Labour’s policy on the Trans issue

Whitewavemark2

Anneliese Dodds

We need to recognise that sex and gender are different – as the Equality Act does. We will make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access. Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services.

I am not hugely knowledgable about this area, but it seems a sensible policy.

I don't think anyone can be "hugely knowledgeable" in this area but knowing what you don't know is always a good starting place.

The LP have had some sort of Conference on policy, haven't they, so it was good they sorted out their policy on this.

If ID cards come in, they could have both sex and 'gender' marked on them, so that everyone carried proof. Clearly, every loo and changing room is not going to have someone on the door checking the cards, but that really isn't necessary 99% of the time.

If someone wanted to challenge a transwoman who was causing an issue in a changing room or loo, they could ask a member of staff to deal with it, and the staff member would have the authority to ask someone who is male-bodied to leave. As it is now, he just has to say he's a woman, and many believe that he has a right to go wherever he likes. It would probably rarely happen, as it would deter vexatious attempts to exert power over women who have few routes by which to fight back.

Yes, it might be a bit awkward for someone being challenged, but if the problem of 'different-looking' women is widespread enough for 'some of us' to want to have the whole law skewed in their favour, everyone would get used to seeing challenges, and it would be no more unusual than seeing 30 year olds getting challenged when they buy alcohol.

A perfect solution? Probably not, but at least I am trying to find them, which is more than can be said for those who are happy with men being able to access women's spaces.

Glorianny, Your constant reiteration of how can they tell statements makes it obvious to me that you personally don’t care that males use female safe spaces.
Fortunately others do care.

They need to say that as sex and gender are different, a GRC means that the holder has changed ‘gender’, which exists in the mind. They have not, however, changed sex, which is in the body. This means that sex-based restrictions (such as access to certain spaces) should still apply.

As is the case already, transpeople have exactly the same rights as everyone else, plus the protections afforded by the EA, and that should not change.

I think that most people would be happy with that.

It’s finally dawned on them that failure to recognise biological facts will alienate a lot of female voters.

Doodledog

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.

Well if we ban "male bodied" (honestly how is anyone supposed to know???) people from women's spaces, presumably all the notices in facilities which say they are serviced by male and female operatives will have to go.

I too want women to be safe but I'm not naive enough to believe that any law which bans "male bodied" people from any facility will stop anyone intent on causing harm. And I'm sensible enough to know there are transmen who apparently would either need to prove their physical attributes every time they use a facility or use the male facilities (but why on earth should they be permitted to do so? Equality and all that). And that predatory men could enter a women's space by saying they were transmen. So actually there is no question of me not caring about women's safety. I simply don't see that the law can adequately protect all spaces. And claiming to care about women's safety but not actually looking at the details of what is needed or the practicalities involved is as much use as the proverbial chocolate fireguard.

This seems to be the philosophy
Transwomen if they pass can enter a changing room or loo, because no one really is going to challenge them
Anyone who looks a bit different (and I have no idea how this will be decided or who will decide) can be challenged and must prove they are not "male bodied"
Transwomen are men and must use men's facilities
Transmen are women and must use women's
But how this will be implemented no one knows!!

Starmer does seem to have wised up a little. He has, actually, said, on LBC, that a woman is an adult female, and the self ID is not the right way to go.

It's a small step forward.

www.lbc.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-woman-adult-female-trans-labour-party/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Oh well, there we are.

“I don’t recognise it as happening.”

🤷🏽‍♀️🙈🙉

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.

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?

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.

“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☹️

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.

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

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.

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

*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.

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?

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.