Labour’s policy on the Trans issue

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
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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

It should be made clear on a GRC whether or not the holder has had surgery re their gender change. It should also show the birth sex and state that the person remains that sex, regardless of their gender recognition.
You might not want to declare your birth sex before entry to facilities for females when asked.
Males certainly wouldn’t want to admit they were male if they were trying to enter female facilities and males doing exactly that has caused the need to ask.
So thank men for causing your problem.

Glorianny

The problem is that you cannot legislate for certain spaces without imposing unnecessary and intrusive processes on all people which some women will object to. I certainly would object if a local sports centre demanded to know my natal gender, it would be female but why should I have to explain that to anyone? What you are then saying is that because you fear that some person may insinuate themselves into a certain space all women must conform and produce evidence to prove they are women. Sorry but that is really not advancing the cause of feminism at all, quite the opposite.
So how would you designate these spaces? How would you ensure only ADF entered them and what would you do to any person who infringed that.
I know the reply will be as always "It isn't up to me" but in my opinion asking for a policy with no clear idea of how it will be applied is simply irresponsible. If you have no idea why should any of our politicians know?

Is ADF a typo or another acronym?

I don't think it is up to me to solve this, any more than it is up to me to tell people how to ensure shoplifters don't shoplift, or smugglers don't smuggle. I'm not asking for a new policy, but a return to what has been custom and practice for many years.

How did it work before?

There would have been a very few transwomen in female spaces. They would be trying to 'pass' and unlikely to want to draw attention to themselves, so highly unlikely to cause any issues, and very few people would care. On the whole, women and girls go to the Ladies to relieve themselves, touch up their make-up, and maybe get away from men. If there were transwomen there they would not have had beards, leggings showing that they were obviously male, and would not have been aggressive. If a woman felt uncomfortable she could have asked for help from staff and be assumed to be right, rather than called transphobic and have the manager insist that the transwoman has a right to try on prom dresses in a changing room full of Muslim girls.

These are the sorts of people women object to, as we have said all along. There has not been a huge swell of transphobia, although as we have also said all along, the posturing blokes in frocks haven't helped the trans cause at all.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't care if Hayley from Corrie was in the Ladies in her red coat, but I would not be happy with Eddie Izzard prancing about frightening teenagers.

The idea that Ladies Rooms should accommodate transwomen and the 'gender-neutral' means that our facilities are even more crowded than before - that should stop, IMO. Where there are changes to existing facilities, the Gents should accommodate male-bodied transwomen, and unisex loos should be proportional to the number of people with GRCs - not one on every floor in a university.

That may or may not work - I am not a Building Services Manager.

I also think that groups such as the WI should have the right to refuse entry to men - again, that could go back to being discretionary as was always the case.

The problem is that you cannot legislate for certain spaces without imposing unnecessary and intrusive processes on all people which some women will object to. I certainly would object if a local sports centre demanded to know my natal gender, it would be female but why should I have to explain that to anyone? What you are then saying is that because you fear that some person may insinuate themselves into a certain space all women must conform and produce evidence to prove they are women. Sorry but that is really not advancing the cause of feminism at all, quite the opposite.
So how would you designate these spaces? How would you ensure only ADF entered them and what would you do to any person who infringed that.
I know the reply will be as always "It isn't up to me" but in my opinion asking for a policy with no clear idea of how it will be applied is simply irresponsible. If you have no idea why should any of our politicians know?

Will they be simplyfiing the process of applying for disability benefits too, or can they remain ccomplicated?

I don’t trust them. I have seen and heard too much over the last 5 years.

Yep. Just as saying that a woman is an AHF doesn't mean a lot without saying what he thinks a transwoman is.

They only have to list the “spaces” that they think reasonable for biological women only, for there to be clear understanding of the policy.

If there’s no specifics there’s no meaningful policy.

MerylStreep

Whitewavemark2

MerylStreep

They can promise all they want, but, wait until they get into power and certain factions threaten not to support them unless they do as they dictate.

Rather like Sunak, Johnson, May etc. all in thrall to the right of their party.

You’re perfectly correct. That’s why I won’t be voting for any party.

Your call of course, but then you will be giving your vote to whichever party has the best chance in your constituency, so you are, effectively voting in absentia.

Whitewavemark2

MerylStreep

They can promise all they want, but, wait until they get into power and certain factions threaten not to support them unless they do as they dictate.

Rather like Sunak, Johnson, May etc. all in thrall to the right of their party.

You’re perfectly correct. That’s why I won’t be voting for any party.

VioletSky

Yes, exactly why I support Labour, moderate fair approach

Do you have insider knowledge of what the ambiguous terms mean, then? I also support Labour, but am unsure about some of it, for the reasons I've stated.

Yes, exactly why I support Labour, moderate fair approach

Lathyrus

No, not in my opinion either. It was an argument that has been advanced several times on the trans threads.

I think I was trying to show that Grantanowsvoncept of reason taking you inevitably from A to B doesn’t always work.

So “reasonable for biological women “ is a very woolly statement.

I know what you're getting at, but again, I've yet to see coherent reasons for accepting that anyone who says they are a woman is one.

Despite my cautious optimism I am still a bit cynical. Whilst I can see the point of simplifying the process for a GRC, I wonder whether the need for just one doctor will result in clinics staffed by trans supporters dishing them out to all applicants. I am also unsure about the use of the term, 'safe spaces' instead of 'single sex spaces'. Where it doesn't matter if men are in women's spaces they are just 'public'. It's only necessary for them to be single sex when it is not safe for men to be there.

No, not in my opinion either. It was an argument that has been advanced several times on the trans threads.

I think I was trying to show that Grantanowsvoncept of reason taking you inevitably from A to B doesn’t always work.

So “reasonable for biological women “ is a very woolly statement.

Lathyrus

Fat finger

Take sport

Transwomen should not compete in women’s events because they have a physical advantage through being male,

All competitive sports relies on one person being physically superior in some way to another. Transwomen should not be excluded on the grounds of physical superiority.

There both quite reasonable arguments in terms of logic.

Not in my opinion. Testosterone undoubtedly gives a male an advantage. At puberty, their heart, lung, muscle mass becomes much larger than the female. If they subsequently decide to trans they retain that advantage and it is entirely unfair. How many trans female to male take part in competing sport alongside men?

I would like to think that Labour have changed stance on this issue but will reserve judgement till after the GE.
Strangely I have little faith in what politicians say this close to an election.

Yes, but transwomen (aka men) competing against women means that women are at a huge disadvantage, and removes the point of having women's sport.

Why not just have one team, with men and women in it, or races with both sexes competing? Men would win most of the time, of course, but who cares about that?

MerylStreep

They can promise all they want, but, wait until they get into power and certain factions threaten not to support them unless they do as they dictate.

Rather like Sunak, Johnson, May etc. all in thrall to the right of their party.