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

Agree @LonginesPrime

That was a very neutral discussion on Woman's Hour. The so-called "spousal veto" was mentioned in passing but in terms that would have left most of the audience clueless as to why some women believe it's important to be retained.

Yes, could we write to them?

I also heard those nauseating words ‘less heat, more light’ ‘the debate’.

Here is what the (Starmer-sidelined) Labour Women’s Feclaration wrote about the spousal clause:
labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/the-spousal-consent-clause-in-the-gra-an-important-protection-for-women/

As the TRAs would say - you need to educate yourself! In all seriousness you appear to have no grasp of the issues here so I would go away and see what is actually happening and then get back to us.

Yes, could we write to them?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3xyZd5NjJZmN7WztP96vCG/contact-us

He was on LBC this morning saying that he was 'disappointed' in JKR, persecuted minority, just want to live their lives, terribly hard to get a GRC blah blah blah.
I thought he had turned a corner and now realise that he has not. Depressing.

Yes I heard this. Saying that we must not be dragged back to old fashioned gender roles....erm......

Clearly doesn't have a clue or is being very disingenuous. Either way - utterly crap.

I don't believe they are stupid.

Why do they want to do this? Why the huge investment in obfuscation? Where is the pressure to do this coming from, and where is the duty to protect people vulnerable to this?

Streeting is INCREDIBLY ambitious for Starmer's job one day, so he's happy to mouth the key messages he's been given for this week by Labour apparatchiks

Must be financial, some big donations maybe?

Yes he really is. No integrity, just like Starmer.

The Times Journalist are actually doing their job by highlighting what’s in Labour’s manifesto i.e. their intentions when they assume power in 2weeks’ time. Not all those who claim to be trans have body dysphoria, many have Autogynephilia defined as a male's propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female. It is the paraphilia that is theorized to underlie transvestism and some forms of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism.

That was a very neutral discussion on Woman's Hour. The so-called "spousal veto" was mentioned in passing but in terms that would have left most of the audience clueless as to why some women believe it's important to be retained.

I think keeping people in the dark is a strategy that has proved to be a winning one for the trans lobby. If all you are told by the likes of the BBC is ‘there’s a vulnerable group of people who feel uncomfortable in their own skin, let’s be kind to them’, then most people are unlikely to object to that. When you look more closely at what is happening, you realise that this ideology is being allowed to spiral out of control, destroying women’s rights, wrecking child safeguarding and erasing gay people. All we’re asking for is some boundaries for pete’s sake. We’re not saying men aren’t allowed to wear dresses and call themselves Mary.

The "spousal veto" is yet another example of TRAs controlling the message by controlling the language. The so-called spousal veto isn't a veto at all - it's just a way of allowing women to leave a marriage when the husband decides he's really a woman.

Well I was going to spoil my ballot paper ... but not now!

You've just swung me into the Tory camp. God save us all!!

Although not convinced they're any safer with women's rights.

Do we know yet if that leading MP has a trans child?

Imagine having a smear performed by a man who has identified as woman?

Labour's determination to remove the Spousal exit clause would leave women forced into marriages that have been forcibly 'converted' to same sex marriages in law. The original record is replaced with a new falsified record stating both parties were 'female' when the marriage took place and if it took place in a church, it is reregistered as taking place in a registry office (as far as I can recall). It is forced 'sexuality' conversion of heterosexual women into what the law records as 'lesbian' women in 'lesbian' marriages (and will 'trans away the gay' from a same sex marriage originally between 2 women if one decides they are a man). This from a party that says they want to end forced sexual orientation conversion. The hypocrisy and cruelty towards women is shocking.

Maybe when Labour also bring in the Conversion Therapy Bill these women can use that as a basis to take legal action against the government for forced conversion?

I’m leaning towards your way of thinking. I’m a centrist (right leaning) but never been a member of any party, I vote whichever way the wind takes me. I was starting to lean towards Labour, particularly given the current Government circus, but not now.

The idea of joining the Conservatives just to try and ensure a sane opposition going into the next Parliament is tempting…

I believe that there was evidence that at least one of his children was referred to as two difference sexes on two different occasions.

Once as 'daughter' and once as 'son'.

So he cannot be impartial. I imagine most MPs have university educated children who have been indoctrinated into the Borg.

I think that that "evidence" is flimsy.

And the cruelty doesn't end here. It's a direct attack by labour on freedom of belief (eg in reality) and religious freedom. Currently an interim GRC is issued to a man who says he's a woman (if his wife does not agree she's a lesbian because he says so), and wants the marriage ended before she is forcibly 'converted' against her will. Either partner can action this to end the marriage by annulment.

Ending this option will have a catastrophic lifelong consequence for some women. Some religious women will be unable to exit abusive marriages at all:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/eight-things-you-have-to-know-about-the-churchs-teaching-on-divorce

Others will divorce but never be able to remarry. Many women will be subject to long term abuse and coercive control. The change in name of their husband makes legal processes eg for splitting assets more complicated and men can draw it out for years whilst wives and children live in poverty.

Is it still needed? I ask that because divorces are now much easier to get and there's no fault required. I would imagine that you could get a divorce within the two year period quite easily.

The government website says you can get a divorce within about 7 months but I don't know how much that would be delayed by one party saying they don't want to.

It's the absence of a Y chromosome that defines female. XO (Turner Syndrome) people are women.

The Y chromosome is what makes the testicles etc appear. Kleinfelter people (XXY) are male.

I have read the article and I don’t see the issue. They are just removing some paperwork that it is reporting that most trans people don’t have anyway. It sounds like this system is broken and pointless and not fit for purpose, and making the process simpler may free up some resources that can be deployed elsewhere.

I personally would like to know the process of diagnosing someone with gender dysphoria. I would also like some un-biased research into measurements regarding the changes to both sexes when they undergo HRT. This would be very simple to do even a grip strength test to start with.

I would also like Labour to demonstrate that they support women by removing the unnecessary paperwork around terminations. It is upsetting that this is a priority but women in the UK in 2024 STILL have to be signed off as “mentally unwell” by 2 doctors!!