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.

😆😆😆😆 oh please!!!

you're as convincingly GC to paraphrase as a giraffe in dark glasses trying to hang out in a polar bear only golf club

there are more convincing "I'm as GC as they come" style posters hanging out in trans Reddit

you never ever stop privileging men over women so just own it

It's not a surprise but I am disappointed as I was looking forward to discovering the vital details of sensible GC.

Same here. Sadtimes.

Me too. I’m new to this GC malarkey. I was a full on bekinder and a little bit of a TRA until I committed the huge crime of questioning the genderborg. I go told to educate myself so here I am. I think I’m GC but not sure on the sensible bit….

The 25% comes from Steph Richards who claims to have spies inside the conference.

No doubt accurate figures will arrive at some point. The key point is whether the boycott actually works long term to get the Labour leadership to shift their position. I don't think it will.

The problem is that few inside Labour wants to to change the various legal acts that would be needed to let men attend a women's conference without the possibility of being taken to court.

We can see Labour's current leadership position clearly - it hasn't shifted from Starmer much. Throw the TAs the bones of the puberty blockers trial and the Conversion Therapy ban.

There is no appetite to go further because it opens the possibility of Labour politicians being asked what is a woman again and fighting court cases over gender. Not when they see fighting off Reform and the Tories as a key aim.

In fact the boycott may strengthen the hand of the sex realists in the party. They can keep pushing for reality in women's conference without having to deal with Trans activists messing stuff up. Labour Women's Declaration events inside the conferences have been packed.

Meanwhile the TAs inside Labour face criticism from Greens and Lib Dems for not going far enough. The more extreme the rhetoric they use the more they alienate others in the party.

Also time will show how beneficial pandering to the TAs is for Greens and Lib Dems.

Steph Richards who claims to have spies inside the conference.

😂

The need to be supervising and knowing if women are saying things they don't approve of in a space supposed to be free of men.... bonkers. The coercive control drive is off the charts.

I'm both - GC and sensible. The 2 go hand in hand for obvious reasons.

The 25% comes from Steph Richards who claims to have spies inside the conference.

If Steve told us it was raining, I'd look out of the window to be sure.

Richards is demanding Labour scrap the Women’s conference and have an 'equalities conference' instead.

Petulant man can't stand women talking without including him.

This all day long. The incessant monitoring, chastising, threatening and bullying. They're incapable of leaving anyone alone who isn't pandering and curtseying to them - especially if they're women.

Walking by the conference site earlier i came across a small crowd listening to an Africn woman speak about female dignity and the importance of women having power over their own bodies and health. It was in the context of a union organised event ( unoffical/fringe) supporting 'Liverpool Women's Hospital' - which is perepetuually threatened with closure in order to merge with the large central teaching hospital.

It all sounded good: " women", "our bodies', "our pregnancies", "dignity for women" etc - but then she had clearly been instructed also to mention 'LGBT inclusion' - how "everyone must be included'. I watched as the small assembly of concerence attendeees clapped and whooped enthusiatically at the end of her speech.. Clearly feeling the warm glow of rightoeusness at listening to a woman of African origin talking about empowerment and justice etc. I did think, though, how they could have listened to the bulk of that speech and not realising the obvious dissonance between campaigning for/supporting female empowerment whilst simultaneously campaigning for male inclusion into those same women's spaces, services and categories.

Aka: if this group of men can't own the women's resource then there must not be a women's resource at all.

Yeah it's looking no healthier.

So sorry to keep you waiting. I have a life outside of here. You'd like to know what sensible GC means - sure. Single sex spaces are a right and should be provided on the basis of biological sex where and where appropriate. Biological sex matters when it comes to health, safeguarding (but is not a catch-all replacement for actual safeguarding) and some other issues. If a service/group/place wishes to be single sex then it should be allowed to be - regardless of which sex it services - and likewise groups and services should be allowed to be trans inclusive should they want to be. If your beliefs mean you cannot treat people with respect then the consequences for that behaviour should be expected - for example if a GC person purposefully misgenders a trans person in a professional environment then that is unacceptable, but if they simply refer to them by name and avoid using pronouns at all, then that is perfectly acceptable and not something that should be actionable. Do any of those strike you as particularly not sensible?

That's not quite the story you've told elsewhere, is it?

It's their modus operandi isn't it? Seek out resources for women and colonise them or shut them down.
As evidenced by Steve.

I suppose at least he makes clear that 'equalities' actually in his mind means 'owned by men for men'.

and likewise groups and services should be allowed to be trans inclusive should they want to be.

If you mean a service can include women and transmen then yes. They are all female. If you mean women and transwomen, then no. It can be single sex or mixed sex. What protected characteristic do women and transwomen have in common? That would be none.

Can someone start a union for women?

Is there a reason you think my beliefs shouldn't disagree with the current law?

Oh it is. Had a TIM ex. Was fully into the genderborg until i got told to educate myself. Found Mumsnet. Became a TERF and now living happily ever after. You seem very stalkerish ….

This doesn't answer the question "what do you understand by the term 'Gender Critical'?"

Do you agree that Gender is a social construct rather than the natural way of the world?

If so, do you agree that Gender seeks to impose a set of roles, responsibilities and behaviours on people based solely on their reproductive potential?

If so, do you agree that Gender is detrimental to everyone but is particularly disadvantageous to women and girls?

This is the basis of Gender Critical Feminism. Gender is harmful and feminists should act to persuade society to reject it so that women and girls can achieve our full social, political and economic potential as full members of that society.

This is why Gender Critical Feminists reject the concept of Gender Identity. Belief in the existence of a gender identity, however that identity is aligned, is impossible if you are gender critical.

How does this align with your personal sensible gender critical view?

Sex is biological, gender is social. You can believe that while still accepting that others have a different view. I don't pretend that trans people don't exist as many here do. I don't think about them much at all actually, except where I become frustrated that so many so-called feminists seem desperate to centre trans people in their own battles. It is unhinged when the wider scope shows what we're far more in danger from.

I imagine someone remembering the story of another who follows them around posting weird comments would feel 'stalkerish' to someone prone to whatever it is that's going on in your head.

Why do you feel you need to repeatedly cast aspersions on the mental health of posters on this board?

Richards is now lecturing Akua Reindorf on racism. All a bit odd to say the least.

Why even raise the issue?!