Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Burnham - does he know what a woman is?

401 replies

Dragonasaurus · 14/05/2026 20:49

Just that really - we’ve had Starmer prevaricating, fence sitting, “most women don’t have a penis” in fact women don’t have a penis’ but somehow I’m going to let Phillipson sit on the guidance which would ensure women’s single sex spaces (some of them anyway)…..

Would Burnham be any better? Does anyone know what his position is?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
fromorbit · 22/06/2026 09:27

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 21/06/2026 14:23

HE WANTS IT ALL GO AWAY.

The problem here is that "I want it all to go away" can manifest itself very easily as "just ignore it and it will go away." And what happens when politicians ignore the problems? The activists (within and without the Labour Party) take over and run roughshod over women's rights, and our only recourse then is legal action.

do not underestimate how little he wants to be arguing with Kemi and Farage what a woman is.

I'm actually more worried about how little he wants to be arguing with the activist Labour backbenchers. Starmer has caved time and time again in order to keep his majority. Spineless avoidance does nothing to shore up women's rights.

Burnham will say whatever is needed right now to get him into Number 10. I personally am highly suspicious (and contemptuous) of someone who would run for office to become an MP then immediately use that to leapfrog himself into a PM spot without a public vote. I would say that's despicable, but it's just politics, and if the people who voted for him didn't realize that, then they had no business voting at all.

I do hope you are right, but I'm tired of words from our politicians. I want to see action, positive action. Not sitting in the middle of things, hoping that it all goes away so he doesn't have to deal with it. There's no hope in hell that the TRAs are going to just melt away and let this happen. If Burnham becomes PM, he needs to address it, not wish it all away.

I get where you are coming from, but it looks to me that the TAs in Labour are in a difficult spot and are weak in the party. As you say the Starmer regime has been inconsistent in a bunch of areas marked by a bunch of u-turns. Opposition inside the party has forced a bunch of changes on other matters yet on sex/gender the victories from the TA side are like the fox botherer's victories actually non-existent in recent times.

An early big loss was Labour in May 2025 explicitly confirming that the Supreme Court judgement was completely accepted inside the party and where the Labour rulebook said women they meant actual women. Read it here:
https://labour.org.uk/resources/supreme-court-judgment-faqs/

There has been no indication of major pushback against this inside the party under Starmer. Local parties can pass motions to argue for changes, they can bring this up in conference. They can't argue the party should break the law though. Not much sign of real fightback. The best the TAs got was not having a women's conference at all in 2025. The women's conference in 2026 is going ahead in September and there will be a special side event for men in dresses OUTSIDE the conference itself. This is Labour being "nice":
https://labourlist.org/2025/12/exclusive-labour-nec-womens-conference-and-local-elections/

This is indeed real positive action from Labour and when TAs are in control it is women proclaiming women are a thing who are outside the conference. Still going on with the Greens.

The guidance itself after a huge wait turns out to be virtually the same as the original guidance just with a lot of extra worded examples. It clearly embodies the idea that biological sex is a thing like the law does. Yes it could be better, but the reaction of the TAs shows they see it as a disaster.

The EDM motion against the guidance has 148 signatures - 80 from Labour MPs out of 403 Labour MPs. Yes Labour MPs inside government, a total of 93, can't sign ED motions, but if there were a lot of TAs on the front benches then why are they not changing policy from the inside? Out of 310 Labour MPs who can sign the total of 80 is 25.8% of the MPs. Bearing in mind signing an EDM doesn't actually mean much, if the parliamentary party was that anti women we would see more of it. If they are going to do something REAL to oppose the guidance the clock is ticking the 40 days expires on July 9th.

As I said though the next crunch point is the conversion therapy bill which Labour are bringing forward very soon it seems I think it will drop in July or August. We DON'T know yet what it will look like. However it will have to either conform to existing law about the existence of biological sex or aim to change it openly. The only thing we can say for sure is if Labour were planning to change the definition of sex they would have obviously delayed the guidance till after the bill.

I think the conversion therapy bill may actually possibly codify the TAs worst nightmare. It may have a section which says biological sex is a thing and that therapists should not pretend it is not. It may actually protect gay people from being pushed into transition and protect professionals who want to help them.

This is of course speculation on my part, but given Labour accept the Cass review which warned about that issue it is certainly possible. Also we have to bear in mind Labour is sort of scared of losing Muslim support so I think the conversion therapy bill will be very carefully worded with that in mind that indicates a standard definition of sex. Note unlike the TAs the Gaza faction has forced a bunch of changes from Labour. Not as much as they would like, but they had real pushback.

On the other hand the bill may attempt to bring in more gender crazy by the back door. I totally admit that.

We will find out very soon. The only certain thing is we are going to be debating all of it in public and if we don't like it we can push back... HARD. If we do that we can win. The SNP have seen that. So has Burnham.

Supreme Court Judgment FAQs – The Labour Party

Supreme Court Judgment: Frequently Asked Questions On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court clarified that references to “women” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex (meaning the sex of a person at birth), not gender. This means that certain sex...

https://labour.org.uk/resources/supreme-court-judgment-faqs/

Floisme · 22/06/2026 10:02

I think you make some good points, as always, @fromorbit but I disagree with you about this one:

Out of 310 Labour MPs who can sign the total of 80 is 25.8% of the MPs.
I disagree with you about this not meaning much. It suggests to me that about 1 in 4 of Labour MPs either:
a) don't understand that the guidance doesn't change the law (pretty scary given that these are our elected lawmakers)
or b) understand a) perfectly well and see this as a first step to changing the Equality Act at a future point
or c) don't want the public debate that changing the Equality Act would entail so will settle for continuing to encourage confusion and misinformation.

DrBlackbird · 22/06/2026 10:08

This results in low efficiency, poor service delivery and idealogical capture where institutions feel their primary job is pursuing various social engineering objectives rather than efficient and effective governance.

It’s come to a point where the Left in Nordic countries looks considerably different to the left in the UK or the US. Here and in the US, the left increasingly look as though the main objective is social engineering and nothing but social engineering of one kind or another rather the serious and hard work of governing. As if significant political parties have been taken over by excitable first year university Trotskyites. All headlines (empathy!), short on details but with political power.

moto748e · 22/06/2026 10:09

I am also a bit less optimistic than @fromorbit .I don't think the Nadia Whittome faction can be discounted. And in fact, all those 'payroll votes', Ministers, etc; I'm sure there's a few of those who would have happily signed if the option was there. Thinking of my MP, for example. Surely the truth is Labour is still tip-toeing around, terrified of upsetting the men in dresses faction. And this conversion Bill is bound to be a dog’s breakfast.

ArabellaScott · 22/06/2026 10:23

'Starmer said he inherited Labour Party that was "politically, financially and morally bankrupt".
He says he was told "time and time again" that the party was "finished", but says he "proved those people wrong".
He says he changed the party by "ripping out the poison of antisemitism".'

ArabellaScott · 22/06/2026 10:25

Floisme · 22/06/2026 10:02

I think you make some good points, as always, @fromorbit but I disagree with you about this one:

Out of 310 Labour MPs who can sign the total of 80 is 25.8% of the MPs.
I disagree with you about this not meaning much. It suggests to me that about 1 in 4 of Labour MPs either:
a) don't understand that the guidance doesn't change the law (pretty scary given that these are our elected lawmakers)
or b) understand a) perfectly well and see this as a first step to changing the Equality Act at a future point
or c) don't want the public debate that changing the Equality Act would entail so will settle for continuing to encourage confusion and misinformation.

Can I add

d) Know fine well that an EDM is virtually meaningless and will have no impact, so put their name to it in an empty signal of 'support' for 'trans' people that they are confident will have no actual consequences.

FWIW I hope they are correct, because otherwise they run the risk that all protest gestures do, which is being taken seriously.

ArabellaScott · 22/06/2026 10:27

fromorbit · 22/06/2026 09:27

I get where you are coming from, but it looks to me that the TAs in Labour are in a difficult spot and are weak in the party. As you say the Starmer regime has been inconsistent in a bunch of areas marked by a bunch of u-turns. Opposition inside the party has forced a bunch of changes on other matters yet on sex/gender the victories from the TA side are like the fox botherer's victories actually non-existent in recent times.

An early big loss was Labour in May 2025 explicitly confirming that the Supreme Court judgement was completely accepted inside the party and where the Labour rulebook said women they meant actual women. Read it here:
https://labour.org.uk/resources/supreme-court-judgment-faqs/

There has been no indication of major pushback against this inside the party under Starmer. Local parties can pass motions to argue for changes, they can bring this up in conference. They can't argue the party should break the law though. Not much sign of real fightback. The best the TAs got was not having a women's conference at all in 2025. The women's conference in 2026 is going ahead in September and there will be a special side event for men in dresses OUTSIDE the conference itself. This is Labour being "nice":
https://labourlist.org/2025/12/exclusive-labour-nec-womens-conference-and-local-elections/

This is indeed real positive action from Labour and when TAs are in control it is women proclaiming women are a thing who are outside the conference. Still going on with the Greens.

The guidance itself after a huge wait turns out to be virtually the same as the original guidance just with a lot of extra worded examples. It clearly embodies the idea that biological sex is a thing like the law does. Yes it could be better, but the reaction of the TAs shows they see it as a disaster.

The EDM motion against the guidance has 148 signatures - 80 from Labour MPs out of 403 Labour MPs. Yes Labour MPs inside government, a total of 93, can't sign ED motions, but if there were a lot of TAs on the front benches then why are they not changing policy from the inside? Out of 310 Labour MPs who can sign the total of 80 is 25.8% of the MPs. Bearing in mind signing an EDM doesn't actually mean much, if the parliamentary party was that anti women we would see more of it. If they are going to do something REAL to oppose the guidance the clock is ticking the 40 days expires on July 9th.

As I said though the next crunch point is the conversion therapy bill which Labour are bringing forward very soon it seems I think it will drop in July or August. We DON'T know yet what it will look like. However it will have to either conform to existing law about the existence of biological sex or aim to change it openly. The only thing we can say for sure is if Labour were planning to change the definition of sex they would have obviously delayed the guidance till after the bill.

I think the conversion therapy bill may actually possibly codify the TAs worst nightmare. It may have a section which says biological sex is a thing and that therapists should not pretend it is not. It may actually protect gay people from being pushed into transition and protect professionals who want to help them.

This is of course speculation on my part, but given Labour accept the Cass review which warned about that issue it is certainly possible. Also we have to bear in mind Labour is sort of scared of losing Muslim support so I think the conversion therapy bill will be very carefully worded with that in mind that indicates a standard definition of sex. Note unlike the TAs the Gaza faction has forced a bunch of changes from Labour. Not as much as they would like, but they had real pushback.

On the other hand the bill may attempt to bring in more gender crazy by the back door. I totally admit that.

We will find out very soon. The only certain thing is we are going to be debating all of it in public and if we don't like it we can push back... HARD. If we do that we can win. The SNP have seen that. So has Burnham.

Something you're missing in there is the unions.

The Unions are utterly batshit crazy on genderpish. And they really do matter to the Labour party.

Floisme · 22/06/2026 10:51

ArabellaScott · 22/06/2026 10:27

Something you're missing in there is the unions.

The Unions are utterly batshit crazy on genderpish. And they really do matter to the Labour party.

Yes, another good point. I wonder how many of the Labour MPs who signed this are sponsored or otherwise endorsed by a trade union?

Shortshriftandlethal · 22/06/2026 12:02

Floisme · 22/06/2026 10:02

I think you make some good points, as always, @fromorbit but I disagree with you about this one:

Out of 310 Labour MPs who can sign the total of 80 is 25.8% of the MPs.
I disagree with you about this not meaning much. It suggests to me that about 1 in 4 of Labour MPs either:
a) don't understand that the guidance doesn't change the law (pretty scary given that these are our elected lawmakers)
or b) understand a) perfectly well and see this as a first step to changing the Equality Act at a future point
or c) don't want the public debate that changing the Equality Act would entail so will settle for continuing to encourage confusion and misinformation.

I vote for a).

They genuinely don't seem to have read or understood the original ruling or understood the relevence of the guidance, and I agree this is a terrible indictment of their quality and their professionalism.

They have not taken any trouble to get to grips with either - because they are ideoloogically captured and immune to clarity on the issue; and for others ( such as my MP) it is because they want to signal group virrtue.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/06/2026 15:47

That women’s conference article is disingenuous in the extreme

The plan for women’s conference in Liverpool September 2026 comes after the event was postponed last year over fears of legal action and security risks if it went ahead on the previous basis of attendee self-identification.

Oh yes, gender critical women were totally the ones causing the security risks.

1984Now · 22/06/2026 16:10

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/06/2026 15:47

That women’s conference article is disingenuous in the extreme

The plan for women’s conference in Liverpool September 2026 comes after the event was postponed last year over fears of legal action and security risks if it went ahead on the previous basis of attendee self-identification.

Oh yes, gender critical women were totally the ones causing the security risks.

"Ask ChatGPT to create a statement covering up the cowardice of not allowing free speech for all women, turning it into a statement highlighting principle and bravery"

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/06/2026 16:13

It’s just complete bollocks. The only thing from the GC side were the legal threats. And TRAs did that too, see “Steph” from Translucent’s risible challenge. The Labour Party were obliged to follow the law and GC people said they would take legal action if they didn’t. That wasn’t where any “security concerns” came from. I imagine they revolved around bottles of piss or mass cricket releases.

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 22/06/2026 21:08
  • Potential rival Wes Streeting has rowed in behind Burnham, saying Burnham "has shown what Labour can be", and says he hopes "everyone else will back Andy too";
  • It means Burnham looks set for a clean run at the leadership, and he could be in Downing Street within weeks;
https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-burnham-starmer-labour-makerfield-by-election-12593360

Looks like it will definitely be Burnham, even if there's a late challenger (but likely to be in #10 after 9 July, even if there are no other contenders).

I know that the law is the law, but I'm still worried. He's an unknown quantity to me.

DrBlackbird · 22/06/2026 21:41

I’m thinking Streeting is either going to be offered Foreign Secretary or chancellor? Anyone taking bets?

moto748e · 22/06/2026 23:36

Foreign Secretary seems a decent fit.

ConstanzeMozart · 23/06/2026 10:14

Foreign Secretary seems often to be given to people who the PM wants to keep in the tent, so to speak, but a good distance away, and not doing anything too day-to-day or high-profile like the Chancellor or Home Secretary does. Less easy to fuck up.
Although of course Boris Johnson managed to fuck up FS, big style.

EDITED typo

lcakethereforeIam · 23/06/2026 10:27

I'm still worried about Streeting. He went from full on tra to apparent GC almost overnight with no explanation that I've seen. Then there's the whole PB farce. Although grateful for the crumbs we've had I don't trust him. If Burnham does stick with TWAW would he just say 'okay boss'?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 23/06/2026 10:30

I have put it on the FWR record many times that I absolutely don’t trust Streeting and will never forget that he was a member of Liam/Lily Madigan’s secret Facebook purge and doxxing group 8 years ago.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 23/06/2026 10:31

lcakethereforeIam · 23/06/2026 10:27

I'm still worried about Streeting. He went from full on tra to apparent GC almost overnight with no explanation that I've seen. Then there's the whole PB farce. Although grateful for the crumbs we've had I don't trust him. If Burnham does stick with TWAW would he just say 'okay boss'?

I think that’s highly likely.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 23/06/2026 10:33

Even if he has had some Damascene conversion where he genuinely cares and wants to put things right, he doesn’t care as much as he cares about Wes Streeting, IMO.

moto748e · 23/06/2026 10:54

I reckon Streeting still thinks his time will come, in a few year's time. Still a young man in political terms.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 23/06/2026 10:56

Agree, @moto748e

Ereshkigalangcleg · 23/06/2026 10:58

He might be right. In opposition with the party destroyed by infighting he might get his chance.

Imdunfer · 23/06/2026 10:58

moto748e · 23/06/2026 10:54

I reckon Streeting still thinks his time will come, in a few year's time. Still a young man in political terms.

Absolutely. He knows he can't win so he has chosen not to fight and lose.

If/when Burnham fails he will be right there at the front of the queue to lead the party.

He's a sound strategist.