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

I see.

I feel all enlightened now.

@icakethereforeIam I am so very curious to know whether 'prick wall' was a typo or not 😂

Be sure to let the door hit your arse on the way out. You need the wake-up call.

So off

Not a typo 😁

That’s the best answer you can come up with after reading this thread, that we’re somehow not nice enough so there must be something mentally wrong with us?

You can’t accept that we’re intelligent women from a wide range of backgrounds, personal experiences, and professions who have done the background research and reading, looked through the legislation, teased out the relevant issues and consequences and therefore decided these particular things will affect women’s lives negatively so we’re voting accordingly?

Disagree with me all you want, I have no issue with disagreement, just don’t patronise me or tell me there’s something wrong with me for thinking as I do.

Very cunning! 😂

Its still a suprise when on a forum clearer stated to be about feminism, sex and gender that posters turn up and are surprised by very basic feminist statements about men.

It isn't about "fear", it is about know that we live in a patriarchal society where we are treated like second class citizens.

You say fear, women say anger

Women are angry that 2+ women a week are murdered by men they are in a relationship with

Women are angry that when they are raped they are not taken seriously and even if they do get the CPS to agree to a trials it can take 2 years for a date.

There can be no "equality" for women so long as men make the rules.

And this is another example.

Nothing to do with fear, but having a very clear notion of the problem of men, and that as has been true for centuries women have needed to be separated from men to be really safe.

Going back to since the vote, or even more recently 1970s Women's Liberation, women have changed and taken their place in society outside of the home.

But during that period men still haven't changed.

Have you not seen the thread describing how women were attacked in Brighton for attempting to use their right to free speech?

This thread is about another attack by men on women's rights.

Thank you for recognising so clearly that transwomen are men.

Women who are religious would need their marriage annulled by their relisious community. A legal annulment would not solve that issue for them.

People are saying some religious women can't get divorced. Well of course they can, legally, it's just not recognised by their religion.

I'd be pretty sure that 'chnaging gender' would be a reason for the Catholic church to grant an annulment as they are against genedr ideology, but the government position on this wouldn't make any diffrence to that.

I'm not sure where Muslim or Jewish women would stand if religious?

I'm only making this point becuase I think the argument being made here that a legal annulment is crucial for relgious women is a misunderstanding of the religious view of marriage.

Perhaps you should read the full thread and then you would better understand .

I personally feel there are some bad people in the world, some are men and some are women.

Upwards of 90% of violent and sexual crimes are committed by men (including men who don't call themselves men).

Doing a both sides thing when talking about 'bad people' is naive at best or at worst disingenuous and an attempt to obfuscate male violence.

Fuckity bye then.

I think I'll go with the interpretation of all the women who have written to me, and the lawyers I've consulted on the Spousal Exit Clause rather than that of MalagaNights, a randomer on Mumsnet.

I've not read the full thread, so apologies if this has already been posted, leader article in the Times

www.thetimes.com/comment/the-times-view/article/the-times-view-on-trans-rights-luxury-beliefs-mzsfp62b2

https://archive.ph/hhx9J fuck's sake Labour read this and give your head a wobble

Men commit over 90% of violent and sexual offending.

Sexual offenders are overrepresented amongst transwomen within British prisons compared to other men.

It is misogyny to ignore these facts.

It will be an annulment, which means that the marriage never existed, then. Why should anyone wish to stop a woman (inevitably a woman) annulling the marriage that is to her no longer a marriage? Unless there is some other agenda? TiMs seem to like having a 'wife'.

No need to be so bloody unecessarily rude.
I'm a regular on here so as 'random' as you.

I was merely pointing out the position of religious women.

A legal annulment would hold the same weight as a legal divorce within their community: Legally binding but not necessarily religiously recognised.

The idea that a legal process would solve their religious problem seems entirely naive tbh.

'All your lawyers' are telling you about the legal position not the position of all the differing religions.

I'm just sick of the constant "but, but, but" on the exit clause. Women have said they need it, why do we have to keep endlessly justifying ourselves?

Women who are religious would need their marriage annulled by their relisious community. A legal annulment would not solve that issue for them.

If true, I feel sure it would be considered to be very important admissible evidence that would considerably speed up the process of gaining an annulment. Furthermore, it might help the affected spouse on a psychological level to have their position recognised legally.

'All your lawyers' are telling you about the legal position not the position of all the differing religions.

Yes, the aforementioned women who write to me tell me about that.

Fuck this shit, I am sick of Labour and won't be voting for them based on this.
WTAF?

OK but if we are going to argue for it we do have to make sure that the arguments we put forward are at least justifiable and true otherwise that will unedrmine our position.

I'm just pointing ut the argument that a legal annulment is neede for religious women is not coherent. A legal annulment is no more helpful than a legal divorce in the case of religious marriage. The annulment (for Catholics at least) has to come from the Church.

You seem to be saying: I'm so pissed off lets say any shit, and if anyone, even in good faith raises a question let's just be rude to them. Nice.
That'll win the day.

The funny thing is that Labour is all about supporting minorities and respecting their rights, which includes some religious and ethnic groups that practice (impose) women only spaces and socialisging.

So maybe this is the nub of the problem, when men say society should be organised to accommodate women only practices other men respect those space. But when women say they need women only spaces they say they aren't necessary or reactionary.

So which is worse? Not listening to women, or accepting that men in minority communities are imposing a reactionary practice on the women of that community.

Mabye we need to ask Blair if he would very kindly speak up for us so that not quite head honcho from the still reigning honcho in the Labour Party.

Then Starmer could get behind it as a man has classified it as valid.

He is going to ‘wait’ to see what the guidelines say. I think we know.

What he means is he is backtracking from Bridget’s all but saying they will not allow the part that says gender identity should
not be taught. Then when the election is over they will make sure it is.