It's getting really hard to miss, in all the parties on the left but Labour are actually hoping to win this election.
We have a commitment to bin the spousal exit clause (while brazenly lying through calling it the spousal consent clause)
Why would anyone wish to set, in law, a man's power to coercively control and prevent a woman being able to exit a marriage as he unilaterally changes the contract they created together? The impact on the man if she chooses to annul their marriage and he has an interim GRC? Negligable. The impact on a woman who wants to leave and can't? Massive.
But only the man matters. The woman's needs are framed as a wrong and unjustifiable assault on the man's freedoms and the impact on her is framed as irrelevant. The impact on the poor man with an interim GRC and not being able to control his wife against her consent? Gosh, get out the hankies and support pigeons.
You'd have to either know nothing at all about the subject, not understand it or the actual issues involved, (or have downloaded your thinking from an activist in an alternative reality without letting the information actually pass through your brain on the way) or believe that male humans matter and female humans don't. Which Labour wish to fix in law. So which is it? Are Labour this thick or are they, to put it mildly, frothing misogynists?
We have the never ending spectacle of Labour et al being asked about women's rights, and immediately responding with, in precis, 'but poor vulnerable men'. And 'respecting' those men.
This says, as clear as daylight, women's rights are considered an unacceptable assault on men. The men matter, poor men. The women? Well. They must remember that the men are poor men, who need respect. Binary, sex based categorisation: male humans matter in ways that female humans don't, and have entitlements and status that women don't. Which Labour wishes to fix in law.
We have Bridget Phillipson saying that men with GRCs should be in women's spaces. And the tedious fudge of 'safe spaces' which is rather like your five year old swearing he really hasn't eaten all the crisps mummy, while his mouth and top are smeared with crumbs and the empty bag is in his hand. Try to discuss it, and you'll instantly be told a lot about 'respecting' men, with the priority very, very clear. Men matter in ways that women don't, with the subtext that a decent woman wouldn't question or argue this.
When they do it's 'toxic' and a 'culture war'.
There is never any suggestion or mention that said men should 'respect' women, or consider women's needs. Even women's actual inclusion is nothing against the performative tears for men's feelings. The political TRA movement is never reciprocal. It demands its entitlements of kindness and enabling from women, propped up with screaming in balaclavas and a quite staggering amount and frequency of ideation around sexually and violently punishing women who do not submit and obey them, including killing them. My life is full of men: I know none who behave like this, this is not behaviour associated with being functional, healthy, and yet when it comes to these demanded entitlements and behaviour towards women who dare to not submissively provide themselves, Labour wishes to fix this in law including more legal punishments and silencing for those women who do not submit and obey.
Let's be blunt about this, particularly for Bridget and others at the back.
Bridget is perfectly free to go into an enclosed space and take her knickers off where and with whomever she likes. Her absolute freedom to do this is not at risk. Bridget is seeking to compel, legally women into non consenting provision of their bodies for the gratification of any man who demands it, or silently lose her access to any space. Not her equality: she has already lost her equality: the space is primarily now the man's and she may use it if she is co operative and helpful to him. Whether or not the man at the time has a piece of paper saying that he sees himself as a woman makes no difference whatsover to the absolute wrongness of this, or that the woman is reduced to a resource the man has an absolute entitlement to use without her needs and feelings and humanity getting in his way. Whether the gratification is for his inner sense of self, to meet his psychological needs or any other needs is also totally irrelevant.
If this is the openly expressed view of the party before they are even in power then fgs think what you are voting for.