Do women in the U.K. know or care about the threat to women’s and girls rights now they’ve voted labour?

[Heylo]

i know the tories record on public services are abysmal and bar some genuine believers like Kemi Badenoch the tories would likely go the trans route if they thought it would buy them votes. But, currently it’s the tories who offered to protect women and girls from the trans madness. My question is - which women voted in trans loving, women - hating Labour?

we can look forward to -

1. continued gender ideology being pumped out in schools
2. conversion ban - you better hope your child doesn’t start questioning their gender out loud because TRA ridden schools will be referring them to gender clinics and socially transitioning them now they have a mandate
3. same sex attracted lesbians (myself included) it’s completely game over. Keep your head down and your mouth shut. Trans identified males and their female allies have already closed down every women only night. Same sex attracted women are now labelled bigots. We are no longer welcome in London’s LGBT soup community
4. prisons - what happens to vulnerable women? They are already disbelieved and dismissed. Now they have to endure the staring and various forms of sexual harrassment that goes with being incarcerated with men

i can only hope our political landscape mirrors America and in the same way Trump will be voted back in this year, we will have The Tories being led by Kemi back in in 4 years time.

omg I can’t believe we have to kiss goodbye to women’s rights - for the next four years

back to my original question. Apart from TRA idealouges, why have women voted these clowns in? Is it that they prioritise the Tories terrible record on public services over this? Do some women not see it as a huge issue? would love to hear from some posters who voted Labour.

Thanks & stay safe out there, as women we have woken up to a a dark chapter in history today

Annal L I've never been burgled. I still lock my doors.

Many women stay out of any spaces where men could be. So they're excluded by the mere fact that a policy says any man who ids as a woman (even only for 5 mins) can go in.

That's the point, the many many religious women and women who are traumatised by the presence of male bodies (usually because of previous VAWG) now unable to participate in public life, and we know it's happening.

That's the biggest harm at a population level, even though obviously you have the terrible individual impact on victims like the child attacked in a "women's" toilet by 6ft 5 'transwoman' Dolotowski or the women abused in prison by Karen White.

Your tone is obviously goady and mocking. Do you really expect that women will be likely to share information with you about times where they have felt vulnerable or threatened? So you can screenshot and share to your TRA mates on X? Or so you can tell me that my experience doesn't matter because I must be lying or because it's only one random woman on MN so who cares?

My experience also involved my 7 year old daughter (as well as myself), so it would be especially triggering for me to have someone like you tear it to pieces for fun. No way I would give you that opportunity.

One woman threatened or abused or killed or raped is too many. It doesn't need to be a "common" occurrence for women to be deserving of the protection of our government.

Segregation by sex is one of the easiest and most effective ways of safeguarding against male violence and sexual assault.

This will continue to be true regardless of ideology.

It is very much like banning the locking of car or house doors. When it comes to children, the removal of single sex spaces is a huge safeguarding failure by adults.

Agreed.

Trans people aren't the biggest threat to women's safety, it's the Conservative party agenda that is far more likely to kill them/us.

Perfectly put!

I'll share my personal experience of being attacked and or murdered by a serving met officer. I haven't been. Does that mean I'm not allowed an opinion on how the Met treats women and how it vets its officers?
On the other hand I have encountered men in what would once have been female only spaces (women's changing rooms). They were there because shop policy means nobody feels able to challenge their presence. They were not trans.

These are the unintended consequences of mandating a be-kind policy.

It doesn’t need to be a common occurrence for it to be undesirable. For example, one sexual assault is enough.

Here’s the latest example in the news.

https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/policies-and-guidance/nurses-threaten-to-sue-trust-over-behaviour-of-trans-colleague-29-05-2024/

This post seems to dismiss the fact that if female people felt they had 100% confidence in the rules and guidance around their sport that no male was participating in female sports categories, the issue around whether a woman looked feminine enough to start with would be significantly minimised.

No one has said that they can tell with 100% accuracy. However, they are highly likely to be able to tell the difference between who is male and who is female when people see the person in real life and see them moving, talking etc.

There were always women who were questioned about their sex. Up until the late 90s, the Olympic participation rules required sex category testing for that very purpose. The point that some male people have now made this a very real and everyday issue with sporting bodies including them as female athletes should never be glossed over by blaming female athletes and women for raising questions.

People vote holistically and look at the whole picture not just one issue.

Ohhhhh ok @Missmarple87 so you voted Tory then? You are very very concerned about vulnerable women who might theoretically be at risk with a labour government but prepared to ignore all of the many more vulnerable women (and men, and children) who have actually suffered - confirmed by a swarth of qualitative and quantitative evidence - as a result of the Tory government. Cool cool.
Just wanted to check how all that critical thinking was working out for you. Now I know. 👌

Remember when they took power in 1997 and immediately swept away Thatcher's anti-union laws and re-regulated lending?

No, me neither.

This!

The chances of being impacted by the trans rights issues are miniscule in comparison to the impact of everything in this post. I don't agree with 1 party on 100% of issues, we can only vote for the party that best aligns with most of our issues/interests.

Did you read my reply. I made a choice out of a bad bunch.

My critical thinking skills extend beyond Tory = rich and evil which is about the extent of the debate on this site.

I'm not under any illusion that the Tories have done everything they could for women and children. But equally I don't think a utopia under Labour will happen. Life is shit sometimes, Labour wont eradicate that, you know?

As I said, I can't vote for people who are so easily swayed by a radical, cult-ish ideology which is inherently misogynistic. At least the Tories - for all their failings - are grounded in reality. I'd love to have your optimism but sadly can't get past the realism part.

I can only hope our political landscape mirrors America and in the same way Trump will be voted back in this year, we will have The Tories being led by Kemi back in in 4 years time

You mean the party that has made most people less able to afford daily necessities, less able to access healthcare, afford energy bills, see a dentist, buy a home, have a qualified teacher teach their child, work in the EU … nah.

Ha! Only against women. If you try to stand up for women’s rights you will be deemed to have committed a hate crime.

Loads of big names in the Tory Party actively campaigned for Brexit, which was an act of economic terrorism against British living standards. So I don’t quite buy the “grounded in reality” bit.

Why have you demanded women expose their trauma in this way? On a thread that is on the feminist board?

Besides which, this misses the entire point. Allowing a sub group of male people into female single sex spaces is a safeguarding risk. This is not even covering the need of female people for privacy and dignity away from male people.

Therefore, for those male people to be allowed access into female single sex spaces, those male people need to have a lower risk of committing sexual crimes or violence than the overall male UK population. Can posters who are supporting male access to female single sex spaces please provide the evidence that the risk of male people with a trans identity committing a sex offence is lower than the rest of the male UK population for safeguarding.

In fact, it should not even be just lower than the overall UK male population. The evidence should be that those male people have a risk that is the same or lower than the general female population in the UK. That is how this risk assessment works to allow whole groups to have general access to female single sex spaces.

So, do you have this evidence Anna, because personal anecdote is most definitely not needed. Women do not need to expose their personal trauma to you or any other person to satisfy your personal need for assurance.

My DS turned 6 months last week. We've had ups and downs with his sleep since 4 months. Last night i think was the worse day/night. Everytime I put him down for his nap he wakes up. We do a lot of contact naps, especially when I feel the need for rest. but yesterday he wakes himself up and cries every time i put him down. Only settles on my chest or next to me in bed or sofa. Last night for his bedtime, took me to 2 hours to just give in and just let him lay on my chest and then eventually next to me so I can get some sleep.

But then he woke up every half an hour to an hour, squirms, rubs/scratches his head or rubs his forehead on my chest. Tried to burp or sway him to sleep to no avail he just won't settle. in the end i gave him to OH and was wide awake for 2 hours. Even when he settled to sleep he was still squirming for whatever reason. We had a lot of unsettled nights just like this but last night was just horrendous and sometimes i just feel like screaming at him as sleepless night gets me down and i don't feel like myself anymore.

I often wonder if it's silent acid reflux or CMPA. I breastfeed him exclusively and started solid foods 2 weeks before he turned 6 months as he was showing all the signs of readiness. He gets unsettled when i offer the boob sometimes, he still spits up milk ,coughs a bit, or hear him like he was swallowing something.

My eldest is now 8 yr old. And i got through with him almost the same sleepless nights. Took a year for him to sleep well ish in the night. But now I'm 42 and feel a lot older.. i dont think i want to go through that again as i just feel exhausted and deflated.

Actually I think the swing to Reform may focus minds here. It may not do too, but theres certainly a lot of food for thought in this result.

Crucially there are a few points of note:

1. Labour didn't win because there was a significant shift in votes towards the party. Indeed they got LESS votes than in 2017.
2. If what I've seen is true, there has been a collapse in the Labour vote in the under 25s. The final poll for IPSOS before the election revealed that the % of certain to votes in the 18 to 25 age group was down by 21%. If this does indeed seem to be reflected in the Exit Poll demographs, there has to be thought given to this. It is MUCH MUCH harder to get none voters to engage and vote rather than convert reliable voters.
3. The Reform vote is heaviest in the traditional labour heartlands. This is undoubtedly due to there being a conflict between Labour which is metropolitian city based and multi-ethnic versus a much more socially conservative Reform which is provisional town based (notably former mining towns have the biggest Reform vote). There will be two reasons for this: Historically the former mining towns had Methodist Religious traditions and the roots of the Labour party partly come from this - they had this idea of dignity and honour and religious piety through working. Its about pride. Over the last few decades with the disappearance of manufacturing and mining from these areas, the number of people on benefits is huge. Labours solution has been about benefits in the past, and there is a sense that there is no longer a willingness to accept this - they want jobs locally (not in the city). Part of the racism is born out of seeing cities full of multi-ethnic communities and prosperity and a feeling of neglect by BOTH Labour and the Conservatives over the last few decades. This is coupled with this anti-woke thing - its out of step with these areas which are more socially conservative and there is a feeling of being forced to do x, y or z which isn't in their own interests. These are areas which arguably were exploited by the rich particularly hard, so this (American led) narrative of Black Lives matter and guilt about the history of slavery and white privilege has absolutely no connection to these areas of desparate grinding multi-generational poverty. Having studied DH's family history you are talking about a population where many can trace their family back to the NE BEFORE the era of slavery. This isn't something that is being reflected in messages we see taught in schools and in political rhetoric. This is where Labour need to wake up. A lot. Trying to persue a massively 'progressive' agenda isn't going to work when combined with incumbent disappointment elsewhere.
4. By the look of it, it sounds like the Conservative Designated Survivors are more centrist. That means that even though you have the likes of Suella who has also survived, she unlikely to win the party leadership (when Rishi resigns). The Tory Party leadership contest rules mean the inital stages are decided by the MPs - they are unlikely to back Suella. This also means they understand there is ground to be made in this area - theres more potential votes for the Cons to be made by recognising the 'anti-woke' problem. Labour have to work hard to keep this ground because they can't rely on their youth vote.

The narrative has changed. It isn't one about Labour winning a popular mandate in the way that perhaps was thought by many (particularly stronger Labour supporters) preelection. The narrative is about the economical issues that have led to the collapse of the Conservative vote, which has let in Labour due to our electoral system. If Labour can not do enough to change the economics they are also at risk from a backlash. There are not enough votes to be gained by Labour on progressive type policies to go against the majority long held consensus - concerns are economically based, or anti-woke based and not the other way around. They aren't overwhelming pro-pushing further on 'progressive' policies except for in a handful of constituencies and thats where there is a rise of the Greens anyway - I can't see this expanding hugely within the next decade. (There is also a 'Gaza' issue which also lurking here, but I think thats best parked for now, as I am not quite sure how that one is going to play out yet).

So yeah, this ISN'T the result that will really please Labour BigWigs. They have power but they also inherit a bigger number of problems than perhaps many had percieved before today.

I watch with interest, but if you are doing a pure number game, you wouldn't be leaning too much further into 'progressive' style policies if you were giving Starmer unemotional advice. I think we are starting to see we have reached the limit of this as a movement within the UK. Of course this is a logical conclusion and politics has a habit of being irrational and emotional and ideologically driven by party member who are more extreme than the general population in terms of their beliefs on both sides of the political spectrum. And I might well be being overly optimistic in not factoring this in more - I can well see there being Labour infighting being an issue - thus I will be proved to be wrong. I hope not.

We are seeing the wall of reality which plagued Brexit in terms of how lawmaking works in practice as opposed to wish lists, appearing here. Its manifested in the result. Labour ignore it at their peril - or they will end up with a repeat of the many of the issues that plagued the Conservatives since 2016 in terms of political instability.

The questions are simply 'Is Starmer astute enough to see this?' and 'Does Starmer have enough authority within the Labour Party?'. No other questions are now relevant imho. This is about the future fate of Labour at the Next Election. It is ALWAYS about the next Election in modern UK politics.

If the Tories hadn't eviscerated the NHS and other public services, then I think Labour would have lost. People hate all the woke-pandering.

Who out of the Tory party reads out a list of women murdered by their partners like Jess Philip’s does every year?

Spoilt my ballot paper 🤷🏼‍♀️ 😔 Couldn’t in conscience do anything else

Which part of Brexit wasn't real?

I don't judge people on their political opinions, I expect diversity of opinion on almost everything political- in fact, it's absolutely necessary for a functioning democratic system. I am tolerant of other people's views and understand we're all coming from different places.

I can't accept absolute that absolute nonsense - the whole TWAW, born in the wrong body twaddle - is sanctioned at state level and implemented under the gaslighting, patronising guise of 'being kind' to the detriment of women and children. If you can get past absolute idiocy, good for you. Like I say, must be nice.

I'm not any more scared of meeting a man in the toilet than needing the NHS after it crumbles in front of my eyes. HTH.