Starmer tw don't have the right to use women only toilets

[lcakethereforeIam]

It's a headline in the Telegraph. Unfortunately when I archive it it goes to an article about that twat Ashworth refusing to answer. So, I've screenshot the headline

in the Guardian

"About a fifth of respondents said they had either decided to spoil their ballot paper or were considering doing so, among them Sharon, a 60-year-old social worker and “lifelong Labour voter” from London who does not own her own home and has no savings...

Politicians, she said, had repeatedly not delivered on promises, such as building more houses, improving the NHS, or reducing knife crime.

“However, the final straw for me,’ she said, “is the issue of women’s rights.”
Sharon was one of hundreds of women who shared that sex-based rights for women and girls was a main political concern of theirs this election.
Women from across the country, dozens of them economically disadvantaged or with disabilities, said they would abandon Labour, the LibDems or the Greens over this issue and vote either Conservative, Reform or spoil their ballot – particularly women from marginal areas Labour is hoping to gain, such as Lincoln, Darlington, Derbyshire, Warrington North and Truro and Falmouth.
Various said they felt “politically homeless” because of this issue, with Starmer having repeatedly referred to the debate over trans rights as “divisive and toxic” culture wars.
“This isn’t a culture war,” said Kerri Clarke, a 46-year-old stay-at-home mother from Hertfordshire.“I’ll be voting Conservative for the first time in my life, as the child of Labour activists.”
Clarke worries that the current Labour party is “utterly uninterested in women, our rights to safety and dignity”.
“This is about supporting our sisters in prisons and women’s shelters,” said Anne, 61, from Burnley, Labour’s “most winnable seat”.

Having always voted Labour, Anne said she might abstain for the first time unless she hears something positive from Labour on the protection of women’s and girls’ “safety and opportunities” this week.
Tracy, from Kent, in her 40s and usually a Labour voter, is likely to spoil her ballot. “I want to vote Labour but I can’t bear to support a party that so struggles to define the word woman.
“There are some contexts where biological sex matters, and women’s rights have been affected in recent years by a failure of law and policy to recognise this. Starmer wants this to go away, but it’s not going to go away.”"
www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/02/this-isnt-a-culture-war-uk-women-feel-politically-homeless

Wow.

Oh.

What on earth are the Graun and Labour going to do now?

Well, Starmer’s going to carry on telling us that he’s always ALWAYS supported women and there should be some extremely narrowly defined safe spaces which women and sad men can use. But he’s still not speaking to Rosie, Labour Women or the LGBAlliance

I genuinely think Jane has tipped him over the edge. The widespread support from the entire media for Jane's questioning has finally made him wake up and realise this issue isn't going away.

Note, no one is repeatedly asking Sunak this question. it's the ONE thing Sunak has been clear about. He'll fuck over women in every other way possible, but he's not being hounded by everyone over the same question.

I think she has too. It was that sigh and we don’t care about what you did etc

That pure frustration it was real

I genuinely think that the interview with Jane will be one of those key moments in the election - a bit like how we all remember that viral video clip of the woman yelping "what again, another one?" when told there was going to be another election.

If Kier fucks this up on Thursday, it will be comparable to the moment Gordon Brown called that lady a bigot.

That may actually be a game changer for me then when it comes to voting labour. I was on the shelf before but if he is on record as saying this then it may just have got them my vote.

That’s what he’s after.

Can't wait for the reaction from LOJ. 🤣

It doesn’t mean anything though?

How would it happen if there’s no legislative change?

Food for thought indeed.

LOJ has given up on Labour.

Wonder what he'll do about the Graun, given his paying gig there.

I know, he's voting Green. I wonder if he will resign from the Guardian.

Then write to your MP and tell them that your vote has been decided by this, and let them know that we expect concrete action to follow, promptly.

Holy moly.

Hm. There is the matter of the paying gig.

Activists do seem rather self serving. Baillie Gifford supporting book festivals is bad, cue performative outrage. Baillie Gifford supporting Stonewall, crickets.

But the fact that's in the Guardian is a good thing, right? Too little, too late, etc, but still.

'As PPs have said, I expect his view will have ‘moved on’ by July 5th.'

I sadly agree with this too. Politicians spouting 'twaddle' (women can have penises, mixed sex 'gender belief ' spaces that replace single sex are 'working well' even though it leaves women totally excluded, men can 'grow ' a cervix and women who want privacy, dignity and safety from men whatever men's gender beliefs are bigots), means they will lie about anything.

You're easily pleased. The rest of us are more cynical.

Labour will only take notice if they get fewer votes than they expected from reading the polls, especially in seats where that matters.

Sorry, no, Labour may take notice etc.

The game changer for me would be something along the lines of:
'My personal views aren't really the issue here. The real issue is that the Equality Act is not sufficiently clear about the meaning of 'sex' or 'single sex spaces'. If I am elected, I will clarify this.'

You're leaving it mighty late, Keir but it's not over till it's over. You've still got time.

But I'd want to know what clarity he'd want. What does he think is unclear? Why? Who's in, who's out?

He's been so slippery that this must be resolutely clear.

Even then, the manifesto says what it says. And the Salisbury Convention means we'd have either total self-ID or much further weakening of the current situation. But boosted by political support and a message that women and children don't matter.

Personally, I would love to know exactly what I’m voting for if I give my x to Labour. At the moment Starmer has espoused almost every possible stance on this issue, (intentionally I think) allowing space for a variety of interpretations. If that’s not slippery, I’m not sure what is?

Regardless of all the twaddle KS speaks over the next few days, as I understand it, a vote for labour would be a vote to implement the mandate actually set out in their written manifesto, not the random utterances he mentions to a reporter (especially when such utterances appear to contradict their written manifesto).

The manifesto will make GRCs much easier to obtain, but KS's latest comments suggest that a GRC won't actually do much, so the two positions are largely contradictory (or at least meaningless).

The only part of this that a vote for labour would mandate would be that GRCs will be easier to obtain, though.

KS's new random comments as to how GRCs should be interpreted won't be considered by the HoL when they are considering the mandated amendments to the GRA set out in labour's manifesto, so just because he's changed his tune at the last minute as to how a GRC should work, a vote for labour wouldn't be interpreted as a vote for this one latest comment; it would be a vote for labour's actual written manifesto.