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

Oh look. KS won't allow 'gender ideology' to be taught in schools.
But it's fine to teach that women are toxic and you must be kind children.

Keir Starmer will not allow ‘gender ideology’ to be taught in schools

www.thetimes.com/article/c9e5cc91-2608-4900-a335-df7e0b1352ae?shareToken=4bc4c192b1049503a57264007d2ac0e7

Is the arguement here that GRC should be abolished? So a situation where there can be no eg passport with a female marker for any biological male?

Just listening to a discussion on Times Radio with Andrew Neil. Proceeded by Helen Joyce, then discussed by Michael Gove and Harriet Harman. Harman was incredibly depressing. I'm out, they've sold women down the river. Completely. Worth a listen to on catch up.

I don’t see why it would be a huge administrative burden to phase in ID documents that register sex and, where needed, “identified gender” or similar wording.

It allows people to respect the life choices of a trans person day to day and also prevents the obfuscation of actual biology.

but if they were after compromise from the start we wouldn’t be where we are now!

Let’s be honest, Harriet has always been of the not-very-smart Be Kind” variety - look at who else she’s been happy to pander to in the past…,

I wonder how and when the spouse find out that their partner has been granted a GRC?

So which one of them is telling the truth?! It’s so confusing and dispiriting!!

They keep flipping and flopping and sometimes things improve a bit (like them saying they would like to meet with JKR) and sometimes (like today re GRC changes & spousal exit clause) things get a lot worse.

The ghost of Cilla Black appears and shouts Surprise! Surprise!

@ResisterRex Yes agreed. Some religions don't recognise divorce and the women affected will face lifelong negative consequences, as will their children, as per links posted above, if Labour proceed. But it affects non religious women too.

'The European Court of Human Rights has found that a person cannot be forced to demonstrate views or behaviour associated with a particular religion'.
www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-9-freedom-thought-belief-and-religion

Believing the man who got you pregnant is a woman is a belief in conflict with reality (and in conflict with most major religions). The Tory government did a whole consultation on this a few years ago and found the only way to protect everyone's human rights, especially the wives who are most often the ones affected, many of whom have experienced domestic abuse from their husbands, was to keep the Exit Clause.

Yes, I heard her too, and I am out too. 😔

And not just 'when a GRC has been granted', but also 'when a GRC is first applied for'? Like at the start of this proposed 2 year 'cooling-off period'? Has that been made clear?

What is in the back of my mind, @RoseAndGeranium is a vague memory of the last Conservative leadership vote being down to only one set of people within the party, who seemed to be mostly older men, the ones who wanted Penny Mordaunt and Liz Truss. Can anyone think what this might be, or did I misunderstand?

GRC has never been needed for changing sex on a passport. It has been done on a gentlemen's agreement basis since forever. IIRC, someone on here tried to get FOI on the numbers, but it appears they do not keep any records as they are so inaccessible as to exceed the costs for FOI. I have seen some very recent numbers out so maybe the last government told them to count them.

Please can someone explain why the "2 year cooling off period" is more objectionable than the "2 years living in acquired gender" period.

I'm entirely sympathetic to the idea of repealing (actually I'd replace it) the GRA. But neither of the 2 main parties are proposing that.

As always it appears to me that there is just semantics between Labour/Conservative position yet some posters think this is different enough for them to join the Conservative party

AFAIA changing gender markers on passport/driving licenses is one of yhe ways trans people currently prove they are "living in their acquired gender"

A very good point.

For me, yes I think it should be totally abolished, I don't think it should ever have been brought in in the first place.

No male should have a female mark in their passport or on any other identity document.

If a Gender Certificate is wanted/needed it should not change the details on the Birth Certificate but be an additional certificate stating the person is trans.

Additional boxes on documents and forms to record whether the person is trans that are n/a to those who are not.

Agree we’ve messed up pursuing this. Well Labour have

The damage to women and children is too great

Plenty of time to get divorced, so that probably is why they are OK getting rid of the exit clause.

Tell us you know nothing and care even less about the reason for the Exit Clause without telling us you know nothing and care even less, well done Cassie

Of course I know about the reason for it.
I'm saying that with the 2 year "cooling off" period there is plenty of time for annulment/divorce so noone needs to be forced into a same gender marriage.

How did I know that would be your callous response. You have clearly read none of the information on this thread and elsewhere as why the Exit Clause is necessary and who it protects.

You can only get an annulment under certain conditions. If a spouse getting a GRC is no longer one of those then women only have the option of divorce which is not an option for some women. For women who do divorce their marriage will already have legally changed and records will show they were married to and divorced a woman, which will be a lie.

@CaveMum of all people, you'd think Harriet harman would stop and say "hmmm I seem to remember I torched my reputation in the past. Maybe I should be a little more skeptical in this case".

But no. In with both feet.

Let's all sign up to trans widows rights being given away, on the basis of Cassie's assumptions.

Yes, let's.

Funny how claims to want to help and protect people don't extend to those who have said clearly that they need the Exit Clause to protect and help them. Ah but, of course, Trans Widows are just women and why the fuck would Labour care about them.