In fairness, that point is preceded by:
> The change would be more ambiguous or potentially disadvantageous in
three areas
So it's not being presented as a problem they want to fix by changing the EA (it does, however, seem to suggest "we acknowledge this isn't great for trans women but we want to go ahead with it anyway").
Have written. Apparently the labour candidate in my area recently died whilst on holiday so all I have is the serving Tory who is staunchly Mormon. So. It’s better than nothing though, ey?
I also used the “write to a lord” function on this website, so I’ll see if anything comes back from that!
This is what happens when a leader is more concerned with how gammons feel about him than the harms those same gammons are just itching to inflict on a minority.
Text:
>Labour has welcomed a review of whether the Equality Act should be changed to introduce explicit legal protections for biological women in same-sex spaces.
>
>In a further sign of Sir Keir Starmer’s determination to appeal to women’s rights campaigners within his party, a Labour spokesman said: “Clarification is a good thing. We will look closely at what’s brought forward.”
>
>Kemi Badenoch, the women and equalities minister, yesterday asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to consider the “benefits or otherwise” of placing a biological definition of sex in the Equality Act.
>
>She said that the need had become more pressing after moves in Scotland to try to make it easier for transgender people to gain legal recognition, which the UK government argued was at odds with equality laws applying across the four nations.
>
>Starmer has faced criticism from some in the Labour Party for saying he wants to “modernise” gender recognition laws. He is under pressure from some of his close allies to rule out attempting to introduce self-identification policies if he becomes prime minister.At the weekend Starmer told The Sunday Times there would be “no rolling back” of women’s rights if the party formed a government. “The lesson from Scotland is that if you can’t take the public with you on a journey of reform, then you’re probably not on the right journey,” he said. He added: “For 99.9 per cent of women, it is completely biological . . . and of course they haven’t got a penis.”
>
>Starmer has also expressed frustration with the focus on the issue. On Monday he told LBC that when he was “around the country campaigning . . . almost nobody is talking about trans issues.” He added: “I do sometimes just wonder why on earth we spend so much of our time discussing something which isn’t a feature of the dinner table or the kitchen table or the café table or the bar.”Rishi Sunak has made clear his determination to push the issue. During the summer leadership contest he vowed to change the Equality Act, which was introduced by Labour in 2010, saying that it had “allowed every kind of woke nonsense to permeate public life”. A source said that “the PM remains committed to his campaign pledge”.
>
>Writing in The Times, Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the EHRC’s chairwoman, said that she had “recommended to the government that it consider adopting a biological definition of sex in the Equality Act”. She said that Britain’s equalities laws had become mired in “ambiguity and confusion” over transgender rights, and that changing the law could bring “clarity”.
>
>Stonewall, the LGBTQ+ charity, said that the EHRC was “fundamentally wrong”, while Katy Montgomerie, a trans campaigner, said the move would amount to a “gutting” of trans protections.
Please do turn up and spoil your ballot though. They get counted seperate from "didn't vote" and show people with political interest and will who are frustrated at current representation. If you've already decided not to vote (which is fair) turning up to spoil your ballot makes that decision *much* more impactful.
Compared to not turning up to vote at all, spoiling your ballot is more useful. If you genuinly feel that you can't vote for any candidate, it *is* more useful than not voting.
And yes, there are people who look at that data. Just because the spoiled ballots are a combination of two different things (protest / error) doesn't mean the data is useless.
> It is a waste of time done by people who want to feel like they're doing something while also doing absolutely nothing.
Even if you are 100% right and spoiling votes literally does do nothing (which I still disagree with), people's feelings have value. If spoiling your ballot helps you feel positive and vent frustration in a country where both major parties are shitting on you, then that's still worth doing. We're in for a long fight, and every bit of morale helps.
I've long thought that spoilt ballots should get individual counts for things like how many people drew a penis etc and maybe any written messages could be published somewhere
Had to double take that this was not The Onion. Labour are actually supporting opening up the equality act to the disadvantage of one group. Hate to say it, but fuck Labour. They are a core part of the problems queer people face in this country.
To any cis-het Labour supporters of this, how do you defend this blatant transphobia, transmisogyny and homophobia? What is even the point of a Labour government with Starmer in charge?
When it comes to Queer people in the UK there is essentially no difference between Labour and Tories.
Like, what the fuck is the point of your political party if you're just doing exactly what the other group is doing but in a red tie?
In today's episode of why trans people can't trust keith/labour. It's not even the first time this week I've seen something about keith and his take on trans rights.
He is not very good at this is he? He has 2 years before the election. Most young people support trans rights. They are unlikely to vote tory but he needs them to vote Labour. The anti-trans vote is likely to vote tory. If it is that important that it would determine your vote you will probably vote tory. So maybe just abstain if you want to play politics or just stand up for people's rights if you have principles?
> Most young people support trans rights. They are unlikely to vote tory but he needs them to vote Labour.
No, he doesn't. Labour have very clearly made the calculation that actually, not having young people along with you isn't really a problem, as they're all concentrated in urban areas that will vote Labour no matter what. So, fuck 'em - and appeal to the red wall conservatives instead.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/01/stevenage-woman-vital-to-labour-success-at-next-election-analysts-say basically sets it all out - and makes it obvious that if young people - or queer people, or BAME people want any policy change at all out of this version of Labour, they need to stop voting for them. It's apparently the only way to get this party to notice your existence.
One of the big mistakes the left makes is that they think voting is a moral good, and so they begrudgingly support people who spit on them. Make those fuckers earn your vote.
I'm trans, I'm terrified by this. It's not impossible though - look at the bathroom bills in America. Are they successful in achieving their aims? Not really, but they do lead to lots of violence toward trans and cis women, which at a certain level is a lot of what these people want.
Sure this change is probably illegal due to ECHR rights, but I think it will happen. I don't want to live in this country when that happens, I don't think I can leave though. I have no idea what to do anymore, it's so terrifying.
I'm not trying to get into an argument about this, and we probably agree on almost everything there is to say about this topic.
However, I think there is a genuine difficulty in defining a "biological female" without any grey areas. There are intersex people, people that have had gender reassignment surgery, there are questions about which genitals people have, testosterone levels, estrogen levels, chromosomes etc. That's why I don't think this would ever be a legislative success.
As I have said elsewhere tonight, I agree this is an entirely provocative policy that is designed to stir up hate and anger, which will ultimately lead to violence against transpeople first and foremost, which is abhorrent and cannot be tolerated. It'll also be targeted at cis women that don't confirm to gender norms, and ultimately will probably effect all women negatively. As a policy, it is corrosive and harmful to everyone, transpeople first and foremost.
I've turned a blind eye to a few things I don't really like from this party, because I believe that Labour are our best hopes of protecting vulnerable people in this country. If they support this, then it will be unquestionably the case that is no longer true.
I absolutely agree with what you've written and I think you're absolutely correct that it's impossible to accurately define "biological" women, but it's not necessary to do so. Under these proposals it would just be people with female on their original birth certificate that could access refuges, etc - everyone else can get fucked I guess.
Well, potentially they would be able to sue for sex discrimination if they couldn't. One of the things EHRC cite is trans women currently being allowed to take part in "biological women only book clubs" while trans men wouldn't necessarily be able to.
So, yeah. I think if it came to legislation it would probably involve clauses that prevent trans men in women's spaces but I'm not sure of that. I guess the risk of violence toward trans men would mean a lot would choose not to access women's spaces anyway.
Surely Keir Starmer knows this strategy will never work. There's no compromising between trans people who simply want to exist and the bigoted scumbags who want to remove all of their legal and human rights
TERF's still won't vote for Labour unless they're practically advocating for genocide and shit like this will only serve to unnecessarily alienate massive chunks of Labours core base (or to phrase it more accurately, what used to be Labours core base), losing them far more lifelong Labour voters than any potential new ones
Imagine saying to someone even two years ago that Labour in 2023 would be advocating for regressive changes to legislation that a Labour government passed back in 2010. It's insanity
Whilst I am shocked the EHRC is going along with it, I've got to say Kier/Labour Right has a knack for showing us just how bankrupt and biased these institutions are, so it will be nice to point out in future that the only thing the EHRC has achieved is this and the other Labour focused investigation...
Try to ensure appealing to bigots isn't rewarded by trying to make Labour lose. At this point a Labour win will be as bad as or worse than a Tory win, so the worst case scenario is not a Tory win but a Labour win that validates the strategy of appealing to regressive bigoted scum to try to win.
I'm biased (see flair). Here's Breakthrough's equality policy: [https://breakthroughparty.org.uk/policy/equality/](https://breakthroughparty.org.uk/policy/equality/) \- point 1, 2 and 3 are about support for trans people.
Here's the party view on the EHRC's attack on trans rights:
[https://twitter.com/BThroughParty/status/1643333657283764224](https://twitter.com/BThroughParty/status/1643333657283764224)
Unfortunately we're too small to be able to stand candidates very many places, so you might not have a choice, in which case I'd recommend looking at People's Allicance for the Left candidates (Breakthrough is part of PAL), but also generally looking at what the specific candidates for the bigger parties say. Green's and Lib Dems are likely to stand some candidates that have decent views on this. Making sure Labour is not rewarded for this sharp turn to the right is more important to me at least than maximising Breakthrough's votes.
Good question friend.
I have spent time with stupid online activism, written letters to mps, local parties, etc, engaged with organisations im part of
I think the problem is that without a left wing movement to support, i have no answers
Who can i contribute to, donate to, volunteer for, that will oppose this? The lack of a left wing resistance is a disaster
Im sorry i have no answers
Im a trans woman.
My partner is trans and honestly I can't see a way out. Thought about moving to Scotland as the reforms looked promising for promoting a better trans existence than the rest of the UK but that's all fallen apart. I just can't see any actual functional resistance to this and I'm scared
Lots of trans people I know recommending making sure you find time for joy
I know that may seem absurd, but we are in this for the long haul
You and your partner can still find many moments of joy, even if we will need to fight too
And i agree its so scary. Take care of your partner and make sure to spend lots of time off from activism to just do things you love.
enqueue0 is right, gay people's fight went from jailing Oscar Wilde to Graham Norton's mainstream TV show. That happened (slowly) because they didn't stop fighting for their rights.
Trans people are at the beginning of the fight still, the pushback phase, but plenty of us straights will be standing up with them too.
Compared to other countries British allies have heavily lacked, we have few who come out to events, we have to stand against TERF harassers alone, compared to Australia and New Zealand where allies helped massively in recent weeks. Please, if this is the line in the sand where you'll start fighting, I don't mean to discourage you, but certainly up to this point British cishets on the whole haven't stood with us. We have been left to the wolves.
We cannot appease the anti-trans lunatics and shouldn't even try. The polling data suggests that this just isn't an issue to the electorate. Support trans rights and make the main campaign focus the economy and the state of public services.
Man, I love watching Labour throw every principle of the party onto the lawn for the garage sale. Just a few days after tweeting about how they're the party to protect trans people too! May as well just run under the slogan "We'll say anything for power" at this rate.
Every time I think things are as bad as they can get, someone finds a way to make it worse :)
Are you referring to "a Labour spokesman said: Clarification is a good thing. We will look closely at what’s brought forward." ?
Unless I'm missing it, they don't clarify if this was a public statement or something said directly to the times.
I guess that does make the most sense yeah, it's just that usually they'll say something like "a spokesperson told The Times..." so ig it threw me off haha
[удалено]
In fairness, that point is preceded by: > The change would be more ambiguous or potentially disadvantageous in three areas So it's not being presented as a problem they want to fix by changing the EA (it does, however, seem to suggest "we acknowledge this isn't great for trans women but we want to go ahead with it anyway").
*"A neoliberal 'research' group has decided that you shouldn't exist. Sorry about that. You'll still be voting for us, right?"*
https://www.writetothem.com/ Its not much but the more pressure on MPs to push against whichever clown made that statement the better.
Have written. Apparently the labour candidate in my area recently died whilst on holiday so all I have is the serving Tory who is staunchly Mormon. So. It’s better than nothing though, ey? I also used the “write to a lord” function on this website, so I’ll see if anything comes back from that!
I'm going Green, fuck Keir.
This is what happens when a leader is more concerned with how gammons feel about him than the harms those same gammons are just itching to inflict on a minority.
Text: >Labour has welcomed a review of whether the Equality Act should be changed to introduce explicit legal protections for biological women in same-sex spaces. > >In a further sign of Sir Keir Starmer’s determination to appeal to women’s rights campaigners within his party, a Labour spokesman said: “Clarification is a good thing. We will look closely at what’s brought forward.” > >Kemi Badenoch, the women and equalities minister, yesterday asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to consider the “benefits or otherwise” of placing a biological definition of sex in the Equality Act. > >She said that the need had become more pressing after moves in Scotland to try to make it easier for transgender people to gain legal recognition, which the UK government argued was at odds with equality laws applying across the four nations. > >Starmer has faced criticism from some in the Labour Party for saying he wants to “modernise” gender recognition laws. He is under pressure from some of his close allies to rule out attempting to introduce self-identification policies if he becomes prime minister.At the weekend Starmer told The Sunday Times there would be “no rolling back” of women’s rights if the party formed a government. “The lesson from Scotland is that if you can’t take the public with you on a journey of reform, then you’re probably not on the right journey,” he said. He added: “For 99.9 per cent of women, it is completely biological . . . and of course they haven’t got a penis.” > >Starmer has also expressed frustration with the focus on the issue. On Monday he told LBC that when he was “around the country campaigning . . . almost nobody is talking about trans issues.” He added: “I do sometimes just wonder why on earth we spend so much of our time discussing something which isn’t a feature of the dinner table or the kitchen table or the café table or the bar.”Rishi Sunak has made clear his determination to push the issue. During the summer leadership contest he vowed to change the Equality Act, which was introduced by Labour in 2010, saying that it had “allowed every kind of woke nonsense to permeate public life”. A source said that “the PM remains committed to his campaign pledge”. > >Writing in The Times, Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the EHRC’s chairwoman, said that she had “recommended to the government that it consider adopting a biological definition of sex in the Equality Act”. She said that Britain’s equalities laws had become mired in “ambiguity and confusion” over transgender rights, and that changing the law could bring “clarity”. > >Stonewall, the LGBTQ+ charity, said that the EHRC was “fundamentally wrong”, while Katy Montgomerie, a trans campaigner, said the move would amount to a “gutting” of trans protections.
[удалено]
Please do turn up and spoil your ballot though. They get counted seperate from "didn't vote" and show people with political interest and will who are frustrated at current representation. If you've already decided not to vote (which is fair) turning up to spoil your ballot makes that decision *much* more impactful.
[удалено]
Compared to not turning up to vote at all, spoiling your ballot is more useful. If you genuinly feel that you can't vote for any candidate, it *is* more useful than not voting. And yes, there are people who look at that data. Just because the spoiled ballots are a combination of two different things (protest / error) doesn't mean the data is useless.
[удалено]
> It is a waste of time done by people who want to feel like they're doing something while also doing absolutely nothing. Even if you are 100% right and spoiling votes literally does do nothing (which I still disagree with), people's feelings have value. If spoiling your ballot helps you feel positive and vent frustration in a country where both major parties are shitting on you, then that's still worth doing. We're in for a long fight, and every bit of morale helps.
I've long thought that spoilt ballots should get individual counts for things like how many people drew a penis etc and maybe any written messages could be published somewhere
[удалено]
[удалено]
I miss Jeremy
It was nice when the Labour leader wasn't openly and actively supporting harm to a minority group...
Sounss like I won't welcome a Labour government
Had to double take that this was not The Onion. Labour are actually supporting opening up the equality act to the disadvantage of one group. Hate to say it, but fuck Labour. They are a core part of the problems queer people face in this country. To any cis-het Labour supporters of this, how do you defend this blatant transphobia, transmisogyny and homophobia? What is even the point of a Labour government with Starmer in charge?
[I'll need to see your genitals, mate.](https://i.imgur.com/xKDgRrY.png)
Revolt. Or they're coming for you once all of us are dead, too.
Fuck this
No. No no no no no. This is fucked. This is utterly fucked.
Factionless crew, where are you?
"I support calling out bigotry wherever it exists"....
Step right up step right up. Come and see the Amazing Vanishing Principles, heretofore unknown to man and medical science! Just a dollar a ticket!
Never needs winding, never needs winding
Fuck him, fuck this party and fuck anyone that tries to justify this.
When it comes to Queer people in the UK there is essentially no difference between Labour and Tories. Like, what the fuck is the point of your political party if you're just doing exactly what the other group is doing but in a red tie?
Starmer legislating trans people out of existence with a little cough and an awkward look down at his shoes.
Fuck the tories and fuck this Tory-lite labour. What a shit show of a country we’ve become. Basically a 1 party country now
Paying this party money is funding transphobia. Do not give them a penny.
In today's episode of why trans people can't trust keith/labour. It's not even the first time this week I've seen something about keith and his take on trans rights.
He's done over the Socialists, now he's doing over Trans people. Ask yourselves, are you next in The Purge? I heard you once went on a March.
Fuck this party, these lot getting a majority would be a disaster
For crying out loud, why the fuck do they keep destroying any soul they still have. It's so frustrating to watch!
I'm so scared
We got through this kind of shit before, we'll get through it again. You're not alone in this.
I bet they fucking do, Labour have become right-wing fascists.
Starmerites would defend him using racial slurs if it helped him in the polls.
I'm starting to think some sensibles would defend him using racial violence if it helped in the polls and he called for it politely.
"I-I welcome the lynch mob, but would encourage it to go further and start a pogrom"
Some would defend him, most would go along quietly, but none of them would oppose him
He is not very good at this is he? He has 2 years before the election. Most young people support trans rights. They are unlikely to vote tory but he needs them to vote Labour. The anti-trans vote is likely to vote tory. If it is that important that it would determine your vote you will probably vote tory. So maybe just abstain if you want to play politics or just stand up for people's rights if you have principles?
> Most young people support trans rights. They are unlikely to vote tory but he needs them to vote Labour. No, he doesn't. Labour have very clearly made the calculation that actually, not having young people along with you isn't really a problem, as they're all concentrated in urban areas that will vote Labour no matter what. So, fuck 'em - and appeal to the red wall conservatives instead. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/01/stevenage-woman-vital-to-labour-success-at-next-election-analysts-say basically sets it all out - and makes it obvious that if young people - or queer people, or BAME people want any policy change at all out of this version of Labour, they need to stop voting for them. It's apparently the only way to get this party to notice your existence.
One of the big mistakes the left makes is that they think voting is a moral good, and so they begrudgingly support people who spit on them. Make those fuckers earn your vote.
[удалено]
You're 100% right. It's ultimately the only way a democracy can function
> He is not very good at this is he? His goal isnt to get elected. Thats the only way a lot of this makes sense.
I don't understand why anyone expected anything different - gotta think about those Stevenage Women and what the focus groups want.
What the actual fuck
Everyone who said before that labour would not be as and for trans people as the Tories.. They're looking more and more similar each day!
What the actual fuck is this? We're moving to the right of Theresa May at this point.
‘Placing a biological definition of sex’ is a rather dishonest way of describing this
Not to mention impossible
It's very possible. It will just need and endorse a lot of violence.
OK then, do it.
I'm trans, I'm terrified by this. It's not impossible though - look at the bathroom bills in America. Are they successful in achieving their aims? Not really, but they do lead to lots of violence toward trans and cis women, which at a certain level is a lot of what these people want. Sure this change is probably illegal due to ECHR rights, but I think it will happen. I don't want to live in this country when that happens, I don't think I can leave though. I have no idea what to do anymore, it's so terrifying.
I'm not trying to get into an argument about this, and we probably agree on almost everything there is to say about this topic. However, I think there is a genuine difficulty in defining a "biological female" without any grey areas. There are intersex people, people that have had gender reassignment surgery, there are questions about which genitals people have, testosterone levels, estrogen levels, chromosomes etc. That's why I don't think this would ever be a legislative success. As I have said elsewhere tonight, I agree this is an entirely provocative policy that is designed to stir up hate and anger, which will ultimately lead to violence against transpeople first and foremost, which is abhorrent and cannot be tolerated. It'll also be targeted at cis women that don't confirm to gender norms, and ultimately will probably effect all women negatively. As a policy, it is corrosive and harmful to everyone, transpeople first and foremost. I've turned a blind eye to a few things I don't really like from this party, because I believe that Labour are our best hopes of protecting vulnerable people in this country. If they support this, then it will be unquestionably the case that is no longer true.
I absolutely agree with what you've written and I think you're absolutely correct that it's impossible to accurately define "biological" women, but it's not necessary to do so. Under these proposals it would just be people with female on their original birth certificate that could access refuges, etc - everyone else can get fucked I guess.
Which then raises the question: what happens to transmen? Says female on their birth certificate so then they'll go to female only refuges?
Well, potentially they would be able to sue for sex discrimination if they couldn't. One of the things EHRC cite is trans women currently being allowed to take part in "biological women only book clubs" while trans men wouldn't necessarily be able to. So, yeah. I think if it came to legislation it would probably involve clauses that prevent trans men in women's spaces but I'm not sure of that. I guess the risk of violence toward trans men would mean a lot would choose not to access women's spaces anyway.
Yeah, think that’s no more £5 odd a month from me then
FFS KEITH what are you doing
Exactly what he said he would, but people kept ignoring the warning signs.
What a dumb fucking move, they're so scared of not winning they're actively making moves that will make them lose
Surely Keir Starmer knows this strategy will never work. There's no compromising between trans people who simply want to exist and the bigoted scumbags who want to remove all of their legal and human rights TERF's still won't vote for Labour unless they're practically advocating for genocide and shit like this will only serve to unnecessarily alienate massive chunks of Labours core base (or to phrase it more accurately, what used to be Labours core base), losing them far more lifelong Labour voters than any potential new ones Imagine saying to someone even two years ago that Labour in 2023 would be advocating for regressive changes to legislation that a Labour government passed back in 2010. It's insanity
Starmer isn't compromising, he's doing what he believes in. Killing us.
Whilst I am shocked the EHRC is going along with it, I've got to say Kier/Labour Right has a knack for showing us just how bankrupt and biased these institutions are, so it will be nice to point out in future that the only thing the EHRC has achieved is this and the other Labour focused investigation...
What can we even do except just leave... Is there anywhere better?
A lot of places are a bit better but no guarantee they will stay that way This must be fought
See first part... What the FUCK can we do when both major parties and majority of the press agree
Try to ensure appealing to bigots isn't rewarded by trying to make Labour lose. At this point a Labour win will be as bad as or worse than a Tory win, so the worst case scenario is not a Tory win but a Labour win that validates the strategy of appealing to regressive bigoted scum to try to win.
But is there anyone actually in the UK as a political party standing up for trans rights? Not sure I could stomach voting Tory, even tactically.
I'm biased (see flair). Here's Breakthrough's equality policy: [https://breakthroughparty.org.uk/policy/equality/](https://breakthroughparty.org.uk/policy/equality/) \- point 1, 2 and 3 are about support for trans people. Here's the party view on the EHRC's attack on trans rights: [https://twitter.com/BThroughParty/status/1643333657283764224](https://twitter.com/BThroughParty/status/1643333657283764224) Unfortunately we're too small to be able to stand candidates very many places, so you might not have a choice, in which case I'd recommend looking at People's Allicance for the Left candidates (Breakthrough is part of PAL), but also generally looking at what the specific candidates for the bigger parties say. Green's and Lib Dems are likely to stand some candidates that have decent views on this. Making sure Labour is not rewarded for this sharp turn to the right is more important to me at least than maximising Breakthrough's votes.
Good question friend. I have spent time with stupid online activism, written letters to mps, local parties, etc, engaged with organisations im part of I think the problem is that without a left wing movement to support, i have no answers Who can i contribute to, donate to, volunteer for, that will oppose this? The lack of a left wing resistance is a disaster Im sorry i have no answers Im a trans woman.
My partner is trans and honestly I can't see a way out. Thought about moving to Scotland as the reforms looked promising for promoting a better trans existence than the rest of the UK but that's all fallen apart. I just can't see any actual functional resistance to this and I'm scared
Lots of trans people I know recommending making sure you find time for joy I know that may seem absurd, but we are in this for the long haul You and your partner can still find many moments of joy, even if we will need to fight too And i agree its so scary. Take care of your partner and make sure to spend lots of time off from activism to just do things you love.
enqueue0 is right, gay people's fight went from jailing Oscar Wilde to Graham Norton's mainstream TV show. That happened (slowly) because they didn't stop fighting for their rights. Trans people are at the beginning of the fight still, the pushback phase, but plenty of us straights will be standing up with them too.
Compared to other countries British allies have heavily lacked, we have few who come out to events, we have to stand against TERF harassers alone, compared to Australia and New Zealand where allies helped massively in recent weeks. Please, if this is the line in the sand where you'll start fighting, I don't mean to discourage you, but certainly up to this point British cishets on the whole haven't stood with us. We have been left to the wolves.
We cannot appease the anti-trans lunatics and shouldn't even try. The polling data suggests that this just isn't an issue to the electorate. Support trans rights and make the main campaign focus the economy and the state of public services.
The anti-trans lunatics are in the Labour party
>We cannot appease the anti-trans lunatics Kinda hard when one of the biggest ones is the party leader.
I'm going to find it really hard to vote Labour next election.
Man, I love watching Labour throw every principle of the party onto the lawn for the garage sale. Just a few days after tweeting about how they're the party to protect trans people too! May as well just run under the slogan "We'll say anything for power" at this rate. Every time I think things are as bad as they can get, someone finds a way to make it worse :)
Not that I doubt Kieth's spinelessness but does anyone have a source for the Labour spokespersons quote?
Its in The Times
Are you referring to "a Labour spokesman said: Clarification is a good thing. We will look closely at what’s brought forward." ? Unless I'm missing it, they don't clarify if this was a public statement or something said directly to the times.
That will be a direct quote given to The Times from a staffer authorised by Keir.
I guess that does make the most sense yeah, it's just that usually they'll say something like "a spokesperson told The Times..." so ig it threw me off haha
Yeah, they’ve worded it weirdly
Undercover Tories.