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

By reporting actual manifesto content? That’s hardly whipping up fear. The actual headline in the paper is about as neutral as you can get.

I stand corrected. The Times obviously has no agenda.

I have never, ever trusted Wes following that @AlisonDonut - I wasn't on "the list" but I was a Labour member at the time and I saw it when Madigan and friends had it as a public access document. I also saw the group.

I cannot agree.
(I) Trans identifying males have the same offending patterns as typical men, so if it is appropriate safeguarding to exclude typical men from single sex spaces it is appropriate to exclude trans identifying males.
(Ii) trans identifying males in prison are significantly more likely to be sex offenders than the general male prison population. Either trans identifying males are in fact more dangerous than typical men, or the ‘trans loophole’ is being systematically abused by predatory men (cf. Adam ‘Isla’ Bryson). Given this evidence that men can and will abuse ‘trans rights’ to gain access to vulnerable women (and children) it is appropriate safeguarding to close that loophole.
(iii) I live in an area where there are quite a lot of trans identifying males. They are very easily identifiable as men, regardless of the clothing and makeup. The trans rights movements also argues for the right of ‘trans women’ to wear beards etc (which of course is right, they should present as they choose). Normalising the unchallenged admission of clearly male people into women’s spaces makes those spaces mixed sex. Acts of sexual assault and voyeurism are much more common in mixed sex facilities than single sex ones, so this policy makes women significantly more vulnerable.
(Iv) some religious and ethnic groups do not allow disrobing by women in the presence of men. These religious and ethnic groups do not necessarily accept trans ideology. Therefore, allowing trans identifying males into single sex spaces effectively excludes these already marginalised women (as well as those who have suffered male violence and may be traumatised.
That’s why I disagree with you.

Why are Labour so stupid? This is the question I keep asking. They bang on about protecting women's single-sex spaces and then come up with this shit.

Starmer is a lawyer. You'd expect him to understand that if you enshrine a lie into law, then it will have consequences. You can't simply declare that men can be women without that having an impact in very many areas, from data gathering to sports to prisons. It's a bit like declaring that from now on, 2 +2 = 5, and imagining that that won't affect anyone.

I don’t understand how brazen Labour are being in centring men over women. If you remove the spousal exit clause, then you are effectively changing a biological woman’s sexual identity. Not very kind is it? The wife is no longer a straight woman who married a man, she is now in a ‘lesbian’ relationship with another ‘woman’. And she can’t get out. What utter gaslighting.

As for a PP implying that the wrangle over single-sex spaces is a big fuss over nothing, well how about this? If it’s no big deal for women to share their spaces with transwomen, then by the same token it should be no big deal for men to share their spaces with transwomen. Come on, men, be kind. Transwomen are a subset of the male sex class. They are men who wish they were women. Nobody literally changes sex. They’ve changed gender, which is a social construct. Most transwomen keep their penises. Men need to budge up and be kind to other men who opt out of masculinity. And transwomen need to understand that it’s not the job of women to validate their gender identity.

If you’re waiting for your approved Guardian article you’ll be waiting an age

I’m beginning to align more to the train of thought that KS has a more personal investment in this debate. Be it a close friend or family member, he is too far down this rabbit hole for it merely to be about votes.

I stand corrected. The Times obviously has no agenda.

Of course it has an agenda. All newspapers have an agenda. What it’s not doing is “whipping up fear”.

If reporting on something in a neutral manner has the effect of making people fearful, it’s the thing that’s being reported that causes the fear, not the manner of the report. Women are fearful of this particular Labour policy because they understand it will impact adversely on them.

Starmer just doesn’t care

Women and this issue is irrelevant

He’s been polling high for over a year and about to win, why change?

I think you have to distinguish between editorialising and fact based reporting. You can generally trust all the broadsheets on matters of fact, and read critically to spot the spin.

I suspect this is a bone thrown to the left of the party and so Starmer chucks women's rights away in a low-effort attempt to keep his internal enemies quiet(er).

We'll see a lot of these social "progressive" policies because they're cheap.

I don’t know if this helps bring understanding to the difficulties. Even though obviously the meaning of sex in the EA will never get clarified now, how it interacts with the GRA is here, by Dr Michael Foran who is a law lecture - bearing in mind that GRCs will be easier to obtain:

………. All this below is quote.

An overview of the proposal to clarify the meaning of sex in the Equality Act. Background: In recent years there has been significant uncertainty over the interaction between the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act. Some things are settled law, others are uncertain.

What is settled law:

• The Equality Act protects both sex and gender reassignment. Sex refers to males of any age and females of any age. Gender reassignment refers to those who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing, or have undergone a process of changing attributes of sex.

• Sex in law is, by default, biological sex. Everyone is legally classed as their biological sex except where a GRC changes sex for some purposes.

• Being protected under gender reassignment does not change sex in law for any purpose. It protects against denial of employment, goods & services, or housing as compared to someone of the same biological sex who does not have the GR protected characteristic. So trans women by default men and are compared to non-trans men. (Green v Secretary of State for Justice).

• Single-sex services are lawful. Schedule 3 of the Equality Act allows providers to set up and maintain single-sex services such as rape crisis centres and female-only changing rooms and toilets. It also allows them to exclude anyone on the basis of sex or gender reassignment once proportionate.

• Proportionality does not require a case-by-case analysis. General policies can be proportionate and most policies are general (Reference by AG for NI re Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Bill)

• Being protected under gender reassignment does not entail an entitlement to use single-sex services intended for members of the opposite sex. (Croft v Royal Mail; Green v SoS for Justice; FWS2 [Inner House])

What is currently uncertain:

• Whether sex in the Equality Act means (i) biological sex or (ii) biological sex unless modified by a GRC.

• Whether biological females are protected as a distinct group under the Equality Act.

• How precisely the Schedule 3 exceptions which allow for single-sex services operate. If sex means sex as modified by a GRC these exceptions become more complicated to rely on and that can affect how useful they are in practice, given concerted campaigns to spread misinformation about the law here.

• Whether single-sex associations defined by reference to biology (eg. Lesbian walking group, informal support network for female victims of male violence) are lawful. If sex doesn't mean biological sex, these are unlawful.

• Whether trans men who become pregnant are protected from pregnancy discrimination. If a GRC modifies sex for the Equality Act they likely lose protection.

• Whether sexual orientation is defined in the Act by reference to biological sex or biological sex unless modified by a GRC.

What this proposal will do:

• Clarify that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex, referring to the ordinary common law position from Corbett v Corbett.

• Make it clear that single-sex services and associations are defined by reference to biological sex.

• Make it clear that trans men are protected from pregnancy discrimination regardless of whether they have a GRC.

• Make gender reassignment a reserved matter, preventing devolved parliaments such as in Scotland from legislating to introduce Self-ID, ensuring that the continuing operation of the s35 Order blocking the GRR Bill.

What this proposal will not do:

• Remove the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

• Make it lawful to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment in the provision of goods & services, employment, or housing.

• Prevent services from offering a trans-inclusive service where proportionate.

• Require a new analysis of biological sex. The common law position will be reverted to and there are decades of caselaw on how to define biological sex in law.

I'm away at the moment so won't be responding very frequently. This post was a break from my holiday and I'm getting back to it now!

https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1797558913698582579

From BBC

Badenoch: Labour's gender plans put women and girls at risk

published at 07:34

The Conservatives' Kemi Badenoch - the minister for women and equalities - has just reacted to Labour's plans to change the legal process for gender change.

"These proposals unravel all the protections in the current system designed to protect women and girls," she says.

"This change creates more loopholes for predators and bad faith actors to infiltrate women-only spaces and put us at risk.

"Labour have never understood or cared about this issue or the vulnerable women impacted by their policies. As JK Rowling, a Labour supporter herself, has said, Labour show a 'dismissive and often offensive' approach to the concerns of women, illustrated by the contempt with which they treat their own MPs like Rosie Duffield.

"Labour’s promise of change is definitely change for the worse."

Writing in the Times on Saturday, JK Rowling has criticised Labour for "abandoning" women over its stance on the rights of transgender people, saying she would struggle to vote for Starmer.

I’m voting Tory and joining the party. It’s a basket case right now but if enough moderates enter maybe we can elect a decent leader and then exert pressure to turn the ship around. I say this as someone who was until a couple of years ago a life long Lib Dem voter. Never voted Labour as Labour despises agriculture and the countryside and always has.

Judging from this post, I suspect there's a lot of things you don't understand.

Presumably KS believes in it and plans to push it.

@Daffodilsugar men who want to abuse children are already known to be extremely manipulative and keen to take advantage of any opportunity they can find. What makes you think that these men won’t declare themselves transgender in order to access vulnerable women and children? Similarly, men who want to abuse women?

Heard of Isla Bryson? Katie Dolatowski? Barbie Kardashian? Karen White?

There is also no mention in Labour’s plans about how they will stop eg sex offenders from changing their name, gender & address before skipping off with a clean police record. These are real threats and need to be taken seriously

There is also no mention in Labour’s plans about how they will stop eg sex offenders from changing their name, gender & address before skipping off with a clean police record. These are real threats and need to be taken seriously

Yes, this needs spelling out very clearly.

It also shows them as being ignorant and stupid when they don’t reference or show they have read and understood actual points of concern in specific detail, but just say ‘concerns’ ‘the debate’ ‘partisan ideas’ ’toxicity’ etc.

I am thinking particularly of Bridget Phillipson not showing the least awareness of what has been happening to children, and not even mentioning the Cass report, when interviewed by Laura Kuenssberg about the Conservative proposed school guidelines yesterday.

I have all the screenshots on my hard drive.

I am assuming that not losing their job is more important to them than protecting women and girls. What happened to investigative journalism? Oh, I forgot, 🥹 journalists are sadly primarily men still?

This is being discussed on Women's Hour now. Let's see how Nuala McGovern handles this.

@Daffodilsugar yup it's the silly wimminz getting all hysterical again isn't it

British Triathlon tried to introduce a gender neutral category in 2022 but had to drop it as none of the men-pretending-to-be-women wanted to compete in it. They specifically only wanted to compete against real women. Odd that.

The main concern I have with this plan is that it demonstrates that labour as a party isn't aligned internally on women's rights and that they either don't understand the issues for women or don't care about them.

I will never be in a situation where the spousal veto would be relevant to me personally, but I find the fact that Starmer as a seasoned lawyer can't see the issue with removing this provision shows just how little he cares about women's rights.