‘Transgender women’s rights are women’s rights’. The position of the deputy leader of the Labour Party.

[BackToLurk]

Pretty clear position

https://x.com/FFS_WhatNow/status/1806623661702426757/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1806623661702426757&currentTweetUser=FFS_WhatNow

Do you think anyone in Labour now understands that Madigan was just an
edgelord teenage boy who found a creative way to be misogynistic then slunk off after being accused of sexual assault?

I feel this is one of our fundamental problems with Labour politicians - they don't seem to grasp the reality of what is actually happening in most cases.

Yes.
Except promoting Madigan might not sit too well with the Muslim voters she grovellingy canvassed in Blackburn. And it is a bit at odds with her declared support for a Palestinian state, which is unlikely to be sympathetic to people like Madigan.
Still, it would make her popular for a while with a few people.

I also agree that, if Starmer gets anything like the kind of majority that's been predicted then he'll be secure for the full term.

But, if the majority is smaller than predicted, then I can see things getting interesting.

If he doesn't get an overall majority - which seems highly unlikely - he's toast.

From what I've gathered, there's little love lost between him and Rayner but leader and deputy don't have to get on as long as they have a working relationship. As things stand right now, I think they're too useful to each other for either of them to want to change that. But things can get volatile very quickly so who knows.

Hmm, isn't this footage 2 years old? Admittedly, Rayner may well have not changed her opinion since then.

And yeah I'm pretty sure Rayner signed the 'hate group' pledge.

I'm guessing her presence is why Starmer's trying so hard to play things both ways with the contradictory statements etc.

That's quite an old video no? It's got a banner talking about Sunak debating Truss in the leadership election.

If it’s an old video then that is slightly reassuring, as things have moved away from NoDebate since the Cass review … but I do fear Rayner is more fervently TWAW than some in the party.

Decca Aitkenhead interviewed Rayner for the Times in Feb 2023. It's paywalled so I can't link it but I remember two things about it:

1. Rayner made no secret of her TWAW views.
2. She seemed genuinely taken aback when Aitkenhead brought up the subject. It was almost as if she hadn't expected it to come up or be an issue, which I found a bit odd from such a senior politician.

I've not see her talk about it since. I see no reason though to believe she might have changed her views.

July 2022. As she was saying in March this year that "We have biological women and we have transwomen. And they’re both women", i.e her position didn't change in just under 2 years, I think we can safely assume it hasn't radically changed in the last 3 months

I can't view the video so I don't know when it's from. I see no evidence she's changed her mind. I think she still thinks exactly this although probably won't say it again out loud until after the 4th July.

March 2024

"We have biological women and we have trans women. And they’re both women"

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2024/mar/23/angela-rayner-roots-rough-edges-ready-for-power

Thanks BackToLurk I'd missed that.

The link doesn't work for me, but assuming that she said exactly what is in the thread title, it's a completely ridiculous thing to say.

Trans people (are we talking about all trans people, BTW, or just trans women again?) have different issues from women. There is some overlap (wanting protection from violent men - though that applies to some other groups of men, no?), but they have issues that we don't have and we have issues that they don't have. Surely any twit can see that.

Yes. I'm not going to lie. I assumed it was recent & I was very surprised as I figured they would keep Ange well away from this subject. I don't see why anyone would think she has changed her mind. It's pretty clear what she believes and, given part of her appeal is supposedly her principled 'tell it like it is' stance, it would be odd if on this she's decided "no, I definitely did not mean that"

Yet people rave about her!

You should hear my brother ranting about her - he's GC, has two daughters and WAS a lfelong Labour voter until this nonsense took over their policies.

Its consistent with Starmer on radio this morning. Fairly apparent really that instead of over estimating how awful Labour would be for women, we quite radically UNDER estimated.

The most important thing to Labour about women's rights, is that they should enable and help men.

Has this been deleted as the links don’t go anywhere?

I would not be surprised if she does think that. If she is TWAW then of course it logically follows TW rights are W rights. I don't think it necessarily means she thinks there are no women's rights for biological women only.

Also, the longer video here gives the context I.e. the question she was answering and probably explains why she focussed on the elements she did.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/opinion/trans-women-rights-labour-gender-politics/

It's a salient reminder that the Labour Party appears to believe that 'biological women' are just a subset of women. That's a position that can never guarantee single-sex provision under an unamended Equality Act. Which they won't do

If she is TWAW then of course it logically follows TW rights are W rights. I don't think it necessarily means she thinks there are no women's rights for biological women only.

Could you explain that?

If transwomen are women and transwomen's rights are women's rights, then transwomen are entitled to all of women's rights, by definition.

How is it possible to carve out rights that belong to biological women only and not to transwomen?

Exactly that. She called him a role model for all of us, a creepy teenage boy who had sued a school to be detriment of girls.

Starmer is really out of touch. He's blundered into a Bangladeshi row already. After seeing him with the hump over people laughing at his dad's a toolmaker catchphrase I think he's way out of his depth. Once they all start infighting in government he will flounder as he won't be able to handle it. All he's had to do so far is moan in opposition. Moaning in government as the PM won't get anything done at all.

These are the loos at the conference being held at the exhibition centre I was at this week.

Came across a couple of men wearing dresses in the ladies toilets. Sorry gender neutral toilets without urinals. They thought they didn't need urinals though and the other loos had urinals so they made a point of using the ladies though all toilets were deemed neutral.

Sick of this. I will never ever ever ever vote Labour. All the problems this country has and they choose to focus on pandering to men who want to erase women's rights. It's a total non issue.

It’s a tricky thing to do at the level of determining who can access changing rooms, toilets etc….but if the basis is biological (XX) sex, Sharron Davies repeatedly calls for cheek swabs to be done for sports to check for biological sex. She says it is practical (cheap and quick) to do. If it can work for sports, it could also be used for admission on to hospital wards, refuges, prisons etc.

Which leaves us again with the issue of: where is the provision for biological women who cannot use mixed sex spaces?

I mean we're all worried to death about inclusiveness and kindness and respect and diversity aren't we, so surely we mean everyone and not just 'for men' and 'oh well' that we've excluded women from anything so that men can express themselves and be happy? <deep sarcasm>

This in essence makes all spaces men's spaces, with women permitted to use the space if they are willing to enable and subordinate themselves and their needs to men while they do so.

Same 😥