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.

Feels like that pot needs introducing to the kettle again.

😆

Thank you. So many people are largely clueless of the issues involved, the background, the detail, and just go along with whatever they vaguely perceive as the Right Side of History.

If a women’s group includes transwomen it isn’t a women’s group. In the same way that a vegan restaurant isn’t a vegan restaurant if it serves pork sausages.

Yep. Discrimination is illegal, but services can invoke exceptions. Those exceptions need to be coherent, though. So you can't exclude men but include some men.

No imposition involved. Women who welcome trans women into their group should be able to do that without having to include men. You wish to force them to not be able to do that. It's as simple as you wanting to impose your idealogical beliefs over everyone else.

Service providers cannot discriminate on the basis of 'gender'. They can in some circs discriminate on the basis of sex.

'Women plus men who want to access women' is not a coherent category.

So you wish to impose your own beliefs on others. Which is apparently only bad if done to you by others. That is hypocrisy.

I'm arguing that they should be able to. You don't think they should. Which, again, is fine but at least own your hypocrisy. Ultimately this will only ever be settled by the courts and then by parliament. And I would suggest that in the fullness of time an Australian style judgement is more likely to stand rather than our own supreme court 'clarification'. And then there will be no single sex provision. But I suppose harming trans people is more important that womens rights to some here.

Another pejorative framing! And you really think that you're reasonable? I note you were incapable of pointing out which of my beliefs were not sensible.

Nooooo. No one is saying that. Women who wish for mixed sex groups are very welcome to set them up. They just can’t call themselves women’s groups. The only problem with mixed sex groups is…. If you say done men can’t come in but some cab, you’d better be shit hot on your entry criteria….

all of them…. There you go.

But will be transactivists who will face destroyed single sex spaces. So it’s then who will suffer. If TIM are “unsafe” in male spaces, surely they’d be just as unsafe in mixed sex spaces wouldn’t they? Do by destroying SSS, they’re shooting themselves in the foot aren’t they?

How is that 'imposing my belief on others'? Or are you under the impression that pork sausages are plant-based?

And once more for the hard of reading, they can have such a group. They just can't call it a women's group. As it lets men in. It's really quite simple.

'Gender' is not a coherent category. How could anyone create a category that is based on a vague, internal, amorphous, inexplicable feeling?

What's pejorative? Men who want to access women's spaces is entirely neutral and descriptive.

I don't actually know what your beliefs are; so far all I've seen is a vague assertion that men should be included in women's groups and a tiresome attempt to insult people as much as you are able to.

A full life eh? Based on your posting history you spend more time on here than I do, and I'm disabled and housebound.

I think this is more than a "passing distraction" for you.
I also assume you are perfectly familiar with the history of this board and how it came about since I've seen you having it explained to you on another thread. But admitting that would interfere with the scolding I guess.

Discussion that returns over and over to framing things in a personalised way is not very helpful. Over invested animus means the discussion doesn't ever get very far, because if someone arguing on an emotive basis gets the sense they are not 'winning' then they swerve away from whatever the discussion point was.

I recognise this tedious point scoring very well. One learns, eventually, how to deal with it, so it doesn't bother me.

A person who has not ever been in a relationship with an abusive, coercive, controlling narc may not see it so clearly.

You've been rumbled! You are the controller of the universe imposing your sausage-based rules and regulations on everyone else.

Or something.

Sausage based rules are the fucking problem, imho.

😂

I think if you are going to get pork, you should expect pork. No-one wants unexpected pork in a supposedly pork-free environment.

alcovecupboards · Today 13:55

So you wish to impose your own beliefs on others. Which is apparently only bad if done to you by others.

What a silly claim, that expecting organisations to abide by the law is "imposing one's beliefs on others."

That is hypocrisy.

No, it's rationality.