Labour’s policy on the Trans issue

It's a small minority of transwomen who are causing these issues. Most are living as women with no intention to harm or upset anyone.
Those who cause the trouble want to be women but act like men.

What I expected is your usual claim that it’s up to females to object when confronted with males where they shouldn’t be.

One saying some transwomen will get into female spaces but some shouldn't

Where’s the some? TW shouldn’t be in female spaces. Some will attempt it. Most likely those who object to being asked for their birth sex on entry.

What’s the point of having a GRC if you don’t carry it.
Are you saying they’re pointless and won’t stop people lying about their birth sex to enable them to go where they shouldn’t?

Glorianny

Interesting two conflicting answers one which blames men and thinks people will carry a GRC with them (they don't their passports etc are corrected to designate them as the gender they have changed to).
One saying some transwomen will get into female spaces but some shouldn't.
Just proves it isn't just politicians who don't really know what to do.

I said I didn’t know what to do - what would you do that prevent men from being in women’s spaces and keep you happy? It’s not me who wants to overturn hundreds of years of custom and practice, is it?

I knew as soon as I started typing my last post that you would pick holes in it and use that as your reason to deny women and girls their rights to safety and dignity.

I'm not denying anyone the right to safety and dignity Doodledog and I did think you were against snide remarks, but not when they suit I see.
I just want to know how it will work.
The laws on shoplifting are clear (although interestingly I was told by a shopkeeper that children about the age of 11 are now shoplifting small amounts quite openly because they know that the police will not take action in such cases)
I just can't see how any law which restricts entry to a space on the grounds of natal sex can operate. And I don't think you can either.

It would be difficult to police in casual spaces like changing rooms perhaps.

HoweverI would expect anyone who wanted the shelter of women’s refuge to be in favour of a ruling that male bodied individuals would not be allowed and to be reassured that proof was required.

It would be an individuals choice not to provide that proof and to decide not to use the refuge.

It would also be very possible to refuse male bodied people a place in female sports.

When I say make- bodied I’m not just talking about genitalia but also about the disproportionate body strength that makes males a threat to women.

As I said I’d be interested in Labour elaborating on their policy.

Lathyrus
disproportionate body strength that makes males a threat to women.

Oooh Lathyrus
Expect to be told about people’s tall, muscular, deep voiced friends, possibly even venturing further.
The TW who have caused this problem, (together with their support from TRA) show no remorse for the problems they have caused to females AND to TW who don’t see themselves as entitled to all things specifically female.

Females can be tall, muscular, athletic, whatever and they will still not have the strength of a quite ordinary man.

Those Hollywood movies of women besting men in a fight are just fantasy.

Lathyrus

Females can be tall, muscular, athletic, whatever and they will still not have the strength of a quite ordinary man.
Of course.
But it will be used as an excuse for saying “you can’t tell if a TW is trying to access female spaces by purporting to be female.

I'm not denying anyone the right to safety and dignity Doodledog and I did think you were against snide remarks, but not when they suit I see.

It is not 'snide' to say that I knew as soon as I started my post that it would be against me - it's happened so often before. You ask an impossible question, then pick holes in the answer. Basically setting people up to fail. Then when someone else offered a different suggestion, the fact that mine and hers are different is used to say that we don't know what we want.

It is not up to me (or any other member of the public) to find a way to keep women and girls safe whilst simultaneously letting men do what they please. Let the men who want to do it find a way, ask if women are ok with that and take it from there. That's the usual way when someone wants to take something from someone else (in this case the right to safety and dignity in specific circumstances when we are vulnerable). You don't just take it by force, then say 'well, you find a way to let me keep it that will meet with your approval', do you?

Doodledog

*I'm not denying anyone the right to safety and dignity Doodledog and I did think you were against snide remarks, but not when they suit I see.*

It is not 'snide' to say that I knew as soon as I started my post that it would be against me - it's happened so often before. You ask an impossible question, then pick holes in the answer. Basically setting people up to fail. Then when someone else offered a different suggestion, the fact that mine and hers are different is used to say that we don't know what we want.

It is not up to me (or any other member of the public) to find a way to keep women and girls safe whilst simultaneously letting men do what they please. Let the men who want to do it find a way, ask if women are ok with that and take it from there. That's the usual way when someone wants to take something from someone else (in this case the right to safety and dignity in specific circumstances when we are vulnerable). You don't just take it by force, then say 'well, you find a way to let me keep it that will meet with your approval', do you?

This is the reason politics in this country is basically fucked. In a democracy responsibility for law and order rests ultimately with the public and so with the individual. Reneging on that responsibility, passing the buck or whatever you want to call it, saying it's nothing to do with me" is just the same as saying "I don't vote" or "the parties are all the same".
If you believe something needs to be done and it is a vital issue then at least take a little time to work out how this will be implemented.
Politicians are just your elected representatives. They are not gods. They act under your instructions and requirements.
Now I'm out because just as I always suspected the anti-trans lobby are not logical, have really no concept of what they want and no idea how anything they want will work.

Can't you see that it is you who is passing the buck?

You want something that doesn't work, and you also want the women who are being pushed out to find a way to make it happen for men. And biological realists (who are not anti-trans) are illogical? Words fail me!

Doodledog

Can't you see that it is you who is passing the buck?

You want something that doesn't work, and you also want the women who are being pushed out to find a way to make it happen for men. And biological realists (who are not anti-trans) are illogical? Words fail me!

I'm not passing any buck. I believe the law as it is is quite acceptable. I believe women are not always victims.
If you have a way of implementing something you believe will keep women safer without victimising anyone, without imposing unacceptable restrictions on anyone, without damaging anyone then am quite willing to look at those proposals. What I'm not willing to do is accept pie-in-the-sky views which say there is a problem but has no real concept of what is needed. Because that is simply leaving the door open to damaging legislation which will restrict the freedoms of anyone who chooses to be slightly different, and that includes women.

But it's not about what you believe, any more than I am likely to be asked to solve the problem.

If (and it's a big 'if') Starmer means it when he says he knows that women are AHFs, and if he means that 'safe spaces' are single sex spaces for women and girls, then something will have to change. I'd like to see what the trans lobby want to happen, and hope for some sensible suggestions that can keep everyone happy, but suspect that there will just be hissy fits and metaphorical toys thrown out of prams, as usually happens when some men find that women refuse to accommodate them, or to do their thinking for them.

Doodledog

But it's not about what you believe, any more than I am likely to be asked to solve the problem.

If (and it's a big 'if') Starmer means it when he says he knows that women are AHFs, and if he means that 'safe spaces' are single sex spaces for women and girls, then something will have to change. I'd like to see what the trans lobby want to happen, and hope for some sensible suggestions that can keep everyone happy, but suspect that there will just be hissy fits and metaphorical toys thrown out of prams, as usually happens when some men find that women refuse to accommodate them, or to do their thinking for them.

Why do you insist on pretending it's only men who find the discriminatory views of some worrying? Many women worry about how this will impact on women who do not conform to standards of femininity and are a bit different looking. We think it isn't possible to always easily judge gender and we recognise that for some extremists this issue simply presents an opportunity to introduce more restrictions and limitations which will damage women.

“If you have a way of implementing something ..without victimising anyone, without imposing unacceptable restrictions on anyone, without damaging anyone, then I am quite willing to look at it.”

But isn’t this exactly what we are saying to the trans activists.

And yet you absolve them of all responsibility and expect this of those who are being victimised, restricted and damaged.

This is why “reasonable “ just doesn’t work☹️

So what do you think should be done about it if we go back to women meaning AHF? Saying that you don't believe there is a need for change isn't an answer. If change has to happen, what form do you think it should take? The same question you asked me, really.

And I don't 'pretend' anything. Please stop it. You accuse me of making 'snide' comments which were absolutely upfront, yet passively call me anti-trans and accuse me of pretending and being discriminatory. I'm not. I just want women's spaces for women.

I don't think it is only men who are worried - I think that it is men who have imposed themselves into women's spaces, so it should be men who should come up with a way around it if this is stopped. Why is that so difficult?

Before you mention transmen - I will say again that they pose no threat to women, and very few will be a threat to men.

I have never seen a woman who is so 'different looking' that she has suffered from restrictions and limitations, so can't say much about that. I would imagine that people in that position must be very thin on the ground, though.

Also. It is the deliberate flaunters of maleness who insist on being in women's spaces who are the problem. As I said upthread, it's the Eddie Izzards, not the Hayley Croppers who have brought things to this pass. The men in the Women's Poetry awards, and the Vagina Museum. The boy trying on prom dresses on a busy Saturday afternoon in a communal changing room. The man in the parent and toddler swimming session's women's changing room where my friend took her child. And so on.

Lathyrus

“If you have a way of implementing something ..without victimising anyone, without imposing unacceptable restrictions on anyone, without damaging anyone, then I am quite willing to look at it.”

But isn’t this exactly what we are saying to the trans activists.

And yet you absolve them of all responsibility and expect this of those who are being victimised, restricted and damaged.

This is why “reasonable “ just doesn’t work☹️

Yes, Lathyrus. It's unbelievable, isn't it?

The law as it stands is completely reasonable. How am I supposed to say anything about a problem I do not recognise? Are there times when it isn't applied properly -undoubtedly, but that still doesn't mean I have to say how it should be changed because I don't believe it should be.
I absolve no one of responsibility. I simply don't recognise these transactivists as existing or of being as organised or as damaging as some seem to think.
There are undoubtedly men who will take any approach to damage women, but just as I think not all police officers are rapists and murderers, because some are, I don't think transwomen are all rapists and murderers, although some may be. I would not make law which says all men cannot be police officers, nor would I make a law which said all transwomen must be banned from all women's spaces.
I trust the people who run refuges to risk assess the people who use them and I think women are well able to decide who they want in their spaces and should be able to make that decision for themselves and not be dictated to by people who have discriminatory views.

Oh well, there we are.

“I don’t recognise it as happening.”

🤷🏽‍♀️🙈🙉

All the more convinced that “reasonable” won’t work😬

Glorianny says Why do you insist on pretending it's only men who find the discriminatory views of some worrying?

What does that mean? It doesn’t make sense.
Who is this We you refer to?
Many women worry about how this will impact on women who do not conform to standards of femininity and are a bit different looking.

That’s a bit sexist -saying females have to conform to standards . . . etc. Are those standards defined by you Glorianny?

But Feminists who are working hard to prevent males from having access to female safe spaces understand how difficult it is better than anyone.

The TW who gave rise to this issue in the first place certainly don’t care.

So you (Glorianny) don't think the law should change, and therefore you don't feel obliged to say how it could accommodate the people of your own sex who do feel unsafe with having men in their safe spaces?

And if/when it does have to change, and there is no other solution than banning male-bodied people from women's spaces, because nobody else on the trans lobby has even started to think about anything more useful either, you'll be ok with that?

As I've said 1000 times before, all I want is to know that women can have spaces where only other women are allowed, and where any man going in will be stopped from assaulting anyone, (as happened to my friend) because someone will see he's a man and raise the alarm. The more we get used to men telling us they are women and they will access all areas whether we like it or not, the more change there is that that will happen again.

VioletSky

Yes, exactly why I support Labour, moderate fair approach

If ever I needed another good reason not to vote Labour (which I don't as I have enough already) this would be it!

I read on Twitter this morning that Keir Starmer personally confirms that Labour has abandoned its commitment to trans rights, stating that "a woman is an adult female".

He also ruled out self-ID for trans people.

Perhaps not the “moderate and fair approach” that certain people were hoping for.

My view is that when someone show you who they are, the best course of action is to believe them. Dodds is a “trans” rights activist and misogynist so I'll not trust her in any sphere, but especially when it comes to women's rights and the safeguarding of children.

Starmer has been moving in this direction for some time. Whether he can take some of his cabinet with him is another matter. An upcoming election certainly focuses the mind. Wes Streeting managed to answer the what is a woman question clearly some months ago but we seem to have got there in the end.

He hasn’t ruled out self-id. He is making it easier to get a GRC by cutting down on the number of doctors who need to sign one. As has been said, he accepts that a woman is an AHF, but hasn’t defined a transwoman - does he think that they are women too? His stance on safe spaces and whether they should be single-sex is unclear too. Safe and single-sex are not the same thing.

We need to know more, I think. This interview comes at the start of the parliamentary recess. There are no PMQs, no Keunssberg or Peston for weeks. When he faces more rigorous questioning we will have a better idea of what this all means. As yet, I see it as a step in the right direction, but we need more details.