Labour’s policy on the Trans issue

Galaxy

The thing is I know its infuriating but we have to acknowledge it when people change their mind. I dont know that stating but we have been saying this for years and you watched whilst women lost their jobs and children were harmed is helpful. We have to give people a way out from the nonsense.

I agree with this.

I am cynical, yes (who wouldn't be?) but it is a start, and if Streeting is shouted down nobody else will speak up. The more the conversation develops without people shouting 'but you said. . .' the more biological reality will be seen as the default, as it was for millennia before Stonewall shook it all up.

I would love to see the language de-obfuscated (if that's not a word it should be ) and go back to knowing what someone is talking about when they use the word 'woman'. I would also love for women and girls to be able to go about their lives knowing that if somewhere has 'Ladies' on the door they will not find men in there, and it won't be up to women to deal with it. And for the very few times that women have something for themselves, such as women's shortlists, prizes for achievements, sporting entry classes, feminist meetings, Girl Guides or the WI, I would like to go back to the days when it was up to the members to decide whether to remain exclusive or not, and not to be derided or threatened for even trying to discuss it.

I would also like to be sure that children are not being encouraged to consider whether or not the body they 'are in' is the 'right one', but to learn to love the people they are, whatever sex that may be, and to be free to adopt whichever so-called 'gender' norms as they wish.

Basically, to roll the clock back a bit. Then we might be able to find a way for the very few people like the late April Ashley who have always felt that they would be happier being the opposite sex can be fully supported. I really feel for them in this situation, too.

I doubt any university applicant considers the Diversity Champion status of a university before applying for a place. Would an applicant refuse a place at a Russell Group university if it lost such a status. I very much doubt it.

I would love to see the language de-obfuscated (if that's not a word it should be grin) and go back to knowing what someone is talking about when they use the word 'woman'. I would also love for women and girls to be able to go about their lives knowing that if somewhere has 'Ladies' on the door they will not find men in there, and it won't be up to women to deal with it. And for the very few times that women have something for themselves, such as women's shortlists, prizes for achievements, sporting entry classes, feminist meetings, Girl Guides or the WI, I would like to go back to the days when it was up to the members to decide whether to remain exclusive or not, and not to be derided or threatened for even trying to discuss it.

Problem is, Dd, that women have been battering at the door of exclusively male institutions for getting on for nearly 200 years now. 'Male' professions, the legislature, 'male' clubs, 'male' sports etc. it could be argued (not by me, I hasten to add) that women demanding a right to exclude some people on the basis of their sex is rather hypocritical.

I take your point, but women's groups such as I describe are single sex for safety reasons (with the possible exception of the WI). It's not the same as not allowing men into bars, or insisting on their being accompanied by a woman.

You do make a valid point Maizie but in addition to Doodledog's post I would add that it's not the same as men competing against women in sports, where their biological physiology gives them an advantage when it comes to strength, and strength is a key factor.

I don't disagree with either of you, Dd and Smileless. It just seemed to me that that was an argument that some might use.

I have said over and over that if someone wants to join my knitting group (as an example) I don't care if they are male or female, and whether whatever sex they are I don't care if they wear a dress or a shirt and tie, or anything in between.

I care if a male-bodied person is in a changing room, and if they have access to Ladies' loos in public places such as bars, where they are often away from sources of help. I care if they are on rugby teams where they can hurt female players, and if they access women's sleeping areas (eg girl guides, in hospitals, and prisons). I care if they intimidate women by insisting on attending feminist meetings or meetings for lesbians, and if they push into shortlists and prizes for women - which were set up because of female disadvantage.

There are not many female spaces, and I don't think it is hypocritical to want to protect the ones that are there for safety reasons.

So does a man wishing to transition, then manage to live as a woman for two years or whatever is required by the doctors to qualify for gender reassignment surgery, without being able to access a ladies loo?

Not for me to say, really. Why are these things pushed onto women to decide? What does the man think would be a good idea, and how would he ensure that there was no risk to the women whose sex he wants to become part of? I am thinking of protection for women and girls - the men who want to transition are thinking of men's wants.

There are also women who want to transition and have to live as men for two years. Which loo should they use?

The Atlantic has a piece in it this week about how the gender war is over in Britain, focusing on Keir Starmer’s latest position.

www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/uk-trans-rights-labour-party/674944/

varian

There are also women who want to transition and have to live as men for two years. Which loo should they use?

As I keep saying I think that everyone should use facilities in line with their sex, not their so-called ‘gender’, and if people want to do otherwise they should come up with solutions. If transwomen want to use male facilities they should ask men what they think and come up with an acceptable solution. It’s none of my business. I am only talking about safe spaces here. Places where women and girls are vulnerable. I don’t know why that’s hard to understand.

We also should challenge the weirdly sexist ideas that have been aired by those in the medical profession, what kn earth does living as a woman mean. Its sexist nonsense. If I never use a public toilet again I will still be a woman.

Absolutely.

Perhaps anyone transitioning should use the disabled loo. Would that solve the problem?

People with disabilities fought very hard for those facilities. I wont forget the day I watched an incredibly entitled woman explaining to a woman in the wheelchair that she had used the disabled toilet as she had a corset on that was really hard to remove. The woman in the wheelchair showed more restraint than I would have been capable of.
Either provide an enclosed cubicle with sink or provide single sex and gender neutral toilets.

Disabled loos are usually in the Ladies, as are the baby change facilities, so women, who take longer anyway, have to wait even longer to use them, which gets worse when they are also designated ’gender neutral’.

Why not have male and female ones, and fight for acceptance of transpeople as transpeople, not pretend they have changed sex.

The woman, who had her (important) operation cancelled, has told her story. She's doing it, as she's retired, is legally trained, and says she has nothing to lose by speaking out:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12398959/Retired-solicitor-left-deaths-door-surgery-cancelled-dared-object-trans-woman-nurse-hospital-room-tells-shocking-story-vowing-cancel-Im-not-scared-speak-out.html

That story is disgraceful. It is further evidence that this issue is not confined to a few militants, and what happens when institutions get 'captured' by the Stonewall agenda. If a hospital will cancel an important operation, and people who speak out are cancelled or lose their careers, what more needs to happen before people stop seeing this as about 'kindness' and 'authentic selves'?

No, it was shocking, and there was no actual need for this person to even be in the room.

The patient was already being dealt with by someone else..

I'm surprised actually, as I thought private hospitals had a bit more common sense.

They lost money, and the patient ended up on the NHS, very ill.

The NHS hospital respected her wishes.

Doodledog

That story is disgraceful. It is further evidence that this issue is not confined to a few militants, and what happens when institutions get 'captured' by the Stonewall agenda. If a hospital will cancel an important operation, and people who speak out are cancelled or lose their careers, what more needs to happen before people stop seeing this as about 'kindness' and 'authentic selves'?

Was it kind to cancel her operation, putting her health and possibly her life, at risk?

The person who entered the room had no need to be there, it was a provocative act and their "hurt" feelings do not trump those of a patient awaiting an operation.

It's worrying that, the more we are failed by long NHS waiting lists, the more people seek private care and therefore risk being left untreated if they do not agree with the politically correct policies of the private system.

Maxine Estop Green, the hospital’s CEO, is denying someone vital healthcare, is discriminating against the patient and possibly breaking the law.

Is the form patients are required to complete in fact legal?

There are far more urgent matters to deal with - the overall mess left by the Tories - housing, the cost of living, ineffective energy policy, etc., - than the concerns of a small minority. Labour's prime task now is to gain power at the GE and avoid being monstered by the Tory press.

Yes, there are urgent priorities. But, I'm not sure biological women, and their concerns, should be classed as a small minority.

There are several issues that make me decide who to vote for.

Who do you see as ‘a small minority’, Grantanow? The 50% or so of the population who are women, or the tiny percentage who actually suffer from clinical gender dysphoria? Which rights do you see as more important here? Sorry, but it’s not clear from your post.

The one good thing with the increased publicity the trans activists have generated, with protests etc. is that more people, especially biological women, are aware of what's going on.

Where voting is concerned, I would never vote Tory, but unless Labour sort themselves out with all this, and clarify what they will do, I won't be voting for Labour either.

To be fair, Starmer does seem to be backtracking a bit, because he's realised that it will turn some voters away if he doesn't.

The issue is important to me, alongside other things.