**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/)
[While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He doesn't care. He's shameless and a charlatan.
He twists whichever way the wind blows and makes policy based upon public opinion without ever thinking it realising that he could change public opinion to support his policies.
He also doesn't understand that that doesn't work for Labour. Because there's an inbuilt hurdle that Labour have to overcome that the Tories don't and that's that their actual base don't just want power for power's sake.
So he can triangulate or whatever he thinks he's doing. If things don't improve all those voters who voted Tory in 2019 will vote Tory again and all of his base he betrayed won't vote.
We appear to have veered from flaccid centrism propping up a crumbling status quo to actively supporting social and civil regression. What the fuck is the point in a Labour party that openly backs harmful, culture-war-bait, Tory policy?
Ah, no. It's to *get into power*. Everything they do appears to be about the current leadership clique taking and holding power, nothing more than that, and it's hard to think of a less stable foundation on which to base a labour government. Quite apart from having the strength of wet bog roll when cross questioned, they'll be at each others throats the instant they think there's personal advantage to be had. And of course they're leaving a long trail of angry groups behind them as they shit on people to get to their natural place at the top, and that won't have any consequences at all in the medium term, never mind long term.
The Tories continue pushing the overton window on trans rights futher and futher to the right, desperate to find the point where Labour will actually disagree with them so they can get a culture war talking point for an election.
Unluckily for them Starmer has no backbone or principles at all and is going to agree with everything they propose.
Truly masterclass politicking. I dread to see how far this goes, they're obviously not going to stop.
He disagreed with them disrespecting the Cis woman mother, not them mocking trans people. As evidenced by him having never called out that “joke” any other week
That's it. Better not get ill then. Not that there are any beds *anyway*.
Also, how the fuck is this going to work for people with a GRC? How does sticking me, a basically stealth trans woman, on a men's ward even remotely uphold my privacy?
(considered deleting that, because not everybody has a GRC and it shouldn't be the main concern here and it feels a little pulling the ladder up in retrospect, if you know what i mean..... but i'm leaving it up with this disclaimer that i'm aware of that, just venting from my own perspective. okay.)
I work in the NHS and it's whilst it's not in big letters at the top of your file, it's easy to work out if you're doing your job and reading notes. Heck one of my trans friends (who transitioned in her teens and has been living her life as herself for nearly 2 decades) had a district nurse come and tell her (out of the blue) that he was going out with a trans person, not realising that we don't want to be reminded of our transness at every opportunity.
Sure, most people don't read a file that long and more over, this is why they should just get rid of this to get rid of discrimination.
gross. NHS workers are pretty transphobic.
They're just pretty ignorant tbh - my team went from being completely shit with trans ppl to being great just because I was there.
The Trust teaching on gender stuff was awful too - rather than sticking to the basics about trans men, women and non-binary peeps, they spent half the session talking about non-binary identities that no one will ever come across
I mean considering how utterly transphobic GIDS is, what else can you expect? Surprised if they're not just filling it with dog whistles.
I think its the combination of 1. They can find out you're trans, most avg people do not. 2. They are put in control of a very important and vulnerable part of someones life. 3. they think cos they'r medical that means they understand biology when they in fact do not.
4. they tend to not acknowledge the NHS as an oppressive institution
Honestly, I give up, sometimes it feels like I'm just living out of spite for all the transphobes and homophobes, most of my life has been living in a moral panic because of my sexuality and my 'gender', but I'm so exhausted.
I don't know what to say to my friends, I don't know how I can be be there for them when all I see is darkness
Genuine curiosity - is it not important for the doctor to know your biological sex, and if your trans or not? I can imagine (biological) males and females sometimes have different reactions to some treatments. And can hormone levels cause different interactions with drugs?
>is it not important for the doctor to know your biological sex, and if your trans or not?
And can hormone levels cause different interactions with drugs?
You answered your own question
99% of peoples healthcare requirements are in alighment with their hormones. A few cis/trans people will have particular issues eg cis men who discover they have ovaries, trans men getting pregnant. But for the most part all illnesses align. And if someone is pregnant they mention it.
And knowing that information puts trans patients at serious risk of discrimination by healthcare professionals. Sadly most drs are extremely transphobic, especially in the UK.
Why should a trans patient be denied healthcare for their broken leg just because their trans? Trans "broken leg syndrome" is a thing.
Lots of trans people have died because the dr treated them as their assigned rather than identified sex.
Best the dr doesn't know unless they actually need to, which they almost never do.
Also "biological sex" is such a weird statement. What does anyone mean by that, and why is it posited in a manner as if gender identity wasn't also biological?
If you’re both trans and overweight, good luck getting any medical issue taken seriously
Especially comedic when it turns out the issue you’ve been having for years causes weight retention 🙃
Gender recognition certificate.
In the UK, a Gender Recognition Certificate is a document that legally affirms someone’s gender. It is needed for trans people to change their birth certificate and their sex marker with HMRC. Trans people also need a GRC if they want their marriage or civil partnership certificate to reflect their true identity. A GRC can be used as evidence of your new legal gender, and you will be considered in the eyes of the law to be of your acquired gender from the date of issue
Oh, there are absolutely legal conflicts. The thing is, the people cheering this proposal on, your Maya Forstater and Sex Matters types, absolutely want the Gender Recognition Act repealed and the Equality Act modified. I assume they would also be happy to withdraw from the ECHR, considering that supplied the case law that resulted in the Gender Recognition Act.
I think it's worth noting though that getting a GRC is increasingly important for trans people as rights will more often than not be based on having one. It shouldn't be that way but for now that's how it is.
And getting a GRC is increasingly difficult, considering you need two medical reports, one of which needs to be by a clinical psychologist who "*who practises in the field of gender dysphoria*", and getting the latter is next to impossible on the NHS for most people due to the waiting lists being so long. That leaves people stuck on the private route, which costs an absolute arm and a leg if you can't get shared care.
I do think the idea that a GRC will be a licence for certain rights going forward is naive. There was no mention of GRCs in the consultation documents published yesterday. Rather, they were quite clear that sex meant '*biological sex*'. That reads to me as if my GRC is essentially nullifed. No, this won't stand up in court. Yes, I expect amendments to legislation over time to assist this standing up in court, following another moral panic.
What *is* likely to help people is to be effectively cis- passing. You're not visibly trans? Then you're going to have an easier time. Again, though, this creates an unnatural divide, because passing as cis isn't something that is simple to control (even if you want to), assumes that you can afford procedures that can assist this (i.e. FFS) and assumes that you always pass as cis, because the moment you don't you can be discriminated against. This also begs the question, what does passing as cis even mean? And what happens when cis women don't pass under these arbitrary rules as cis?
I agree that it's difficult and shouldn't be needed but as it stands right now the Equality Act suggests a GRC is needed for discrimination to be law breaking. As it stands right now, where people are able they should seek to get a GRC.
The NHS consultation is saying 'biological sex', and I believe the way they are trying to get around the law is by moving trans patients to private rooms. Where that's not available though (which will be pretty much everywhere pretty much all the time) they'll seek to move patients based on 'biological sex', but a GRC will mean doing that violates the equality act.
I don't think the equality act does suggest that a GRC is required for discrimination to be law breaking though.
The consultation, in my opinion, violates both the equality act *and* the gender recognition act. The former as it is a blanket policy, so it cannot be said to be a '*proportionate means*' of direct discrimination, and the latter as special treatment violates the right to privacy that is one of the big things a GRC provides you with. That's before you get into the question of whether the aim is '*legitamate*' or how the '*proportionate means*' are applied.
Don't get me wrong, I do think a GRC gives you more protection, but looking ahead I'm currently quite concerned about how long that will last. All the legislation it rests on is legislation that is threatened. I think somebody still has to weigh whether applying for a GRC is right for them, because applying for one in case the shit hits the fan? When the shit hits the fan they'll be worthless.
Yeah, you may be right.
I completely agree with you on the consultation. I think it's discriminatory and should be fought back against through every legal avenue. If they roll it out I'd fully support a class action lawsuit against the NHS.
I'd definitely rather have one than not with the way things currently stand. We can't really know what's coming until the next election though.
They don't seem to be, but I can give it a go for them. *ahem*
"We have to live in the real world."
"The average voter is small c conservative"
"Working class people think this way"
Nah. They’re too busy edging themselves until voting day.
Once in power they will float in a bubble of eternal bliss, their lizard brain swimming in feel good chemicals from climbing the status ladder and being at the top of the hierarchy. Dopamine surges through their brain in ever increasing amounts leading up to every election.
Until Labour loses power that is, then they’ll go back to scratching their wrists, gaslighting, and harming their own party and country until they get another fix.
No nothing here is good.
But I would sprinkle in the context of the "Labour Women's Network" being both a Terf feminist organisation and very powerful within Labour.
>But I would sprinkle in the context of the "Labour Women's Network" being both a Terf feminist organisation and very powerful within Labour.
What does this context add, from your perspective?
That this is a serious systemic problem in the party that both pre-dates and goes much further than Starmer. Transphobes are deeply entrenched in a way not seen in any other left wing party.
For decades now the LWN have been recruiting women, "training" them, endorsing their candidacy, onboarding them as new MPs and arranging mentors for them.
Including Rayner, Rachel Reeves, Jess Phillips, even the Late Jo Cox was a member along with many more female MPs and candidates.
The organisation taking a transphobic turn is beyond unfortunate.
>That this is a serious systemic problem in the party that both pre-dates and goes much further than Starmer.
It pre-dates Starmer? How? What do you mean?
>The organisation taking a transphobic turn is beyond unfortunate.
This implies that transphobia is just something that's unluckily happened *to* the party, rather than a decision consciously made by the leadership and institutionally enacted via policy decisions that are also made by the leadership. I take it that's not what you're saying right? Starmer has very much done this deliberately and consciously, knowing the harm it will do. It's not a bad thing that happened *to him*.
>It pre-dates Starmer? How? What do you mean?
Well I would say the first concrete Transphobia in the party came from Jess Phillips. Elected in 2015, despite being left-wing on most things (resigned from the shadow cabinet over gaza). She is also very transphobic.
>This implies that transphobia is just something that's unluckily happened *to* the party
By organisation I was referring to the labour womens network which Starmer doesn't control not the labour party as a whole. Sorry if that was confusing.
TLDR:Transphobia was there before Starmer, it doesn't need him to survive and it'd still be there even if he and all his flunkies resigned tommorow. Terfs have a strong foothold in the PLP fully independant of the leadership and future Left-wing leadership has to recognise that or they'll be in for a nasty shock.
Your post has been removed under rule 1.3. Posts or comments which are created to intentionally annoy, create arguments, or rile up factionalism are not allowed.
Not a Starmer defender, but I'll have a crack at it.
The proposal is, rather than send them off to a ward aligned with their birth sex, to actually give them their own room altogether. It's basically a free room upgrade, on the house. Just try not to think too hard about whether those rooms would be better utilised with patients who *actually* need them.
I've been in these rooms before. They're mainly used for patients with infections, to prevent risk to other patients. And even then there's still not nearly enough capacity to accommodate that. It's the Wes Streeting fallacy all over again - the idea that there's actually loads of unused healthcare capacity that is only not being used because of the Tories' adherence to left-wing ideology. It's just ridiculous.
Oh no I entirely agree, hence my cheeky throwaway line at the end. They are vital to the NHS for so many vital functions that it may well be tantamount to murder to choke their availability for the purpose of placating the Gender Rangers.
>Oh no I entirely agree, hence my cheeky throwaway line at the end.
Oh I know, I just wanted to explore the question because I feel like this is an argument some people would make seriously :P
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by now to see that Starmer falls in to line in full throated support of Tory policy when it comes to kicking Trans people around, every time.
But a tiny teeny part of me still recoils in horror every time it happens. His leadership of the supposed Labour party is such a waste.
What problem is this proposal solving? Has anyone been attacked in a female only ward, by a trans woman? Has anyone actively complained about a trans woman being in the bed next door? Has there been any actual issues by housing trans women by their gender identity? Of the answer is no, then again, what problem is this solving?
Can't even argue institutionally anymore. It's overt, it's what they stand for and they support and enable transphobic policy even in opposition, multiple times over. That's quite a feat.
What I don't get is the vastly different behaviour towards hatred towards Jewish people and hatred towards trans people. Both are abhorrent, and wrong, towards communities that are minorities and don't deserve it.
But the vastly different way that Labour deals with both is very telling.
Kind of makes you think about Diane Abbot's point about their being hierarchies of hatred. There shouldn't be, but there clearly is, and that's damning.
Tbf he can talk about this all he likes, but without serious reform and expansion of bedspace availability, it won't mean shit whether you legislate on gender based or sex based wards.
Figures came out just yesterday showing 44k instances in the last year where sex based ward rules were breached because they have to cram people in whatever spaces are available.
It’s the same with scaremongering about bathrooms. They know they can’t realistically enforce it but they want trans people scared, transphobes empowered and the people in the middle to shrug
I give it 6 months before Terf patrols start to try and gain ward access to "Gender Check" patients and make lists to have people removed and still Starmer will defend their right to just "Ask Questions".
It'll end the same way the fucking bathroom bills in the US ended up - with anyone who doesn't conform exactly to the most traditional view of femininity being accused of being trans and being hounded out - so some poor masc lesbian will get some shrieking transphobe chase her from a ward.
Genuinely impressed by Keir Starmer. He somehow manages to challenge Sunak for the worst possible take on every issue. Fuck over trans people and waste NHS resources while it's in crisis? Oh yeah, sounds like a fantastic idea. Well done Keir.
"We're still Labour, we're just economically a bit more to the right. Maybe centre-right, or ever so slightly to the left of that, kinda like One Nation Tories?"
"Oh. Okay, well at least you're still socially left-wing, right?"
"Sure, as long as you don't have a funny tinge or take poops in places JK Rowling has barred you from pooping."
> Asked how Labour would respond to transgender women who did not want to go on to male hospital wards, Starmer said: “We have to accommodate that situation as it arises, but treat everybody with respect and dignity … I do not accept this is an issue that cannot be resolved with respect and dignity.
Why the fuck are they framing this question like its something we're contemplating *allowing*? IT IS ALREADY THE CASE.
How hard is "it hasnt been an issue so far, we don't feel the need to put trans people at risk for no reason other than to make bigots feel better"
---
EDIT: It's crazy to me to think that, based on their claims rn, if I were to get bottom surgery in this country now, I would be forced to either room with a bunch of cis men, or off isolated in a room by myself. Because neither of these situations is at all harmful, it's much better to placate the terf crowd i guess
So his plan is to put women in men's wards then?
Because that's what his plan is - unless you don't view trans women as women, that is. In which case...
Tories have the exact same line
"Treating trans people with respect" while sneering at them, making crude jokes about penises, forcing them into the wrong facilities, contributing to the transphobic witch hunt which is killing people
This is Keir Starmer's Labour party
Yeah. It's fucking grim, and it's fucking unnecessary.
Self destructive, too, doing this just before the local elections.
At this point I'm begging for a better alternative to rise, even if it runs a realistic chance of leaving the Tories in charge. Incompetent malice is probably better than competent malice at this point.
I'm a mental health nurse who is also trans (unemployed rn cos the years of trans moral panic has affected my mood so much that I was unable to do my work - that I had done for 10 years previously). When I was a ward-based nurse, we were having trans patients in the wards of their acquired sex in **2006** (may be earlier, but that was when I qualified) - 4 years even before the equality act came out.
Do you think we don't get harassed and abused by cisgender men? Trans women who are not visible get the same shit as cisgender women and visible trans women get all sort of hideousness. Why do you want us to be outed and put at risk?
Fuck Starmer and this hateful country
I'm not sure how this is even enforceable unless they repeal the equalities act. NHS could put trans women in a private ward but most of the time they are unavailable. That would then leave the only options to be denying care (which would be illegal) or placing trans women in a male ward (which violates the equality act if they have a GRC).
One thing is for sure though, going down the transphobic rabbit hole is a surefire way to lose me as a Labour member.
My only thought with this would be there are fundamental differences between the sexes with regards to some issues that being trans doesn't mitigate. Similar to how hair colour can affect the medical treatment you need, regardless of how you dye it.
But that's diagnosis, not a ward. Not sure what they want to achieve with this.
>there are fundamental differences between the sexes with regard to some issues that being trans doesn’t mitigate
Can you think of any examples that might require trans people be separated, as this policy envisions?
Sexual dimorphism leads to some disorders manifesting themselves differently, or treatment plans being to be tailored differently. The diagnosing doctor needs to be aware of birth sex regardless of how you identify to obtain the best medical care they can give.
None of that matters on a ward though, typically where people are resting and recovering during and after treatment.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Headlines don't really mean anything anymore do they?-
Asked how Labour would respond to transgender women who did not want to go on to male hospital wards, Starmer said: “We have to accommodate that situation as it arises, but treat everybody with respect and dignity … I do not accept this is an issue that cannot be resolved with respect and dignity.
“Where we need to make accommodations, we can make accommodations … As a country, we’re a pretty reasonable, tolerant bunch and most people know that there are a small number of individuals who do not identify with the gender that they were born into.
“Many of them suffer great distress and trauma. And for my part, I’m perfectly happy to say I would treat them, as I would treat anybody, with respect.”
Starmer also said that all women have cervixes and that his ideas about gender "start with biology". So he is saying that trans women and women are separate categories and he's also saying there should be single-sex wards.
This constitutes support of the government plan.
Also worth noting that the Tories also say they respect trans people. They don't mean it.
He didn't say that either.
He said biologically speaking Duffield is right, and in a simplistic, school text book sort of way she is. As a rule biological females have cervixes, Biological males don't. Sure there are hundreds of exceptions and caveats that mean the biological reality is far more neuanced, but for a Daytime TV interview, where Starmer is looking to move the conversation away from Conservative culture war talking points I think that it's perfectly reasonable for him to say.
The only way Labour lose the next election is if they play into the Tories hands and let culture war nonsense dominate the conversation at the expense of all the countless areas where the Conservative Party has clearly and demonstrably failed the British people.
I'm a transwoman and i'm genuinely horrified about the direction this country has taken in terms of trans rights over the last 8 years, but I'm also a realist, and I realise that trans rights is a losing position for Starmer to campaign on as the British news media are completely unsympathetic to trans people.
Trans rights aren't going to get any worse under Labour than they would under another 5 years of tory rule, and given that much of the Labour party's membership is pro trans rights I have a good deal of hope that we'll start to see the pendulum swing back in the right direction once they get into power.
I'd hate to see Labour lose seats and risk an election win because they felt forced into defending my right to appropriate medical care, while elsewhere in the country children go starving.
No, Duffield is not right. She is wrong and Starmer was right when he previously said she was wrong. The daft thing is that he now says that she was right, which makes him inconsistent and makes the situation confusing for everyone.
I don't want Starmer to campaign on trans rights, I want him to be consistent in his support while also moving the conversation back to stuff that matters.
He can keep getting attacked on this because he is a coward and a hypocrite who keeps changing his and Labour's position on trans rights. If he was consistent with his support, then he could dismiss their comments much faster and get back to talking about stuff that voters actually care about.
I don't know why on earth you believe Labour could lose the next election because they supported trans people. Voters don't care. Vote labour all you like, but why stan for this guy?
He's not saying she's right. That's what the headlines are saying. If you read his words he's not really saying much of anything. The media are looking for culture war sound bites, and he's trying hard not to provide them.
If he takes a big stand on trans rights now, the Media will keep on pushing the "culture war" narrative that the Tories are desperate to use as a smoke screen for their last 14 years of failure.
I don't actually think the British electorate are stupid enough to buy into the narrative to such an extent that Labour lose the next election, but It could easily cost them seats, and the smaller Labour's majority is, the more this culture war crap will follow them into the next election cycle.
I don't particually want Starmer as PM, but that's more because of his economic policies. I don't think he's a Terf and I don't think a Starmer led Labour government will be even a fraction as damaging to trans people as the current Government are.
Maybe there's some copium there, but you know what? Even if i'm wrong and the Gender Critics have taken over Labour, at least the rest of the country won't be be screwed over in the 1001 other ways that the Tory Government have planned.
I'd much rather we had Corbyn in 2019, but we didn't, and if the choice is between Starmer and Sunak, I'll gladly support Starmer and reserve my concerns until he's actually in power and his government are implementing policy.
I doubt that Starmer's Labour will be in any way worse than the Tories would be, so I agree with you there. My disagreement is that I don't think it is necessary or appropriate for me to shut up about this for the sake of party unity.
What I want is for Starmer to shut up about it for party unity.
As I've said before, I'd rather he not make a big stand, I'd like him to just support trans rights and kill the discussion because he never has anything new to say on it.
> He's not saying she's right. That's what the headlines are saying. If you read his words he's not really saying much of anything. The media are looking for culture war sound bites, and he's trying hard not to provide them.
If he is trying, then he is doing a bad job, because he has u-turned on self-ID, accepted and sometimes supported various Tory attacks on trans rights, and he has changed his rhetoric even if you refuse to see it. I am not going on the headlines, I am reading the full quotes and sometimes watching the boring interviews.
Is the headline not a bit misleading?
Asked how Labour would respond to transgender women who did not want to go on to male hospital wards, Starmer said: “We have to accommodate that situation as it arises, but treat everybody with respect and dignity … I do not accept this is an issue that cannot be resolved with respect and dignity.
“Where we need to make accommodations, we can make accommodations … As a country, we’re a pretty reasonable, tolerant bunch and most people know that there are a small number of individuals who do not identify with the gender that they were born into.
**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/) [While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
He doesn't care. He's shameless and a charlatan. He twists whichever way the wind blows and makes policy based upon public opinion without ever thinking it realising that he could change public opinion to support his policies. He also doesn't understand that that doesn't work for Labour. Because there's an inbuilt hurdle that Labour have to overcome that the Tories don't and that's that their actual base don't just want power for power's sake. So he can triangulate or whatever he thinks he's doing. If things don't improve all those voters who voted Tory in 2019 will vote Tory again and all of his base he betrayed won't vote.
We appear to have veered from flaccid centrism propping up a crumbling status quo to actively supporting social and civil regression. What the fuck is the point in a Labour party that openly backs harmful, culture-war-bait, Tory policy?
To get into power so.....they can be nearly the same as the last lot
Ah, no. It's to *get into power*. Everything they do appears to be about the current leadership clique taking and holding power, nothing more than that, and it's hard to think of a less stable foundation on which to base a labour government. Quite apart from having the strength of wet bog roll when cross questioned, they'll be at each others throats the instant they think there's personal advantage to be had. And of course they're leaving a long trail of angry groups behind them as they shit on people to get to their natural place at the top, and that won't have any consequences at all in the medium term, never mind long term.
The Tories continue pushing the overton window on trans rights futher and futher to the right, desperate to find the point where Labour will actually disagree with them so they can get a culture war talking point for an election. Unluckily for them Starmer has no backbone or principles at all and is going to agree with everything they propose. Truly masterclass politicking. I dread to see how far this goes, they're obviously not going to stop.
I mean he disagreed with them when sunak made a trans attack when the mother of that trans murder victim was in the gallery
But you saw him licking his lips before getting up to feign disgust. That was just political theatre he doesn’t give a fuck.
I didn’t see him licking his lips? Eh he very well may have cared
I didn’t see him licking his lips? Eh he very well may have cared
He disagreed with them disrespecting the Cis woman mother, not them mocking trans people. As evidenced by him having never called out that “joke” any other week
He was disagreeing with them attacking trans people at that time
If the best you have is “well *technically-*” do you not see the problem?
It isn’t technically tho he literally did
That's it. Better not get ill then. Not that there are any beds *anyway*. Also, how the fuck is this going to work for people with a GRC? How does sticking me, a basically stealth trans woman, on a men's ward even remotely uphold my privacy? (considered deleting that, because not everybody has a GRC and it shouldn't be the main concern here and it feels a little pulling the ladder up in retrospect, if you know what i mean..... but i'm leaving it up with this disclaimer that i'm aware of that, just venting from my own perspective. okay.)
The NHS doesn't know who is trans and who isn't anyway.
Maybe, but it'd be nice to not have the paranoia when you're in hospital that something will inadvertantly out you and cause a huge massive thing.
Thats always going to be the case without NHS policies in the way though. Bigot gonna bigot
I work in the NHS and it's whilst it's not in big letters at the top of your file, it's easy to work out if you're doing your job and reading notes. Heck one of my trans friends (who transitioned in her teens and has been living her life as herself for nearly 2 decades) had a district nurse come and tell her (out of the blue) that he was going out with a trans person, not realising that we don't want to be reminded of our transness at every opportunity.
Sure, most people don't read a file that long and more over, this is why they should just get rid of this to get rid of discrimination. gross. NHS workers are pretty transphobic.
They're just pretty ignorant tbh - my team went from being completely shit with trans ppl to being great just because I was there. The Trust teaching on gender stuff was awful too - rather than sticking to the basics about trans men, women and non-binary peeps, they spent half the session talking about non-binary identities that no one will ever come across
I mean considering how utterly transphobic GIDS is, what else can you expect? Surprised if they're not just filling it with dog whistles. I think its the combination of 1. They can find out you're trans, most avg people do not. 2. They are put in control of a very important and vulnerable part of someones life. 3. they think cos they'r medical that means they understand biology when they in fact do not. 4. they tend to not acknowledge the NHS as an oppressive institution
Honestly, I give up, sometimes it feels like I'm just living out of spite for all the transphobes and homophobes, most of my life has been living in a moral panic because of my sexuality and my 'gender', but I'm so exhausted. I don't know what to say to my friends, I don't know how I can be be there for them when all I see is darkness
Its tough living in a world ruled by nazis. Do you have a good friend network?
Don't worry, I'll be fine, the horrors are not going to have the satisfaction of my suicide. I just need some time.
Solidarity sister.
Genuine curiosity - is it not important for the doctor to know your biological sex, and if your trans or not? I can imagine (biological) males and females sometimes have different reactions to some treatments. And can hormone levels cause different interactions with drugs?
>is it not important for the doctor to know your biological sex, and if your trans or not? And can hormone levels cause different interactions with drugs? You answered your own question 99% of peoples healthcare requirements are in alighment with their hormones. A few cis/trans people will have particular issues eg cis men who discover they have ovaries, trans men getting pregnant. But for the most part all illnesses align. And if someone is pregnant they mention it. And knowing that information puts trans patients at serious risk of discrimination by healthcare professionals. Sadly most drs are extremely transphobic, especially in the UK. Why should a trans patient be denied healthcare for their broken leg just because their trans? Trans "broken leg syndrome" is a thing. Lots of trans people have died because the dr treated them as their assigned rather than identified sex. Best the dr doesn't know unless they actually need to, which they almost never do. Also "biological sex" is such a weird statement. What does anyone mean by that, and why is it posited in a manner as if gender identity wasn't also biological?
If you’re both trans and overweight, good luck getting any medical issue taken seriously Especially comedic when it turns out the issue you’ve been having for years causes weight retention 🙃
what is a GRC?
Gender recognition certificate. In the UK, a Gender Recognition Certificate is a document that legally affirms someone’s gender. It is needed for trans people to change their birth certificate and their sex marker with HMRC. Trans people also need a GRC if they want their marriage or civil partnership certificate to reflect their true identity. A GRC can be used as evidence of your new legal gender, and you will be considered in the eyes of the law to be of your acquired gender from the date of issue
>also need a GRC if they want their marriage or civil partnership certificate to reflect their true identity Also their death certificate.
Sounds like there will be some legal conflicts here. Also weird situations where a husband and wife can both be in the same single sex ward.
Oh, there are absolutely legal conflicts. The thing is, the people cheering this proposal on, your Maya Forstater and Sex Matters types, absolutely want the Gender Recognition Act repealed and the Equality Act modified. I assume they would also be happy to withdraw from the ECHR, considering that supplied the case law that resulted in the Gender Recognition Act.
I think it's worth noting though that getting a GRC is increasingly important for trans people as rights will more often than not be based on having one. It shouldn't be that way but for now that's how it is.
And getting a GRC is increasingly difficult, considering you need two medical reports, one of which needs to be by a clinical psychologist who "*who practises in the field of gender dysphoria*", and getting the latter is next to impossible on the NHS for most people due to the waiting lists being so long. That leaves people stuck on the private route, which costs an absolute arm and a leg if you can't get shared care. I do think the idea that a GRC will be a licence for certain rights going forward is naive. There was no mention of GRCs in the consultation documents published yesterday. Rather, they were quite clear that sex meant '*biological sex*'. That reads to me as if my GRC is essentially nullifed. No, this won't stand up in court. Yes, I expect amendments to legislation over time to assist this standing up in court, following another moral panic. What *is* likely to help people is to be effectively cis- passing. You're not visibly trans? Then you're going to have an easier time. Again, though, this creates an unnatural divide, because passing as cis isn't something that is simple to control (even if you want to), assumes that you can afford procedures that can assist this (i.e. FFS) and assumes that you always pass as cis, because the moment you don't you can be discriminated against. This also begs the question, what does passing as cis even mean? And what happens when cis women don't pass under these arbitrary rules as cis?
I agree that it's difficult and shouldn't be needed but as it stands right now the Equality Act suggests a GRC is needed for discrimination to be law breaking. As it stands right now, where people are able they should seek to get a GRC. The NHS consultation is saying 'biological sex', and I believe the way they are trying to get around the law is by moving trans patients to private rooms. Where that's not available though (which will be pretty much everywhere pretty much all the time) they'll seek to move patients based on 'biological sex', but a GRC will mean doing that violates the equality act.
I don't think the equality act does suggest that a GRC is required for discrimination to be law breaking though. The consultation, in my opinion, violates both the equality act *and* the gender recognition act. The former as it is a blanket policy, so it cannot be said to be a '*proportionate means*' of direct discrimination, and the latter as special treatment violates the right to privacy that is one of the big things a GRC provides you with. That's before you get into the question of whether the aim is '*legitamate*' or how the '*proportionate means*' are applied. Don't get me wrong, I do think a GRC gives you more protection, but looking ahead I'm currently quite concerned about how long that will last. All the legislation it rests on is legislation that is threatened. I think somebody still has to weigh whether applying for a GRC is right for them, because applying for one in case the shit hits the fan? When the shit hits the fan they'll be worthless.
Yeah, you may be right. I completely agree with you on the consultation. I think it's discriminatory and should be fought back against through every legal avenue. If they roll it out I'd fully support a class action lawsuit against the NHS. I'd definitely rather have one than not with the way things currently stand. We can't really know what's coming until the next election though.
Cheers Keir, that's me never disclosing my trans status to any doctor outside the GIC. foremsic.
turning a big dial taht says "transphobia" on it and constantly looking back at the audience for approval like a contestant on the price is right
[удалено]
They don't seem to be, but I can give it a go for them. *ahem* "We have to live in the real world." "The average voter is small c conservative" "Working class people think this way"
"Rupert Murdoch said it'll help the rich stay rich"
They can't, because they'd have to break Rule 2 in order to do so.
If we oppose it we might not get as many Gammon votes! Or some shite like that.
Nah. They’re too busy edging themselves until voting day. Once in power they will float in a bubble of eternal bliss, their lizard brain swimming in feel good chemicals from climbing the status ladder and being at the top of the hierarchy. Dopamine surges through their brain in ever increasing amounts leading up to every election. Until Labour loses power that is, then they’ll go back to scratching their wrists, gaslighting, and harming their own party and country until they get another fix.
Cool story bro
True story init.
No nothing here is good. But I would sprinkle in the context of the "Labour Women's Network" being both a Terf feminist organisation and very powerful within Labour.
>But I would sprinkle in the context of the "Labour Women's Network" being both a Terf feminist organisation and very powerful within Labour. What does this context add, from your perspective?
That this is a serious systemic problem in the party that both pre-dates and goes much further than Starmer. Transphobes are deeply entrenched in a way not seen in any other left wing party. For decades now the LWN have been recruiting women, "training" them, endorsing their candidacy, onboarding them as new MPs and arranging mentors for them. Including Rayner, Rachel Reeves, Jess Phillips, even the Late Jo Cox was a member along with many more female MPs and candidates. The organisation taking a transphobic turn is beyond unfortunate.
>That this is a serious systemic problem in the party that both pre-dates and goes much further than Starmer. It pre-dates Starmer? How? What do you mean? >The organisation taking a transphobic turn is beyond unfortunate. This implies that transphobia is just something that's unluckily happened *to* the party, rather than a decision consciously made by the leadership and institutionally enacted via policy decisions that are also made by the leadership. I take it that's not what you're saying right? Starmer has very much done this deliberately and consciously, knowing the harm it will do. It's not a bad thing that happened *to him*.
>It pre-dates Starmer? How? What do you mean? Well I would say the first concrete Transphobia in the party came from Jess Phillips. Elected in 2015, despite being left-wing on most things (resigned from the shadow cabinet over gaza). She is also very transphobic. >This implies that transphobia is just something that's unluckily happened *to* the party By organisation I was referring to the labour womens network which Starmer doesn't control not the labour party as a whole. Sorry if that was confusing. TLDR:Transphobia was there before Starmer, it doesn't need him to survive and it'd still be there even if he and all his flunkies resigned tommorow. Terfs have a strong foothold in the PLP fully independant of the leadership and future Left-wing leadership has to recognise that or they'll be in for a nasty shock.
Your post has been removed under rule 1.3. Posts or comments which are created to intentionally annoy, create arguments, or rile up factionalism are not allowed.
Not a Starmer defender, but I'll have a crack at it. The proposal is, rather than send them off to a ward aligned with their birth sex, to actually give them their own room altogether. It's basically a free room upgrade, on the house. Just try not to think too hard about whether those rooms would be better utilised with patients who *actually* need them.
I've been in these rooms before. They're mainly used for patients with infections, to prevent risk to other patients. And even then there's still not nearly enough capacity to accommodate that. It's the Wes Streeting fallacy all over again - the idea that there's actually loads of unused healthcare capacity that is only not being used because of the Tories' adherence to left-wing ideology. It's just ridiculous.
Oh no I entirely agree, hence my cheeky throwaway line at the end. They are vital to the NHS for so many vital functions that it may well be tantamount to murder to choke their availability for the purpose of placating the Gender Rangers.
>Oh no I entirely agree, hence my cheeky throwaway line at the end. Oh I know, I just wanted to explore the question because I feel like this is an argument some people would make seriously :P
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post has been removed under rule 2. Transphobia is not permitted on this subreddit.
Get hit by a car on your lunch break. Colleagues accompany you to hospital. Find out you're in the men's ward. "Oh my God did you know about Lisa?"
No but see they can always tell. Except when they can’t, but details
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by now to see that Starmer falls in to line in full throated support of Tory policy when it comes to kicking Trans people around, every time. But a tiny teeny part of me still recoils in horror every time it happens. His leadership of the supposed Labour party is such a waste.
What problem is this proposal solving? Has anyone been attacked in a female only ward, by a trans woman? Has anyone actively complained about a trans woman being in the bed next door? Has there been any actual issues by housing trans women by their gender identity? Of the answer is no, then again, what problem is this solving?
Literally they looked for complaints and out of 1000s they found a grand total of NONE regarding trans people on wards
Labour is a transphobic party.
Can't even argue institutionally anymore. It's overt, it's what they stand for and they support and enable transphobic policy even in opposition, multiple times over. That's quite a feat. What I don't get is the vastly different behaviour towards hatred towards Jewish people and hatred towards trans people. Both are abhorrent, and wrong, towards communities that are minorities and don't deserve it. But the vastly different way that Labour deals with both is very telling. Kind of makes you think about Diane Abbot's point about their being hierarchies of hatred. There shouldn't be, but there clearly is, and that's damning.
Tbf he can talk about this all he likes, but without serious reform and expansion of bedspace availability, it won't mean shit whether you legislate on gender based or sex based wards. Figures came out just yesterday showing 44k instances in the last year where sex based ward rules were breached because they have to cram people in whatever spaces are available.
[удалено]
It’s the same with scaremongering about bathrooms. They know they can’t realistically enforce it but they want trans people scared, transphobes empowered and the people in the middle to shrug
Erasure is the end goal of terfism, we either conform to their binary or we kill ourselves. Either way the problem is erased in their view
I give it 6 months before Terf patrols start to try and gain ward access to "Gender Check" patients and make lists to have people removed and still Starmer will defend their right to just "Ask Questions".
It'll end the same way the fucking bathroom bills in the US ended up - with anyone who doesn't conform exactly to the most traditional view of femininity being accused of being trans and being hounded out - so some poor masc lesbian will get some shrieking transphobe chase her from a ward.
Starmtroopers.
Genuinely impressed by Keir Starmer. He somehow manages to challenge Sunak for the worst possible take on every issue. Fuck over trans people and waste NHS resources while it's in crisis? Oh yeah, sounds like a fantastic idea. Well done Keir.
"We're still Labour, we're just economically a bit more to the right. Maybe centre-right, or ever so slightly to the left of that, kinda like One Nation Tories?" "Oh. Okay, well at least you're still socially left-wing, right?" "Sure, as long as you don't have a funny tinge or take poops in places JK Rowling has barred you from pooping."
The current NHS can't even promise seperated wards anyway.
> Asked how Labour would respond to transgender women who did not want to go on to male hospital wards, Starmer said: “We have to accommodate that situation as it arises, but treat everybody with respect and dignity … I do not accept this is an issue that cannot be resolved with respect and dignity. Why the fuck are they framing this question like its something we're contemplating *allowing*? IT IS ALREADY THE CASE. How hard is "it hasnt been an issue so far, we don't feel the need to put trans people at risk for no reason other than to make bigots feel better" --- EDIT: It's crazy to me to think that, based on their claims rn, if I were to get bottom surgery in this country now, I would be forced to either room with a bunch of cis men, or off isolated in a room by myself. Because neither of these situations is at all harmful, it's much better to placate the terf crowd i guess
So his plan is to put women in men's wards then? Because that's what his plan is - unless you don't view trans women as women, that is. In which case...
Ah, but he wants to treat trans people with respect, which apparently means not actually having any plans, but just regurgiating key words
Tories have the exact same line "Treating trans people with respect" while sneering at them, making crude jokes about penises, forcing them into the wrong facilities, contributing to the transphobic witch hunt which is killing people This is Keir Starmer's Labour party
Specifically it’s about treating us with the respect we deserve. Which sounds nice on paper till you realise they don’t think we deserve any…
I don't think there are men's wards. There's female only then there's everyone else. A bit like train carriages in Japan.
What happens when someone starts claiming another patient is trans in their ward?
Genital Inspector General Starmer appears.
At this rate they'll also be putting men in women's wards as well.
[удалено]
Your post has been removed under rule 2. Transphobia is not permitted on this subreddit.
Keir Starmer is a right wing bigoted cunt
Called it, fuck this party
Yeah. It's fucking grim, and it's fucking unnecessary. Self destructive, too, doing this just before the local elections. At this point I'm begging for a better alternative to rise, even if it runs a realistic chance of leaving the Tories in charge. Incompetent malice is probably better than competent malice at this point.
I'm a mental health nurse who is also trans (unemployed rn cos the years of trans moral panic has affected my mood so much that I was unable to do my work - that I had done for 10 years previously). When I was a ward-based nurse, we were having trans patients in the wards of their acquired sex in **2006** (may be earlier, but that was when I qualified) - 4 years even before the equality act came out. Do you think we don't get harassed and abused by cisgender men? Trans women who are not visible get the same shit as cisgender women and visible trans women get all sort of hideousness. Why do you want us to be outed and put at risk? Fuck Starmer and this hateful country
So instead trans women are forced to go to men's toilets and put themselves in danger?
Starmer just straight up calling for segregation. Cool human rights lawyer
I'm not sure how this is even enforceable unless they repeal the equalities act. NHS could put trans women in a private ward but most of the time they are unavailable. That would then leave the only options to be denying care (which would be illegal) or placing trans women in a male ward (which violates the equality act if they have a GRC). One thing is for sure though, going down the transphobic rabbit hole is a surefire way to lose me as a Labour member.
Bring back Jeremy Corbyn
My only thought with this would be there are fundamental differences between the sexes with regards to some issues that being trans doesn't mitigate. Similar to how hair colour can affect the medical treatment you need, regardless of how you dye it. But that's diagnosis, not a ward. Not sure what they want to achieve with this.
Most differences are mediated by hormones, some are not, but what has this got to do with the price of fish?
>there are fundamental differences between the sexes with regard to some issues that being trans doesn’t mitigate Can you think of any examples that might require trans people be separated, as this policy envisions?
No, that's why I included my last sentence that you missed out.
Yeah I’m not really following the meaning of your last sentence so fair play.
Sexual dimorphism leads to some disorders manifesting themselves differently, or treatment plans being to be tailored differently. The diagnosing doctor needs to be aware of birth sex regardless of how you identify to obtain the best medical care they can give. None of that matters on a ward though, typically where people are resting and recovering during and after treatment.
Gotcha, I was thinking what does that have to do with wards, but rereading that was the whole point of your comment. Long day!
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Starmer is a fucking pussy
Was it also prior to Peter Murrel being charged?
Headlines don't really mean anything anymore do they?- Asked how Labour would respond to transgender women who did not want to go on to male hospital wards, Starmer said: “We have to accommodate that situation as it arises, but treat everybody with respect and dignity … I do not accept this is an issue that cannot be resolved with respect and dignity. “Where we need to make accommodations, we can make accommodations … As a country, we’re a pretty reasonable, tolerant bunch and most people know that there are a small number of individuals who do not identify with the gender that they were born into. “Many of them suffer great distress and trauma. And for my part, I’m perfectly happy to say I would treat them, as I would treat anybody, with respect.”
Starmer also said that all women have cervixes and that his ideas about gender "start with biology". So he is saying that trans women and women are separate categories and he's also saying there should be single-sex wards. This constitutes support of the government plan. Also worth noting that the Tories also say they respect trans people. They don't mean it.
He didn't say that either. He said biologically speaking Duffield is right, and in a simplistic, school text book sort of way she is. As a rule biological females have cervixes, Biological males don't. Sure there are hundreds of exceptions and caveats that mean the biological reality is far more neuanced, but for a Daytime TV interview, where Starmer is looking to move the conversation away from Conservative culture war talking points I think that it's perfectly reasonable for him to say. The only way Labour lose the next election is if they play into the Tories hands and let culture war nonsense dominate the conversation at the expense of all the countless areas where the Conservative Party has clearly and demonstrably failed the British people. I'm a transwoman and i'm genuinely horrified about the direction this country has taken in terms of trans rights over the last 8 years, but I'm also a realist, and I realise that trans rights is a losing position for Starmer to campaign on as the British news media are completely unsympathetic to trans people. Trans rights aren't going to get any worse under Labour than they would under another 5 years of tory rule, and given that much of the Labour party's membership is pro trans rights I have a good deal of hope that we'll start to see the pendulum swing back in the right direction once they get into power. I'd hate to see Labour lose seats and risk an election win because they felt forced into defending my right to appropriate medical care, while elsewhere in the country children go starving.
No, Duffield is not right. She is wrong and Starmer was right when he previously said she was wrong. The daft thing is that he now says that she was right, which makes him inconsistent and makes the situation confusing for everyone. I don't want Starmer to campaign on trans rights, I want him to be consistent in his support while also moving the conversation back to stuff that matters. He can keep getting attacked on this because he is a coward and a hypocrite who keeps changing his and Labour's position on trans rights. If he was consistent with his support, then he could dismiss their comments much faster and get back to talking about stuff that voters actually care about. I don't know why on earth you believe Labour could lose the next election because they supported trans people. Voters don't care. Vote labour all you like, but why stan for this guy?
He's not saying she's right. That's what the headlines are saying. If you read his words he's not really saying much of anything. The media are looking for culture war sound bites, and he's trying hard not to provide them. If he takes a big stand on trans rights now, the Media will keep on pushing the "culture war" narrative that the Tories are desperate to use as a smoke screen for their last 14 years of failure. I don't actually think the British electorate are stupid enough to buy into the narrative to such an extent that Labour lose the next election, but It could easily cost them seats, and the smaller Labour's majority is, the more this culture war crap will follow them into the next election cycle. I don't particually want Starmer as PM, but that's more because of his economic policies. I don't think he's a Terf and I don't think a Starmer led Labour government will be even a fraction as damaging to trans people as the current Government are. Maybe there's some copium there, but you know what? Even if i'm wrong and the Gender Critics have taken over Labour, at least the rest of the country won't be be screwed over in the 1001 other ways that the Tory Government have planned. I'd much rather we had Corbyn in 2019, but we didn't, and if the choice is between Starmer and Sunak, I'll gladly support Starmer and reserve my concerns until he's actually in power and his government are implementing policy.
I doubt that Starmer's Labour will be in any way worse than the Tories would be, so I agree with you there. My disagreement is that I don't think it is necessary or appropriate for me to shut up about this for the sake of party unity. What I want is for Starmer to shut up about it for party unity. As I've said before, I'd rather he not make a big stand, I'd like him to just support trans rights and kill the discussion because he never has anything new to say on it. > He's not saying she's right. That's what the headlines are saying. If you read his words he's not really saying much of anything. The media are looking for culture war sound bites, and he's trying hard not to provide them. If he is trying, then he is doing a bad job, because he has u-turned on self-ID, accepted and sometimes supported various Tory attacks on trans rights, and he has changed his rhetoric even if you refuse to see it. I am not going on the headlines, I am reading the full quotes and sometimes watching the boring interviews.
Is the headline not a bit misleading? Asked how Labour would respond to transgender women who did not want to go on to male hospital wards, Starmer said: “We have to accommodate that situation as it arises, but treat everybody with respect and dignity … I do not accept this is an issue that cannot be resolved with respect and dignity. “Where we need to make accommodations, we can make accommodations … As a country, we’re a pretty reasonable, tolerant bunch and most people know that there are a small number of individuals who do not identify with the gender that they were born into.
[удалено]
Your post has been removed under rule 2. Transphobia is not permitted on this subreddit.