I’ve seen how trans activists work, and Labour isn’t strong enough to stop them

[IwantToRetire]

This isn’t about a lack of guidance. It’s about a reluctance to act. And let’s be honest: an updated PDF download from the EHRC is unlikely to tell us anything we don’t already know.

Anyone who has got up close to trans activism will tell you it isn’t about numbers. It’s about volume. A small but committed group, willing to make enough noise or cause enough trouble, can shift institutions surprisingly far.

That is why Labour has yet to resolve its own internal divisions on sex and gender despite the ruling. This is not because the law is unclear but because parts of the party still don’t accept its implications.

Nadia Whittome recently suggested the judgment could lead to the “blanket exclusion” of trans people – which is not what the ruling says.

And this time next year, don’t be surprised if we’re still having the same arguments – with institutions finding new reasons not to apply a law that is already perfectly clear

Unless Keir Starmer is willing to make clear to his own party that biological sex is a matter of fact, not opinion, that resistance will continue – whatever guidance is eventually published.

Full article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/20/ive-seen-how-trans-activists-work-and-labour-isnt-strong-en/

And at https://archive.is/ia5Bh

It does also require people with courage and funds to bring the law to account if elected representatives choose not I think.

I can assure you no one who writes for the Telegraph is privy to the inner workings of every aspect of the Labour party.

Try not to be too naive about the motivations of such platforms.

It does but JKR has a fund to help with that and most companies are upholding the law now. Gyms, workplaces, that sort of thing. It's only really schools and the NHS which are still ignoring the law and policy is being drawn up there anyway.

This narrative that 'the left' are nice but dim emotionally driven be kinders is getting very tiresome. I'm left wing, I believe in social justice, greater wealth equality and EDI initiatives. That doesn't render me incapable of rational thought or coming from a place of emotion.
I don't believe people can change sex. I don't believe there's a thing called 'gender' that supercedes sex. I don't believe the rights of women are subordinate to those of a tiny percentage of men. I do believe in the greatest good to the most people. I don't believe this is conversent with TI.
I accept that some elements of the left have embraced trans people as an oppressed minority, and I think that's misguided.
However you can't get much more left than the communists and their sex realist position has been clear from the start. Which is typically ignored in these left (stupid genderists) right (intelligent sex realists) narratives.
So can we please stop with the stereotypes? Because they are alienating of left wing GC people, and those are the voices that now need to join the conversation.
Teaming GC beliefs and the right, framing both as the 'sensible' view, when many people are deeply concerned about the rise of the right and the threat it poses to women AND concerned about TI all at the same time, is not helpful.

There may well be "motives" - which paper isn't politically aligned.

But as is said over and over again on FWR, but maybe needs repeating is that most the articles that support women's sex based rights are from "right wing" papers.

And that is because left wing / liberal papers are totally captured, or posturing for the audience they want.

It is the silence / censoring of the left / liberal outlets that is the real problem.

Just look at the thread started today about a paper in Scotland that wont take an ad which refers to "women's sex based rights".

And just because this article is in a right wing paper doesn't mean it isn't true.

It is just that the left / liberal pontificators wont even raise it as an issue for discussion.

And this reality supports the arguement of the article. That Labour are subservient to TRAs.

So yes, they will sell out women.

I don't know... Labour will crash and burn in the May elections both in Scotland and (especially) in Wales.

It would be dumb for Labour to call a general election in this political climate but then Starmer and the party in general have consistently failed to read the room since they got to power.

It’s not that they think they will win it’s that they would clearly lack a mandate from the population and the only way to get one is a new election

in your dreams maybe

Labour don't regard a mandate as of much importance at all. They were certainly careful not to let the electorate have a fair understanding via their manifesto or to gain the mandate for much of what they have done since coming into power; it's merely the child catcher's sweetie van.

Starmer's position is now to my mind untenable. There is no one of any better calibre to replace Starmer. We're unfortunately likely to see more revolving door PMs through the rest of Labour's time in government, as we did under the Tories. It's a mess.

Having a mandate from the electorate isn’t something politicians consider to be optional especially after there has been a significant change of leadership, as we are about to have. It’s the sort of thing they try to get to head off things like civil war or at least very serious unrest.

My dreams are much more exciting than that.

Certainly the worst of all options for women would be a 'left' coalition of all the student union activist nut parties, which would be Labour with the Greens and the Lib Dems. I would not though say that the current incarnation of Labour really bears any real commitment or similarity to left socialist beliefs and values, any more than the Greens have managed to retain any real commitment to the environment in their mad dash to centre interesting activist members. They merely identify as left, it's not the same thing. These political positions aren't a mere identity, they're a group of coherent historic beliefs and traditions. It's like Trump who appears to believe if you say it on social media then you've made it reality. Labour have an equal habit of believing that mentioning something in a speech equates having done something about it; it's not even necessary to show any genuine interest or care about it, never mind real action. The noise and advertising is all.

The papers have followed the identities, and it is entirely the left's fault that they have abandoned women's rights, gay rights, disabled rights, the elderly and other groups to be cared about only by parties who in the UK would be seen as 'the right'. Are these people supposed to abandon their rights to pursue where the increasingly mad 'left' have galloped off to in order to retain semantic virtue?

Also worth remembering that in the US, our 'right' would be quite far left in terms of their political systems.

Thanks

But in fact I was saying something much simpler.

Is that endlessly on threads because an article is quoted and it is from a "right wing" paper sooner of later a committed leftie will come along and say we are all being taken in by the "right".

But the reality is that as a forum discussing, reflecting, acknowledging comments, information, etc., about women's sex based rights we rarely refer to articles in left, liberal papers.

And that is just a reflection of reality. Because most left / liberal papers just dont post anything remotely in support of women's sex based rights.

And it then just sends threads down another irrelevant cul de sac insteand of discussing the information or whatever itself.

And of course if anyone was interested they could start a thread about how the "left" whether politicians or media either ignore or misrepresent women's sex based rights.

The point of this article (IMO) is that even if the EHRC guidelines are eventually published, nothing will happen. Labour will not do anything assertive or pro active. No doubt in 5 years time we will all be in exactly the same position as we are now. (Or by next GE)

As for what is truely left or right, I doubt any of us know.

If in some way anyone could listen into my parents discusing issues I suspect some would think that's a bit extreme, almost Corbynistas. But in fact they were non aligned middle of the road "conservatives" whose view of the world was influenced by the impact of WWII.

Not sure any of us can say what is left or right, as it is not clear that any one thinks or operates like that any more.

Old touchstones turn out to be largely ignored or unknown. Look at the irrelevance of the supposed consensus on the rules based order.