Labour’s policy on the Trans issue

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.

The thing is both “sides” think they are “reasonable, in that they can give reasons for their stance. You only have to look at some of the trans threads on here.

I don't think the trans lobby can give reasons for their stance. No-one has ever explained what 'feeling like a woman' means. Or 'being in the wrong body'. Or what the difference is between a male-bodied transwoman and a man in a dress. Those questions have been asked over and over (amongst others) but never answered.

The thing is both “sides” think they are “reasonable, in that they can give reasons for their stance. You only have to look at some of the trans threads on here.

Take do

Starmer has spoken up about the matter - 'A woman is an adult human female'

Time will tell whether his interpretation of 'female' is someone who is born a baby human female, but this could be another step in the right direction.

Cynical, maybe (and I won't forget that had the tide not turned recently he may have been prepared to sell women out), but my cautious optimism is becoming a little bit less cautious.

Lathyrus

It does but as always the devil is in the detail. I’d like to see those “biological women only” spaces specified before I believe they have a real grasp of the issues and will “defend” those spaces. it rather meaningless.

“Reasonable “ is a subjective concept.

I don't think 'reasonable' is a subjective concept. It means that something can be arrived at by reasoning from A to B. It does not mean that something is broadly acceptable to most people which is how it is often misused.

‘alp’ should read ‘Labour Party’ 😡

I agree that it is shocking that a minority has come to wield such power, but the fact is that had the alp stood up to Stonewall in its heyday they would have been accused of transphobia (and possibly the rest of the script that includes racism and homophobia) and there would be people who would have believed it.

I could be wrong of course, but I have always found it impossible to believe that intelligent people couldn’t understand basic biology, so kept the faith that a measured and balanced approach would be taken when they get in. All we can do is hope.

It is a shocking thing that a politician of whatever party is nervous about expressing beliefs on the issues of sex and gender, because of the backlash that will follow.

Having seen the idiotic behaviour of Alison Rose with regard to gender identification in NatWest Banks, anything is possible.

I agree, freya. But the trans lobby is everywhere - or was, and could have made it difficult for Labour to get elected. Many people believed that JKR was transphobic, for example, but couldn’t explain why. Councils and universities were worried about losing Diversity Champion status.

More people are waking up to it now though, and cutting ties.

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.

That is what concerns me, and will do many I would think. Any faction, ie that threatens not to support any Government should be ignored. Minority threats cannot be allowed, nor should they, to hold sway over any elected Government.

MerylStreep

Let me think 🤔
Ok, I’ve thought. Yes yes yes.

😂

That’s the big question Callistemon. They have tried to appease the trans lobby for so long that it’s hard to know what they actually think. Now the focus groups will have shown how many women feel disenfranchised by the antifeminism they have shifted a bit.

I am sticking with cautious optimism as the alternative is the Tories, who aren’t feminist either, but are also detrimental to the poor, the sick and to the country as a whole.

Let me think 🤔
Ok, I’ve thought. Yes yes yes.

MerylStreep

I think they talk with forked tongue. 😡

Do you think they will change tack if they get in?

Mollygo

^Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services.^
My concern is that their “defence” will be expressed in the same way as has been expressed elsewhere, i.e. it would be up to females to complain when males are in those female single sex places.

Yes, the devil is always in the detail. I think they are treading a fine line between sounding sensible to feminists and accommodating to the trans lobby. It’s tricky.

I also note that they want to ‘simplify’ getting a GRC by changing from needing a panel to having one doctor sign it off. Again - it seems sensible, but will these doctors be specially trained and neutral, or will there be some sort of register of sympathetic doctors who will sign off anyone who wants one? Time will tell, but it seems that the tide is turning.

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.

Lathyrus

Indeed. Transmen can have cervixes (cerviii?)

Transwomen can have penises.

Because that is who they are transmen and *transwomen”.

Exactly. As I’m sure you know, Glorianny.

I think they talk with forked tongue. 😡

Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services.
My concern is that their “defence” will be expressed in the same way as has been expressed elsewhere, i.e. it would be up to females to complain when males are in those female single sex places.

Annaliese Dodds' article seemed sensible to me. She seemed to have a proper grasp of what a lot of other women are thinking (not surprising, as she is one...).

Indeed. Transmen can have cervixes (cerviii?)

Transwomen can have penises.

Because that is who they are transmen and *transwomen”.

Doodledog

My default stance tends to be ‘cautiously optimistic’, and that’s how I feel about this. I have never fully believed that senior Labour figures don’t know what a woman is, or think that men can have cervixes - they have been worried about alienating the vocal minority, but now the election is getting closer they realise that they can’t carry on as they are. It’s not a good look really, but I can understand why they have taken a pragmatic approach.

Transmen can have cervixes.

Well. They seem to be dropping the self-identify idea.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66299705

My default stance tends to be ‘cautiously optimistic’, and that’s how I feel about this. I have never fully believed that senior Labour figures don’t know what a woman is, or think that men can have cervixes - they have been worried about alienating the vocal minority, but now the election is getting closer they realise that they can’t carry on as they are. It’s not a good look really, but I can understand why they have taken a pragmatic approach.

What is the agreed Tory stance on this?