Sexist Unions boycott Labour women's conference

[fromorbit]

Unison, Aslef, Usdaw and the Musicians Union are planning to not attend Labour Women's Conference on 26 September 2026 in Liverpool because men are not allowed.

This is breaking Labour party rules against sex discrimination against women and that the Supreme Court judgement is correct:
https://labour.org.uk/resources/supreme-court-judgment-faqs/

This could be a huge issue for Burnham and Labour. Especially as Unison, & Unite are already facing court cases over their refusal to admit women exist.

Like the recent Amnesty trainwreck this could be a self inflicted car crash for TAs in the unions. It will force Labour to choose between reality and catering to a bunch of sexists who don't like it when women get have political meetings without male supervision.

Shall we all wave to Reddit 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

The man I'm referring to makes violent rape threats. And has a serious personality disorder. The grandiosity, pomposity, the tedious, endless social one-upmanship, the endless and frankly desperate need to try to 'win' some psychodrama of his own creation.

I will not be polite about a man who makes violent rape threats.

But, as I've said, if arsing about on the internet distracts him from taking out his weird controlling and abusive needs on women that he meets in real life, that's fine. It's no skin off my nose.

Ah yes, but you were mean about a man. That isn't allowed. You can only sneer at women. Them's the rules.

It's arguable whether 'creep' is an insult, though. A man deliberately transgressing women's boundaries is a creep, in my view. I suppose there are more neutral terms. What are some?

Ugh. I did hope to never see that gurning grin and massive forehead ever again

What should we call a man who calls himself a 'lesbian' and uses that adopted identity to transgress women's spaces and boundaries?

I am open to suggestions.

A woman hating Andrew Tate wannabe with the personality and looks of a rotten potato (and probably the smell of one as well), who has so few people who want to interact with him thst his only real human contact is shouting at strangers in the street. I knew care in the community was a bad idea. Of course, this is not to any person on here, but to the hypothetical saddo obviously.

You should report him to the police if that's the case.

Actually no, I’m in great health thankyou. I do appreciate the concern though.

Yes, mixed-sex groups are perfectly legal as long as it's made clear that
this is what they are.

Pot - meet kettle. 😉

So no cramming involved. Glad to see you understand and support trans inclusive spaces.

I don't think that means quite what you think it means.

Oh yes. Definitely support them. I mean, TIM might be a bit upset when they’re told they can’t go into the women’s disgraced but are perfectly free to use the mixed sex facilities but I’m sure they’ll cope.

It really does.

Any mixed-sex space is by definition trans-inclusive and always has been. The problem comes when trans-identified people demand to be included in the spaces, services and sports of the sex they don't belong to.

Of course a group can include anyone it wants to - but not if it calls itself a 'women only' group or is one designated as 'single sex'.

Don't call yourself 'a women's group' - if you want to include men.

Aaargh. Women’s spaces even

I came across a small gathering of UNISON members outside of the conference cordon today. They were there to campaign for migrant workers.

I couldn't resist suggesting to them that they could do with also supporting their largely female membership, and that Angela Egan was a disgrace. That she does not represent the vast bulk of her membership and is there just to virtue signal dogma and ideology over the rights and protections afforded to her largely female workforce. That most people don't vote for their union leaders and that it is just a small, loud, ideologically committed crowd that do.

The young woman I spoke with did not have much to say in response other than she thought the recent "change" was wrong. By this she was referring to the clarification of the meaning of the word 'woman' in the equalities act. I said It wasn't wrong, it was correct, and wasn't a change but merely a clarification of what had always be the case.

But that's not what's being discussed. That's whataboutery. If a women's group wishes to include trans women - I have no problem with that. You think those women should be forced into not including them to continue on. That is you demanding that your beliefs trump other peoples. Which is fine - but at least be honest about it. You want to force everyone to live under your rules. That doesn't historically end well for women as a general rule. Own your own hypocrisy.

Ummm. Dude…. Once more for the slower ones.

No one is stopping people having groups of whoever they like. As the guides and WI found out, you can be a women’s group and have only women in, or a mixed sex group but not call yourself a women’s group. So the WI could have called themselves the people’s institute, but they would have had to allow any male who wanted to join to join. They decided to stick with women only.
the guides could have done the same. They didn’t. Why don’t transpeople and allies set up their own inclusive groups?

Have you seriously accused someone else of "whataboutery? 😂

What you seem to be about is not fairness but rather ideological imposition. If it is a 'women's group' then it is for women - by definition. It is merely imposition of dogma to call it a 'women's group' knowing you want it to be open to some men too. Why bother calling it a 'women's group'? Why not just say a group that is open to all (regardless of sex)?

if people want to play such party games in their personal circle of friends and acquaintances then that is up to them, but if it is a publicly advertised group or facility then if it is called a 'women's group' or if it is designted as 'female only' or 'single sex' or for 'lesbians' then that is what it needs to be. Women and girls have every right to expect that.