Burnham - does he know what a woman is?

[Dragonasaurus]

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?

because of some policy that has no impact on what we do day to day

Just because a policy has no effect on what you do today, does not mean that it wouldn't in the future. Circumstances change. Policies can be altered to suit the next person's agenda (which is what we have seen happening all over public services).

Our own policies mean we have single sex spaces and hold them.

Your "single-sex" policies aren't worth a penny if there's an applicable law which states that your policies are unlawful. It can work both ways. What if the next government decides that what you are doing for women holds no value? Your policies will be defunct overnight.

Ensuring that our politicians know that a woman is an adult human female is important for all of us.

You can even identify as BAME for this group, or being a girl (I wonder if you can do that as a 30 year old man?). “And that is not all”……as The Cat in The Hat said because it is not even ‘limited to’ the list of categories.

Updated: Aug 1, 2025

We are delighted that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority is establishing a Women and Girls Equality Panel. It’s an initiative we have been lobbying for since GM4Women2028 was set up……

The Panel will be inclusive of all women and girls applying, including (but not limited to):

trans women, non-binary people and gender fluid people who identify as a woman or girl

lesbian and bisexual women

women and girls of colour and those that identify as BAME

women or girls with disabilities

those with any religious beliefs.
…….
From this it seems anyway as though Manchester is a transactivist-taken city.

Reform aren't any friend to women, quite the opposite. They do know what a woman is, but only so they can make sure they know their place.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/e7a64925-b21e-4e3d-ada1-598f6f39a5a5?shareToken=4aa0a0474e898486d6e69b9024a1a29f

Sonia Sodha in the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/36af2a7f-c315-4612-aecb-7f31bad4dc3e?shareToken=c20b924b553e34bd28509be9cf7afad5&ver=article

So the difference between Labour and reform is? They both know what a woman is. They both view women as inferior and expendable and they’re not interested in supporting or listening to women in the slightest.

No good shooting the messenger - not my fault those running GM don't know what a woman is 🤷🏻‍♀️

I mean I get it, much easier for your organisation to keep your head down, provide single sex spaces and services for women - and cross everything that a TRA doesn't suddenly notice what you're doing and decide you're being transphobic with your single sex spaces . From bitter experience, one very determined TRA targeting a small organisation can upend all the best laid plans

Burnham can't really redeem himself here. Even if he was to "apologies" or recant, it's done under duress, not voluntarily, so is worthless.
And even then, any redressing matters would be so laden with caveats and doublespeak that it would be worse than useless.
I'm afraid every senior Labour politico/possible leader (Mahmood the exception) is totally captured, and cannot be trusted.
A litmus test on trustworthiness is failed by him.

I really hate agreeing with that, but I pretty much do.

You'd be hard pushed to find anyone in the current cabinet who inspires confidence, which I suppose is why they've turned to Burnham who already lost out on the leadership twice.

And lots of us thought it couldn't get worse than the previous lot.

I once read a book on the decline of the Ottoman Empire - I forget what it was called - but the author concluded that the reason the Empire went into a death spiral was just by sheer bad luck having 13 bad sultans in a row.

I'm struggling to think of the last time there was an effective PM - not one I agree with, but one who could set a direction for the country and follow it through. Blair's first term, maybe? If not him, Thatcher.

We've been increasingly poorly served over the past 20 plus years.

Patrick Maguire asked a good question on the Times podcast - Starmer was originally marketed as Corbyn in a suit... what if Burnham just turns out to be Starmer in shorts?

Well Starmer was never 'Corbyn in a suit', did anyone really believe that? Whether Burnham just turns out to be Starmer in shorts, well, he's surely a more proficient politician than Starmer (yeah, I know, low bar). Maybe a slightly smarter politician would have recognised that the winds are changing, as they surely are, a bit earlier. Now he seems a little marooned.

A parrot on a stick would be a better political operator than Starmer. I've got zero illusions about Burnham, but I suppose he's a good communicator - not quite at the Wes Streeting level, but the party won't have Wes.

Trouble is, these eejits think better comms will save them.

I suppose Wes still thinks, his time will come.