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

Harriet Harman didn't get where she is today by stopping and thinking.

Julia asks some of the right questions:

Helen Joyce explains that GRC panel and application process is easy and isn’t undignified:

Thanks, had got that all mixed up. Why remove the right to have an annulment?

Also, I'm sick of the blatant propaganda that getting a GRC is 'undignified'. Getting an easyjet flight is demonstrably more undignified than getting a GRC.

As a poster, whose name I cannot remember to thank once pointed out, as for indignity, just try being a disabled person who genuinely cannot work, being made year after year to have a medical interview, full of pitfalls to catch you out, in which you have to prove again and again that you cannot work even though you have a condition that cannot improve.

If the former Labour government, mistakenly, and virtually in secret, passed an act that says a person can have the state legally lie on their behalf, and change the fact of their sex on a birth certificate, then why should that be made easy? It only passed as an act in the first place on the basis there would be so few, old fashioned style transsexuals applying.

There is nothing in the least bit dignified imo about basing a fundamental aspect of society on lies.

As for the police, they already outrage the dignity of women as a class by recording them as killers and rapists they never were. The state in some places outrages the dignity of women by putting males in prison with them. A GRC just gives more scope for both practices.

Sorry nrft-just realised that the journalist who wrote the story was on woman's hour today

Woman's hour 24.06.24 www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/5104087-womans-hour-240624

I’ll be voting Conservative. It’s the best hope in my constituency.

I seem to recall there isn't even the requirement to attend the panel in person. The panel just receive all the evidence including from medical/legal professionals and make a judgment.

Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong about that but I think people imagine something akin to a job interview and I don't believe it's like that.

At what point do women and children matter, Phillipson, and how many have to be harmed before you're willing to place their dignity above indulging male wants you massive handmaiden

EXACTLY!!!

Why remove the right to have an annulment?

I think there are two things. Firstly, it's a change in the law that will be easy to carry out, will cost nothing, and will please the intolerant activist-minded in Labour. Especially the young, and keeping them on board is going to be useful in seeking to win the General Election following the one heading towards us. Secondly, it's to remove leverage that women have when their husband transitions in getting out of their marriages more straightforwardly and with a better outcome. There seem to be some people in Labour who want to shift the balance to disadvantage those women. I'll leave others to speculate on what motivations might lie at the heart of that.

Why remove the right to have an annulment?
It stands in the way of self ID- and also because of male entitlement.

It's also about 'punishing' wives (a continuation of domestic abuse) and other women/ religious believers for refusing to submit to gender beliefs because they know sex is immutable.

As a poster, whose name I cannot remember to thank once pointed out, as for indignity, just try being a disabled person who genuinely cannot work, being made year after year to have a medical interview, full of pitfalls to catch you out, in which you have to prove again and again that you cannot work even though you have a condition that cannot improve.

If you want true indignity and dehumanisation just try going through the process for receiving any help or benefits as a disabled person, it is horrific. Most assessments are conducted by people who haven't got a fucking clue about the disability they are supposed to be assessing and their goal is to not find the person worthy of help or benefits.

To say nothing about the hate and prejudice toward people with disabilities which has to be lived with on a daily basis.

Yes. And it's about getting "gender identity" onto the statute books. This is ultimate goal. Be under no illusions.

It's not a veto, it's a spousal exit clause to leave a marriage and be able to marry again, even if Catholic.

If you’re in a swing seat your vote will make a difference. Use it to put pressure on Labour to legally protect biological women’s rights

www.thetimes.com/article/06e1ee5e-1a7e-4f7a-a094-9fbf634d09c8?shareToken=92e7935b8c1c2a423b819c1453bdb3ba

If you’re in a swing seat your vote will make a difference. Use it to put pressure on Labour to legally protect biological women’s rights.

Why swing voters could deny Labour an election landslide
www.thetimes.com/article/06e1ee5e-1a7e-4f7a-a094-9fbf634d09c8?shareToken=92e7935b8c1c2a423b819c1453bdb3ba

Thank you @UtopiaPlanitia the women on those videos were both outstanding!

There are, from memory, several rounds in the leadership competition before the final candidates are sent to members. I think it’s a case of the party’s MPs voting on all those who get nominations, then a series of rounds in which the candidate(s) with least votes are eliminated until only two (or is it three?) are left for the members to choose from. So if we’re signed up as members of the party we can lobby MPs about who they back in each round, I guess, and then cast a vote at the last stage. Agree that this is a bit of an issue: many Tory MPs are nuts and I’m not sure we’d get Kemi (eg) on the final ballot. God help us if they sent us Johnson and Rees-Mogg or something (feel a bit sick thinking about that tbh).

IDK.

Maybe you’d like to find out.

Having read all your comments, I can see you are mostly just afraid of men.
I’m very sorry for the things that must have happened to you to make you fear men this way. I hope you all come to terms with it.
I personally feel there are some bad people in the world, some are men and some are women.
I don’t live my life in fear of anyone, and in my 41 years have never come to any harm at the hands of anyone male or female. I’m obviously lucky.
I don’t think this board is the place for me though, so I’ll leave you to it.
I hope that the day that trans people are as accepted as other previously marginalised groups that you are big enough to admit you over reacted and won’t sound like the racist and homophobic grandparents we are all slightly embarrassed by.

The conservatives have pledged to clarify the word woman in the Equality Act. They also will not bring in self id and will ensure schools guidance is not anti women

I have to admit I haven't read all the posts since late last night.

When I saw that the thread seemed to be doing down the same old Tories so bad anything they do is bad, Labour so good andything they do is good I just gave up and skipped to the end.

So really pleased that the substance of the proposall is being discussed, such as the impact on trans widows.

But also for me, I just cant get over the way Labour thinks they can just dismiss what women are saying.

I suspect, whatever flimsy yes dears we are listening to us, they have just classed women protesting about the loss of women's sex based rights as dinasours. I wonder if they would bother more if they thought the voting would be close.

I think the earlier Starmer this is all so tiresome is in fact the Labour position.

They dont think there is an issue. Just some die hard reactionaries who the media are making us talk about (otherwise we would just ignore them).

In fact despite headlines about JKR and others, this policy is the same one as they have had for more than a few months.

ie they have not acknowledged any part of the GC arguement as being valid.

They are just making soothing noises.

The dont care.

Julie...I'm almost certain it's...Bindel in the Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/24/labour-has-chosen-trans-extremists-over-jk-rowling/

https://archive.ph/sejZ5 Labour is like banging your head against a prick wall

She says she's still going to vote Labour. Well, unless there's a very quick turnaround, that makes one of us.

Removing the spousal exit clause is just spiteful. I doubt it's even legal, wasn't there something about unilaterally changing the marriage contract?

At this rate the only lesbians in this country will be cross dressing straight men, sad girls, bewildered straight women and a tiny besieged minority.

Take that you norty women! 😂😂