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?

That photo isn't going to go down well with many people. Don't ALL kids deserve safe schools? Or is that sign giving up in the face of chronic underfunding and tacitly admitting that lots of children are in fact now NOT safe in schools and therefore it's just arguing that a very small minority of kids that the 'in crowd' decide should get precedence over all the other kids when it comes to safety?

I can't help but feel that £33k might have been better spent going directly to schools if safety in schools is such an issue, it's not as if schools are awash with cash these days.

Edited to add; And what is it about 'queer' kids that requires something different in terms of safeguarding and safety than for other kids? Personally I can't see anything that would be different in terms of safeguarding and safety than for all the other kids. Most schools have anti-bullying policies and procedures, for example. KCSIE is pretty clear on safeguarding including specifically for the LGB and also the T. What exactly are they calling for here?

biggest danger to queer kids is someone telling them that their homosexual feelings are caused by having the wrong body and that there is a medical fix for that

So now Burnham has won the by election, is on his way to Westminster and will presumably challenge Starmer, what does this hold for the EHRC guidance and women’s rights generally?

I imagine that Creasey and her ilk will have vote for Burnham as he comes from the city of so-called gender neutral toilets. I’m not feeling positive about our rights or indeed how a new PM will help the UK as a whole.

I agree, it's very worrying.

I have to say I am not optimistic. Worried for our rights, yes, but actually more concerned that the politics will just drag this out, with more and more politicians finding "plausible " reasons to delay everything, including implementing the guidance and following the law. It will just mean forcing women to take legal action to enforce our rights.

Rosie Duffield has previously expressed support for Burnham so I googled and got this (The Daily Telepgraph):

Burnham ally Rosie Duffield MP wants him to make his position clear on women and single-sex spaces

Well. If Bunham or anyone decides to make men's rights to use women's loos a hill to die on, the next election will be interesting.

Support for crossdresser's rights to use women's loos exists mostly as a signalling point within the Labour Party, is my understanding. I would expect almost everyone bar maybe the most fervently dim MPs are quite aware of public feelings on this.

Burnham may well be willing to throw women under the bus in his urgent scramble to save the UK become king of Westminster and feel the EHRC guidance is a necessary sacrifice to ensure greater prosperity. For the greater good and all that.

Manchester is the only city I’ve visited where almost all the hospitality type loos are ‘gender neutral’. Despite the wink-wink urinals sign on one gender neutral door but not the other.

So the old ‘men’s’ and ‘open’ categories 🙄

Should Burnham be propelled immediately into the role of PM he is going to have one hell of a back-log of pressing and immediate issues to deal with. He's not going to seriosuly entertain any press for, or attempt to re-write equality law; or push for, Self ID. He's not a true believer, anyway. He is a performative believer.

If he is going to try to honour the people in Makerfield in the way he has said he will, then he'll understand they have no time for any of that. He'll be focused on tring to reduce the cost of living and having to get to grips with illegal migration.

Whatever the case, within a couple of weeks the ECHR advice on single sex spaces becomes statutory. The Labour party backbenchers will continue to drive themselves demented, esecially when Andy doesn't turn out to be the saviour they had hoped for.

Manchester is Britain's gay capital. That's why! You cannot be mayor of GM and not bend to this fact. Mind you.....The city of Manchester itself, and its outer boroughs, are two entirely separate species.

I think legal action is going to continue be necessary for some time yet. It was even before Burnham won his by-election.

I really don't think he will make it a hill to die on. When he was questioned by Chris Mason he gave an acceptable answer but clearly didn't want to talk about it. I think he would rather not make it a big issue.

Yes, he'll continue to blather and evade when pressed on it.....which is exactly what Starmer has done. No real difference. Meanwhile the SC ruling and the ECHR guidance will gradually sink in ( with lots of firm assisatance from 'Sex Matters' and the wider 'movement')) and become the new normal.

He'll be focused on tring to reduce the cost of living and having to get to grips with illegal migration. Whatever the case, within a couple of weeks the ECHR advice on single sex spaces becomes statutory. The Labour party backbenchers will continue to drive themselves demented, especially when Andy doesn't turn out to be the saviour they had hoped for.

I hope so @Shortshriftandlethal

I honestly think this is the most likely scenario. Don't be too concerned.

Meanwhile the SC ruling and the ECHR guidance will gradually sink in ( with lots of firm assisatance) and become the new normal.

If it does sink in and become the new normal (that's a big if), then I would hope we wouldn't need to anticipate much more legal action. However, we both seem to be anticipating more legal action, so this rather puts paid to the fantasy that this guidance will "sink in" quickly doesn't it?

Or is it the "sinking in" of the guidance that will actually lead to more legal action?

This conundrum is why I am not optimistic. The EHCR guidance is not there yet. We are not there yet.

I agree. Like many politicians, he has virtue signalled on this issue in the past, but I don't think there is any real TRA fervour behind it.

Pushing to change the Equality Act and its single sex exemptions would unleash an almighty shit storm. He won't do that because he's not daft.

Burnham is likely to get sworn in as an MP on Monday.

Will he put his name to the early day motion? Might Starmer call a general election before the 40 days are up, on 9 July 2026?

If orgs comply with the law, then the legal action will come from TRAs. This will rumble on in the courts for quite a while yet.

You’re right that there’s a lot to see out it all plays out.

First thing he could do is not sign the EDM. Presumably he could do that still?And there will be pressure on him to do so as an ally as he still needs the support of backbenchers. My best guess is he’ll try to placate and weasel words both sides like Streeting did. So for now, I am and will remain concerned until he’s tangibly demonstrated he’s in support of women’s rights.

Sinking in is a process though...it takes time. The next hurdle is getting the guidance, and the ruling it represents, over the finish line, and that is all but achieved.

Personally, I never expected this to be a short haul campaign. It was always going to be a twenty year plus timescale. Resistance and trans activism does not go away over-night, as many people are wedded to it as part of their identity.

What is most important are the legal rulings, because they under-pin everything.....and which is why legal action is still going to have to be pursued on a case by case basis, to ensure compliance, for some time yet.

Then we've got the issue of child gender transition to deal with too.....and that is going to come down to legal challenges and actions too.

How long do they still have to get the debate for the EDM?