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

Dear God Cherie Blair it’s Sex not Gender!

www.thetimes.com/article/dc8636bd-f1a4-43c5-8869-f6476d1f1523?shareToken=0ff50b0464ccfde773d0418711500be3

Don't twist my words to suit your agenda.

My evil agenda of wanting trans widows to keep the rights they currently have.

And it's pretty despicable Cassie to have used my resources when you felt they were useful to you, but not to repay the favour by listening to trans widows about what we need.

You can't cross it out when the form is online.

Of course, I should have realised. It is coercion to say something false.

The idea of an elected second chamber has always struck me as the Commons voting for an early Christmas. If the Lords are elected, I guess the reasoning goes, then they are under the control of the government, because they can have their seat taken away. I reason that if the second chamber is elected it will challenge the Commons for supremacy, and it is not at all clear which would win. Historically the second chamber was the more powerful - there is no reason whatsover why it might not become so again, through electoral gains etc. And what does the government do if the newly elected Lords has the Opposition in the majority - we see the effects of this in the US, where a Democratic President has to continually fight the House and Senate, ditto a Republican. It leads to nothing getting done. Part of the point of democracy is that change should be slow, but it is not meant to stop any change. Labour has already taken a coach and horses through the constitution, giving us a Scotland that is forever challenging Westminster and is in danger of breaking the Union. And Labour want to repeat this in the Other Place?

I used to favour an elected HOL but now think that the current set up is preferable. However it needs to be greatly reduced in size - perhaps by half -and there should be much heavier scrutiny of those appointed. For a start, they should be people who have demonstrably contributed to the greater good of the country, have particular and valuable expertise, and being affiliated to a political party or high up in the civil service should be a bar to be overcome rather than an advantage.

I agree with this. There's a lot of downsides to a 2nd elected chamber and yes I could see it ending up akin to the US House/Senate with accompanying issues.

One of the benefits of the HoL is that peers are more likely to be true to what they believe in because they don't have to campaign for their seats or please an electorate.

It's not a perfect system but it does have benefits that could turn out to be disastrous if removed.

Good grief, isn't it eye opening to listen to the absolute rhino hide gaul of a woman dismissing another woman's experience, which she has not in any way shared, (but is definitely not as bad as her own life experiences,) and the other woman and everyone else who has suffered as she has is being silly and should just accept her lot nicely without fussing, and obey this.... .self appointed expert. Scolding someone who has taken such a significant part in raising awareness and has spoken to and worked with MANY such women.

Gosh those shilling for the left are so 'kind'. And so very pro women.

So long as said women stay in their box, think and feel precisely what they are told and always obey those who so firmly believe to be their betters

Labour in a bloody nutshell there. Prisons, changing rooms, escaping a marriage with a man who has become someone totally different, not wanting intimate care from a man who wants his self expression to be the woman's focus and not reality or her experience..... all the same.

It really is a shame that you have not bothered to read or respond to many of the clearly articulated posters explaining just exactly why making it easier to legally identify as a woman and be treated legally as a woman has serious implications for women. If you had done do, you may have comprehended that concerns are based on factual evidence.

Pretty much everyone on these boards (apart from possibly Aston trolls justifying their dodgy methodology/conclusions) says anyone can wear what they want and live how they want as long as it does not infringe on women’s hard won rights including to single sex spaces.

No, NATWALT, but opening the door for TW, opens the door for any man with a more concerning motive. The problem is when, just like in sports, vulnerable women are exposed to men declaring their female identity is to the discomfort and detriment of women. In domestic violence refuges, in rape relief centres, in prisons, and in hospitals.

It is annoying to have MN tarred with the ‘transphobic’ brush by hit and run posters that come on to make one or two comments but do not take the time or trouble to read and think about these issues.

The rationale of ‘it hasn’t happened to me’ is also a very limited argument. First, because I expect a lot uncomfortable things fortunately haven’t happened to you, but have happened to other women and to them, for example, missing out a spot on an Olympic team or on the podium IS a huge issue such as when New Zealand's TW Laurel Hubbard took a female’s spot on the weightlifting team.

Or, being housed in a female prison estate with double rapist Isla Bryson, which IS a matter for being afraid. Or needing the services of a rape relief centre but not being able to because its govt funding was stripped because it would not agree to a TW becoming a rape counsellor as happened to Canada’s oldest RRC.

Or having a man come and sit in on a ‘female only’ sexual assault group is traumatising as happened at Brighton’s rape crisis Survivor’s Network services, which is the only RRC in Sussex. Being a kind person, wouldn’t you want to ensure their safety and comfort?

Second, laws are created to protect you from bad things happening. We have laws that make acts illegal such that those laws are a deterrence that help you attain 41 years of age without being afraid of men.

God, I despair. But then why should we be surprised given an entire political party including its female members are so willing to sell out more vulnerable women simply because it hasn’t happened to them? Human nature?

if the new government will make it easier for people to find happiness then good for them

Even when some people's 'happiness' is predicated on the suffering of others?

Oh, yes, I'm not disagreeing at all that's what they want. I've just never seen it as a real possibility for them to accomplish so I kind of ignore it. But if it looked like they might actually really do it that would be a hard no, and I'd vote for whomever might beat them.

Thinking further about There's no such thing as "living as a woman" anyway, so removing that condition is meaningless Yes, living as a woman was always meaningless and perhaps Labour realised it was thin ice to base a GRC on such nonsense.

However, are the changes even more disturbing than appears on the surface?

I’ve understood it correctly, a man (or woman but trans men are never the issue) can apply to a single doctor to have a GRC granted such that one day, they’re a man, speaking, looking, and walking around being manly and the next day with a GRC granted, they become a woman? Then, they’ve got two years to change their mind, when they realise being a woman is not all it’s cracked up to be.

For example, you’re a man convicted of rape and in prison you decide your issues are that you were actually a woman all along so now you don’t have to be living as a woman for two years (it might be nonsense but implies some sort of two year femaleness effort), you just say the magic words?

Or, more concerning, you’re a young vulnerable autistic 18 year old and you’ve come to believe that being in the ‘wrong body’ is the source of your anxiety and depression and instead of being made to think about if this is really something you want to do for two years, Labour will make it easy for you? But hey don’t worry as this vulnerable person has two years to change their mind despite all the evidence in the Cass report that highlights how social transition leads to a medical pathway. To me, surely this is making a bad situation far worse.

I wonder what Starmer really thinks?

Or has he just not bothered to think about the issue too deeply because, like Aston Uni and daffodil and others’ in their attempt to defend the indefensible, they all use the argument that women with concerns are just Karens clutching their pearls so, in the words of David Tennant, they should just shut up?

Sort of akin to Gordon Brown’s casual dismissal of that woman’s immigration concerns as being ’racist’ so underserving of any further concern.

It’s clear, women’s concerns can be ignored because women don’t matter.

being affiliated to a political party or high up in the civil service should be a bar to be overcome rather than an advantage.

ROTFL as they used to say! 😃The whole concept of 'gongs' seems so built in to British society. Yes, it seems lunatic and vain to most sane folks, but losing that mindset seems almost impossible.

I agree. The current process isnt 'living as a woman' its making a public declaration that you want to live as the opposite gender.

At the moment, its difficult to get a GRC if the applicant isnt 'out' as the desired gender at work, with banks and utilities. In other words those around them know, and they can see if thats what they really want. How committed are they, if nobody they live or work with knows?

This new proposed process appears to remove that 'public declaration', theres no pressure on the applicant to change much about themselves, maybe their name.

So, in theory a man could be legally a woman and either no one has a clue ever, or not until they decide to announce it. It has far more dramatic effects to those around them them suddenly declaring they have the PC of gender reassignment.

Living as a woman is changing the name on your library card it seems. How do you live as a woman if you're called Chris or Sam I wonder?

Agree! Currently, the only elective element in the HofLs is the hereditaty peers, who are elected by their 'peers' to sit representing the rest of them. That seems entirley ok. As to the rest, most life peers don't sit, only those interested in politics etc. No reform Labour has so far carried out re the constitution has done what they said it would. Remove the Lord Chancellor from the Lords and make him/her an elected MP - this will ensure more impartiality in the justice system. It didn't. Devolve Wales and Scotland, let them govern themselves within the Union and peace will break out among us and preserve the Union - no it did not.
So letting them get their mits on the Lords is probably another mess waiting to happen.

The current process isnt 'living as a woman' its making a public declaration that you want to live as the opposite gender.

Yes exactly @illinivich

We all know that living as a woman is nonsense whilst saying living as a sexist version of a woman doesn’t have the same cachet. Nevertheless, in doing do, it at the very least shows some commitment to the process and creates the space to experience the reality and decide if this something you really want to do permanently. What will the criteria be for that one specialist doctor to grant the GRC?

I think one thing that might be a good idea is to say people in the HoL should have no formal political affiliation in their job.

Obviously they would likely have a personal political affiliation, but it would not be institutionalized in the structure of the HoL, essentially they'd all sit as independents. There would have to be some changes to how they operate, but nothing too complex IMO.

Meanwhile Dawn Butler has backed Tenant in telling Kemi Badenoch to shut up. She has said that not all black women think like Badenoch, which is doubtless true. However, Tenant was specifically referring to Badenoch's stance on sex-segregated spaces - so presumably there is a chance that Dawn Butler also disagrees with sex-segregated spaces. She needs to clarify, because I am sure there are black women who support sex-segregated spaces.

I agree Grammarnut.

We know that not all black people are a monolith, nor are all women, and Dawn Butler is very free to agree or disagree with Kemi Badenoch. I just wish Butler hadn't tweeted in the way she did; I think the wording of her tweet served to minimise/excuse nasty Tennant's behaviour.

It's just a shame we didn't get to a national airing of Dawn's gay giraffes. Because that would peak the country.

That. ^^

Happiness for which people?

At the expense of which other people?

Why do some people's happiness matter so much but others don't at all?

How is happiness provided by enforcing non consenting access to and use of others? Is that a kind of 'happiness' anyone should be encouraged in?

And now let's fix that by taking away the fluffing words.

'If the new government will make it easier for men to exploit and use women for their own self fulfilment then good for them'.

So you'd like a government in which men have rights that women don't? And women's resources are controlled and used by men with women only able to use those resources if they prioritise and enact submission to those men and permit those men to use them?

Because any male, however lovely, going into a woman's space, is going in there to use the women in that space. Whether for validation, props in personal identity or other purposes, it is a male using a woman's body. And it is their body, because no other part of the woman matters. Not her feelings, not her thoughts, nothing about her as a person beyond her material physical reality. On a binary, sexed basis

And promoting the wrecking of children’s minds and bodies is the last word in mindlessness.

Total derail, but Dawn's Gay Giraffes would be an awesome name for a band. Or a fairground ride.