news & politics:discussion

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, lost said:

A woman can have a penis unless she commits a crime with it and then she becomes a man again? It maybe a simple position but the problem is alot of people would see your position as transphobic. That's how the SNP got in the mess it did.

There's a lot of exceptions in law and prison rules for crimes of a sexual nature compared to other crimes. Most trans people I know would be happy to make a specific concession like that to preserve having any hint of rights over the next 20 years.

[kaosmark2]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

you should write their election leaflets.

"Labour, we'll give up on helping you if the Daily Mail complains about you!"

[pink_triangle]

23 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I don't think Labour should make trans rights a central issue for the party, or their campaign.

 

I don’t think they would have a choice without taking the approach they have chosen. They would be asked question after question in an election. They are effectively trying to nullify the issue.

The conservatives don’t want to fight on the issues the electorate care about because they have failed on all of them. They want to go into the week before an election talking about trans rights, cancel culture and woke terminology. 

[gizmoman]

13 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

You can't get a Gender Recognition Certificate until you socially transition.

You can't get hormone treatment and surgery until you socially transition.

If you can't socially transition, you are stuck. Part of socially transitioning is self-ID. Self-ID is what happens and works now. There are nuanced exceptions, and some of them need to be worked on. Most don't.

A pretty simple position to hold re. prisons would be "self-ID doesn't apply if the crime was sexual in nature". That'd get rid of the idiocy around the case in Scotland and the fuss over it.

"Self-ID is what happens and works now. There are nuanced exceptions, and some of them need to be worked on. Most don't."

Not sure of your argument here, you seem to agree the current system works pretty well.

"A pretty simple position to hold re. prisons would be "self-ID doesn't apply if the crime was sexual in nature". That'd get rid of the idiocy around the case in Scotland and the fuss over it."

Except it wouldn't, the proposed new system would allow you to change your gender within 6 months with no official oversight, an armed robber facing a long prison sentence could decide he would rather transition and spend a few years in a women's prison, not saying this would be a common thing but it would throw the system into disrepute. The system now, although not perfect,does work.

[kaosmark2]

Just now, pink_triangle said:

I don’t think they would have a choice without taking the approach they have chosen. They would be asked question after question in an election. They are effectively trying to nullify the issue.

The conservatives don’t want to fight on the issues the electorate care about because they have failed on all of them. They want to go into the week before an election talking about trans rights, cancel culture and woke terminology. 

The approach they have chosen is "trans people don't deserve rights". They aren't nullifying the issue, they're ceding it.

Labour aren't promising anything on the issues the electorate care about.

[kaosmark2]

1 minute ago, gizmoman said:

"Self-ID is what happens and works now. There are nuanced exceptions, and some of them need to be worked on. Most don't."

Not sure of your argument here, you seem to agree the current system works pretty well.

"A pretty simple position to hold re. prisons would be "self-ID doesn't apply if the crime was sexual in nature". That'd get rid of the idiocy around the case in Scotland and the fuss over it."

Except it wouldn't, the proposed new system would allow you to change your gender within 6 months with no official oversight, an armed robber facing a long prison sentence could decide he would rather transition and spend a few years in a women's prison, not saying this would be a common thing but it would throw the system into disrepute. The system now, although not perfect,does work.

What do you think self-ID is?

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

lmao. It ends, ~20 posts in where about 2/3 of them are on the same 3 policies, with:

"This thread will be completed later, Labour just have so many policies it's impossible to name them all at once."

Literally what's in there is 

"We'll invest in renewable energy, and that'll create some jobs and do some other sh*t"

"We'll have a look at the sewage dumping problem - come back for more details!"

"We'll probably tax private schools a bit, close the loopholes and such. This'll also work on equity fund managers, definitely, for sure."

Obviously they are surmising but you asked about Labour policies and I’ve provided some for you.  
 

If you would like some more details try this link - https://labourlist.org/2023/05/labour-manifesto-2024-election-what-policies-npf-party/?amp

[pink_triangle]

2 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

The approach they have chosen is "trans people don't deserve rights". They aren't nullifying the issue, they're ceding it.

Labour aren't promising anything on the issues the electorate care about.

What do you think they could offer? The conservatives want to fight the next election on trans issues. What could they offer that would stop this happening? The SNP got tied in knots over the issue and it played a role in taking down the leader.

[kaosmark2]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Obviously they are surmising but you asked about Labour policies and I’ve provided some for you.  
 

If you would like some more details try this link - https://labourlist.org/2023/05/labour-manifesto-2024-election-what-policies-npf-party/?amp

This one stands out:

"We will ensure there is a specialist rape unit in every police force,"

There already is! It's called that city's rapists.

[gizmoman]

5 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

What do you think self-ID is?

The ability to transition without medical confirmation, that seems to be the sticking point, the current system requires it, the proposed system wouldn't need it so would be open to abuse IMO, if I'm wrong I'm happy to be put right.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

This one stands out:

"We will ensure there is a specialist rape unit in every police force,"

There already is! It's called that city's rapists.

Ok I’m not sure that type of comment is very helpful.

Have a proper read through it and I’m sure you’ll realise that Labour do have plans for the issues the electorate care about. 

[kaosmark2]

Just now, pink_triangle said:

What do you think they could offer? The conservatives want to fight the next election on trans issues. What could they offer that would stop this happening? The SNP got tied in knots over the issue and it played a role in taking down the leader.

They could have a belief that they can actually win the argument of standing up for people's rights.

Or they could have genuine policies left on issues that people care about and focus on those.

This is a case of being so afraid of letting the Tories pick the battleground, that they've already ceded it, and abandoned a large element of their support in the process.

[pink_triangle]

6 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

They could have a belief that they can actually win the argument of standing up for people's rights.

Or they could have genuine policies left on issues that people care about and focus on those.

This is a case of being so afraid of letting the Tories pick the battleground, that they've already ceded it, and abandoned a large element of their support in the process.

I think you have to choose your battles. I think this is one they can’t win in 2023/2024, who knows in 5 years time things may change.

I just feel this is a political issue they can’t win on as a left leaning party of opposition. The question to me is which party in power will best protect the rights of trans people and I believe that is labour. I fully accept trans people being disapproved and disagree.

[kaosmark2]

15 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

The ability to transition without medical confirmation, that seems to be the sticking point, the current system requires it, the proposed system wouldn't need it so would be open to abuse IMO, if I'm wrong I'm happy to be put right.

There are multiple stages to transitioning. Self-ID is transitioning socially, and protecting self-ID means trans people are allowed to insist on their chosen pronouns being used at work, that they follow the dress code according to their chosen gender, and the controversial one, is use the bathrooms of their chosen gender. 

There are two following steps after social transition. Medical, and legal. The medical step is getting hormone treatment and later surgery, and queues for this are currently ~5 years. This is done in tandem with the legal step, applying for a GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate). Getting a GRC requires proof that you have socially transitioned for at least 2 years - using your preferred pronouns and name at work and in forms/contact. It also requires a letter from a specialist doctor (not just your GP), which usually involves having got through the ~5yr queue for starting the medical process.

Without self-ID, transitioning at all is impossible. There are already a LOT of exceptions to where you can self-ID (and prison is one of them in not-Scottish UK), and the difficulty of using a different name and pronouns on forms from your legal name is already huge. But by removing self-ID, trans people will be back stuck in a catch-22, with no protection from abuse while socially transitioning, and unable to ever achieve medical and legal transition.

Edited July 26, 2023 by kaosmark2

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I think you have to choose your battles. I think this is one they can’t win in 2023/2024, who knows in 5 years time things may change.

I just feel this is a political issue they can’t win on as a left leaning party of opposition. The question to me is which party in power will best protect the rights of trans people and I believe that is labour. I fully accept trans people being disapproved and disagree.

Its not just trans people who disagree, it's the entire queer community. Labour are not welcome at Pride.

[kaosmark2]

15 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Ok I’m not sure that type of comment is very helpful.

Have a proper read through it and I’m sure you’ll realise that Labour do have plans for the issues the electorate care about. 

There's next to nothing in there on supporting private renters (there's 3 bullet points of waffle), and only two lines about zero-hours contracts and casual shifts.

And I think the fact that the police are spending more time raping women than catching rapists is a point of concern for the electorate.

[gizmoman]

5 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

There are multiple stages to transitioning. Self-ID is transitioning socially, and protecting self-ID means trans people are allowed to insist on their chosen pronouns being used at work, that they follow the dress code according to their chosen gender, and the controversial one, is use the bathrooms of their chosen gender. 

There are two following steps after social transition. Medical, and legal. The medical step is getting hormone treatment and later surgery, and queues for this are currently ~5 years. This is done in tandem with the legal step, applying for a GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate). Getting a GRC requires proof that you have socially transitioned for at least 2 years - using your preferred pronouns and name at work and in forms/contact. It also requires a letter from a specialist doctor (not just your GP), which usually involves having got through the ~5yr queue for starting the medical process.

Without self-ID, transitioning at all is impossible. There are already a LOT of exceptions to where you can self-ID (and prison is one of them in not-Scottish UK), and the difficulty of using a different name and pronouns on forms from your legal name is already huge. But by removing self-ID, trans people will be back stuck in a catch-22, with no protection from abuse while socially transitioning, and unable to ever achieve medical and legal transition.

"Labour has ruled out introducing a self-ID system to allow people to change their legal sex without a medical diagnosis."

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

You seem to be confused, no one is talking about removing self-ID as you define it, they are quite happy to continue with the current system as you describe it.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

schemes to attract more nurses,

they don't need that unless they'll be working against the nhs, as the nhs now has better long term plans for staffing issues.

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

"Labour has ruled out introducing a self-ID system to allow people to change their legal sex without a medical diagnosis."

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

You seem to be confused, no one is talking about removing self-ID as you define it, they are quite happy to continue with the current system as you describe it.

Self-ID in the full version, would accelerate past the incredibly obnoxious process for obtaining a GRC and stop people having to have an absolute mish-mash across different forms for 4-7 years. Living with different legal/social names and genders is an absolute nightmare and causes constant harassment while filling out forms and contact details.

The campaigners against self-ID are literally all arguing against it on the "predators will do this to access spaces", and equating all trans people as predatory men. 

Even under self-ID (which does work in every country that has it), there would still be more ways to stop predators identifying as trans to access spaces, than there currently are to stop predators becoming cops.

Do you think the current system as I describe it seems reasonable, fair, or practical?

[Neil]

21 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Its not just trans people who disagree, it's the entire queer community. Labour are not welcome at Pride.

does that 'queer community' have a plan for how to deal with the sort of issue that cropped up in scotland?

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

There's next to nothing in there on supporting private renters (there's 3 bullet points of waffle), and only two lines about zero-hours contracts and casual shifts.

And I think the fact that the police are spending more time raping women than catching rapists is a point of concern for the electorate.

Ending no fault evictions, National landlords register and decent homes standards are good things which will help renters especially ending no fault evictions.

Banning zero-hours contracts, seems like a good position to have on zero-hours contracts.

I’m sorry but your anti-Labour bias is stopping you from seeing that some of the things you are moaning about is there in some form, whilst they might not be up to your standards there is some good stuff there. 

[kaosmark2]

Just now, Neil said:

does that 'queer community' have a plan for how to deal with the sort of issue that cropped up in scotland?

  

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

A pretty simple position to hold re. prisons would be "self-ID doesn't apply if the crime was sexual in nature". That'd get rid of the idiocy around the case in Scotland and the fuss over it.

 

[Neil]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Banning zero-hours contracts, seems like a good position to have on zero-hours contracts.

they work for lots of people (who want casual-ish work) and lots of businesses ( theres a lot used in the nhs, apparently). 

banning them isn't a good position, without a position for how to sustain the work that depends on zhc's

[kaosmark2]

Just now, Ozanne said:

Ending no fault evictions, National landlords register and decent homes standards are good things which will help renters especially ending no fault evictions.

Banning zero-hours contracts, seems like a good position to have on zero-hours contracts.

I’m sorry but your anti-Labour bias is stopping you from seeing that some of the things you are moaning about is there in some form, whilst they might not be up to your standards there is some good stuff there. 

Lmao. I've spent 13 of the past 16 years in the Labour party and campaigning for them. I left Labour when it became clear Corbyn was willing to abandon the Jewish communities, and I left again when it became clear Starmer would abandon the queer communities.

I expect Labour party to be better than the Cameron/Osborne/Clegg government. The last 18 months have made me believe they won't be. Sure that's still miles better than the Boris/Truss/Sunak era, but it's not good enough. They abandon pledges on every issue.

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

. They abandon pledges on every issue.

the problem is adopting unworkable policies. as happened with trans self-id. the trans lobby shouted down anyone who identified the issues.