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, Daffodil, there is nowhere you wouldn’t walk, especially after dark, you’re not concerned if someone is following you down an otherwise deserted street, you don’t hold your car keys in your hand when returning to a car park alone late at night, you wouldn’t arrange with friends so nobody was travelling home alone after a night out? It’s not great that these things represent most women’s experiences, but I think they do, and it’s a natural female response to male violence. If you don’t understand that, I can only assume you’re male!

Labour are making it very clear where they stand on women’s rights and child safeguarding. I just hope enough MP’s in the new parliament understood the implications and can provide a moderating influence. I’m not hopeful though :-(

This is an interesting summary of the workings of & need for the spousal exit clause:

https://labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/the-spousal-consent-clause-in-the-gra-an-important-protection-for-women/

I had no idea of this (my bold):

'The pause provided by the spousal exit route clause and interim GRC award allows the rights of those wishing to exit their marriage to be dealt with properly and fairly. Without it a spouse might not even know about the GRC application and revision to their marriage contract, before a certificate is granted.'

Who would think THAT was a good idea??

Interesting also to note the figures for the use of the spousal exit clause, which are higher than was being claimed here recently.

One might also note the final paragraph & date. Labour not listening to women Part 94...

'In our view, UK Labour’s current commitment for the clause to be removed from the GRA would compromise women’s existing rights, and we urge you to reconsider.
Labour Women’s Declaration, 3 March 2023. '

Thankyou for this, I really hope there is at least one journalist reading this who will ask some informed questions about the spousal exit clause

No tinsel. I said I'd think twice about referring women because of your support for KJK. That's quite a different thing. That's my opinion, that I'm entitled to hold.
I also said I was upset by at because I'd got helpful support in the past.

Don't twist my words to suit your agenda.

It's a wasted vote in as much as they are unlikely to be elected to Parliament, however the message we are sending in possibly putting lots of independent candidates in 3rd place behind the big parties (e.g.) will be worth it.

Quite

And I used to be married to a sexually coercive, fetishistic entitled arsehole who I had to divorce in the normal acrimonious way (and continue to co parent with).
Makes no odds though, people can be as rude as they like because I have no "lived experience" 🙄

Karmer keeps talking about 'respect' but he doesn't respect my sex.

He's been sitting on the fence for so long he must have a zillion splinters in his arse.

If you found your husband was a habitual user of prostitutes and had been since you were married, you'd have to divorce. To me that's a similar level of "lack of consent".

I have every sympathy with women not wanting to be in a legally same aex marriage. I'm less sympathetic about the "altered marriage" piece - lots of women have been there. It's shit, but to me there's nothing about transition that's different to all the other ways some men lie, cheat and disguise parts of themselves in a marriage. 2 years is long enough to get out of it.

The truth is we have no idea what Labour are proposing regarding telling the spouse when a GRC is applied for, or if annulment will be an option. I trust them a lot less after the last few days. But this is the sort of detail to bring up in the consultation.

But CassieMaddox a man using prostitutes or turning out to be an arsehole doesn't alter his legal personality under the law - he is still the same legal entity even if he's completely changed his behaviour.

This is about entering into a contract with one legal entity and that legal entity ceasing to exist and another fundamentally different legal entity being substituted as a party to the contract, and the other party still being bound by the original contract.

@CassieMaddox

Well, maybe wives should be able to get a religiously recognised annulment if their husband turns out to be a prostitute-using wife-beater: why don't you argue for that? Instead of arguing for the removal of rights which trans widows obviously find useful. Whose side are you on? Apparently not women, particularly women with the misfortune to be abused simultaneously by their husbands and by one of our lovely woman-hating world religions.

Hang on, Cassie (AdamRyan), who has spent weeks telling us all that we should unequivocally support Labour, is now expressing a level of distrust? Cassie you’ve been here too long, you’ll go native and become a far-right bigot!

Don't twist my words to suit your agenda.

Oh lordy.

It's an irregular verb.

It's shit, but to me there's nothing about transition that's different to all the other ways some men lie, cheat and disguise parts of themselves in a marriage.

Except that it’s been explained over and over again that, with a GRC, the transitioner becomes a different person in law, and the actual marriage contract is changed.

Lying, cheating and other such unacceptable and abusive behaviours don’t do that.

I posted this on the Bridget Phillipson thread and I’m posting it here cos I think it’s relevant to this discussion too:

A tweet from STILLTish:

’This case is a man who was thrice married, had 7 kids, spent time in Jail for obtaining explosives with intent to endanger life. A single judge granted him a gender recognition certificate.'

https://gendercriticalwoman.blog/2019/10/10/gender-recognition-certificates/

Anyone supporting the legal right of a man to coercively prevent his wife having the option of leaving the marriage when he unilaterally changes the entire terms of the contract she consented to, and is effectively no longer being the person she married to the point of being called 'dead named'? When his wife wishing to end the marriage at this point has no real effect on him at all, but a massive one on her and her ability to escape him and a situation she no longer consents to?

Either has no real idea of what they're talking about and hasn't understood it, or is an extreme misogynist.

This is embedding male supremacism in law. That men have rights to overturn women's rights and consent in some circumstances. That men matter in ways women don't, and have superior rights to women and power over women.

Fgs think of the marital rape clause. Seriously. How short a step is it to go from 'I don't agree you should have a right or means to leave this relationship with me while I do this to you because it conflicts with my wishes and needs' to 'I don't agree you should have a right or means to deny your body to me because it conflicts with my wishes and needs'?

Excellent post UpThePankhurst. Male supremacism it is, there is only one reason TRAs want this clause removed and that is so they can exert power and control over their wives and Labour are more than happy to enable them to do just that.

Labour good for women and women's rights? Ah but not those women, or those ones and definitely not those ones but maybe those ones over there, yay!

Anyone who thinks Labour give a flying fuck about women and women's rights is utterly deluded.

That doesn’t make sense. Why pack it out with more people you’re then going to boot out? None of this policy augurs well.

Control the Lords by stacking the house with yesmen and there's no danger of sanity or normality interfering with you and what you wish to inflict on the British public. If we've learned anything in the past ten years, particularly watching the SNP put their underpants on their heads and go 'wibble', it's that an independent secondary house is essential. And it needs to be anyone but politicians.

The reason the British public is so fucked off and walking around in circles going 'I don't know who to vote for because I don't want any of them' is the bloody awful calibre of politicians and their despising of democracy, anyone who isn't 'one of them' with the right ivory tower views, and their despising of voters.

The HoL is the layer of protection Labour will want rid of.

Labour don't want a HofL
Their policy was/is to have a second elected chamber, although this won't be done in the first term of a Labour Government.
I think they intend to set a retirement age of 80.

Honestly if I ever thought they would seriously accomplish that I would never consider voting for them, even if I really liked my local candidate.

I think you'll find it here @TempestTost. I may have been mistaken about elected though, perhaps I'm stuck in the Blair years?
https://labour.org.uk/change/serving-the-country/
Scroll down the page until you reach Constitutional Reform.

Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big.
The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords

Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Labour will consult on proposals, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them.