobody is being prevented from changing their gender, whatever that might be.

[post deleted]

As I said on another thread, we already have de facto self ID. Men say they're women and get access to women's changing rooms, swimming ponds, reserved jobs, awards, etc. etc. - they don't need a GRC to do this. The few people that try to stop these men are abused, vilified and threatened.

What we need is a party that will not just prevent self-ID but actually enforce women-only spaces and facilities.

I'm thinking of how they've treated Rosie Duffield and the women they've expelled. Labour Women's Declaration being barred from conference. Wes having a shitlist of feminists. The GRA.

Is that what they mean?

As well as simplifying the application process, Labour will also get rid of a requirement to have consent from the spouse of the person wishing to change gender.

Will the spouse also lose the right to be informed?

So Labour is proposing:
(i) to allow a single doctor ‘specialising in gender issues’ to certify a GRC claim.
We now know, both from the Cass review and from many other reports, that there are plenty of doctors ‘specialising in gender issues’ who have been happy to out children onto puberty blockers and vulnerable young people onto cross sex hormones after only minimal assessment. It is reasonable to assume that they will sign off GRC applications without substantial scrutiny. Not much is said here about the reasoning behind having lawyers on the existing panel. What checks and considerations will be removed by jettisoning legal scrutiny?
(ii) the current requirement to provide evidence of having lived as the opposite sex for 2 years becomes a ‘cooling off period’. This implies that no evidence at the end of that period will be required and that the individual seeking the GRC will enjoy full legal protection from point if application rather than at the end of the two year period.
Wgat might this mean in terms of consideration for all women shortlists or access to female spaces?
(iii) removal of spousal consent, so that women married to men who choose to apply for a GRC will remain legally and financially shackled to someone who may now be presenting and behaving very differently, and who chosen unilaterally to change something fundamental about the nature of the marriage.
I think we should be worried about every one of these points and this augurs very ill for a Starmer government’s response to Cass. Bloody hell it’s depressing that we have to fight this stupidity when there are so many other issues at stake.

Well, in fairness to her I think Kemi Badenoch would move on that if she stayed in government.

How does

A single doctor specialising in gender issues will be able to provide a medical report supporting the change to their new gender.

The party will also ditch the panel of doctors and lawyers which now approves GRCs.

tally with

However, an idea to have them signed off by a single GP has been jettisoned, after party figures including Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, raised concerns about the impact on family doctors.

So, not 'a single GP', but a single doctor. You need one signature. Shouldn't be a problem.

We’ll replace it with a reflection period. It counters the idea that you can put on a dress and then the next day you’ve got a GRC. It’ll be a considerable period of time of two years.

So still based on ridiculously sexist ideas, just with a two-year wait after applying instead of before.

It says on the article only 2% of trans people have a GRC, so we effectively have self OD anyway.

Labour will be questioned on this article and JKR’s all next week. I hope the reporters ask the v important question How specifically are you going to protect women’s single sex spaces?

None of the reporters ever seem to ask the right follow up questions. They just accept at face value whatever the politician says.

The only person I'd trust to ask questions is Sonia Sodha but she doesn't seem to do interviews, she just commentates.

Hopefully they'll get her on Politics Live to do a bit of unpicking of the issues.

I can believe this still hasn’t been asked

More bad news for women’s rights as, according to the Guardian, Labour plan to create more peers. So the help we’ve had from the Lords is under threat too.

A single doctor specialising in gender issues will be able to provide a medical report supporting the change to their new gender.

I can see it now, online private doctors declaring their gender issues specialism, with pound signs in their eyes. What could possible go wrong.

And I knew spousal consent would be ditched after reading the wishy washy manifesto.

So that abolish the House of Lords swizz from a couple of years ago has flipped

And yeh I agree. Labour are stacking in all ways possible - votes and peers

Good luck everyone

So what happens if my dh decided to be a woman? Does that change our marriage certificate? Why do they never make it more clear what the veto means in these articles?