Author: Mick Hartley

a man to be treated as though he were female – ie to opt in to the protected characteristic of female. It’s unclear exactly how their proposals would work but it sounds like the following.

1. The judicial panel of lawyers/doctors that grant a GRC on the basis of an application that includes diagnosis of gender dysphoria from two clinical specialists would be scrapped. You’d only need a diagnosis from one specialist doctor then a GRC would be automatically issued.

That removes any safeguard that could eg root out male sex offenders or male abusers from getting legal documentation that obliges providers to treat them as though they were legally female. Gender dysphoria is a pretty subjective diagnosis that abusive men can likely game.

2. A requirement to show proof you’ve lived in acquired gender for 2 yrs replaced with 2 yr “cooling off” period. If it’s you have to wait 2 yrs before getting a GRC, that’s a weird thing to call it. If it’s you get it straight away but can reverse it starts to look like self id.

3. Labour want to reverse the spousal exit provision in the GRA. This is NOT a “spousal veto”- Labour have adopted misleading activist language on this. If a spouse doesn’t consent to being in a same-sex as opposed to opposite sex marriage then an interim GRC is granted…

That is grounds for automatic annulment. Then a full GRC granted post annulment/divorce. It means dissolution papers will show the dissolution of an opposite not same sex marriage. A wife CANNOT prevent her husband from getting a GRC though. To call it a “veto” is wrong.

It’s deliberately obfuscating- why it’s so disappointing to see Labour adopt activist language. See also use of “conversion therapy” by activists to mean exploratory therapy for children who are gender questioning- why Cass review raised concerns about impact of criminal ban.

It’s crazy to propose reforms to the gender recognition process while it’s unclear what the implications for women’s Equality Act protections are. We urgently need clarity through amending Equality Act to be clear a GRC doesn’t change someone’s sex for these purposes.

So in summary: Labour are claiming to be robustly defending Equality Act protections for single-sex spaces, services & sports while adopting policy positions that would water them down. That’s dishonest. They’re only getting away with it because it’s a technical policy area.

nts for bad policies, she’s fighting even bigger and badder things – the cultural and social expectations that put girls into stupid pink T-shirts and the mental shackles of being ‘kind’.

uche-style, we gave them the opportunity to watch unique foreign films and dramas, but this seems to have become a poison,” the officials said.

“The blatant inclusion of non-socialist elements banned by the state in films is tantamount to disregarding party policy and directly challenging the Workers’ Party,” the officials continued, stressing that such acts should be strongly punished.

The "non-socialist elements"would presumably be anything that isn't about and in praise of the glorious Kim dynasty.

During the struggle session, officials from the Central Committee’s Propaganda and Agitation Department named several film workers and artists involved in the non-socialist phenomenon, saying, “They are guilty of desecrating our films and art.”

“Unbeknownst to us, the enemy’s black clouds and seductive spirits first reached the creators and artists of film and art,” the officials said, adding: “We should have ruthlessly nipped the black sprouts in the bud from the beginning, but they have grown and reached the extreme.”

“Officials from the Central Committee’s Propaganda and Agitation Department made it clear that the ideological struggle session would end with punishment, not just criticism,” the source said, adding: “In fact, after the struggle session, it was announced that more than a dozen workers and artists in the film sector would be dismissed, suspended and revolutionized.”

Revolutionized? As in, sent to a labour camp? Or just shot?

by removing the need for them to prove they have lived as their preferred gender for two years.

Under existing rules, transgender people wishing to have their new gender legally recognised must obtain a gender recognition certificate (GRC).

They are required to submit proof that they have changed genders, which can include official documents such as utility bills or passports, or even library cards or supermarket loyalty cards.

Officials insist on two years’ worth of documentation to ensure the person is prepared for a permanent change. However, The Times has learnt that Labour will ditch the requirement in an attempt to “remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance”.

Instead, transgender people will be required to undergo an effective cooling-off period for two years after their application for a GRC is submitted. A single doctor specialising in gender issues will be able to provide a medical report supporting the change to their new gender.

A single doctor specialising in gender issues…not hard to guess where their sympathies will lie.

As well as simplifying the application process, Labour will also get rid of a requirement to have consent from the spouse of the person wishing to change gender.

The changes are likely to heighten concern among critics over Labour’s approach to transgender issues. It comes after JK Rowling, the Harry Potter author, accused Labour of “abandoning women” over its stance of gender….

Labour’s proposal was criticised by Kemi Badenoch, the women and equalities minister, who said it would “unravel all the protections in the current system designed to protect women and girls” and create “loopholes for predators and bad-faith actors to infiltrate women-only spaces and put us at risk”.

Top comment, from LGB Alliance's Kate Harris:

Here we go. Labour have learned nothing from the disaster that unfolded in Scotland. We suspected it; we smelt it. Now we know for sure that Labour don't give a fig for women's and LGB rights. Hypocrites now exposed in all their regressive cult beliefs. Bye bye Labour.

he unfairness of divorce laws, inheritance disparity, reactions to apostasy? Islamophobia laws are a step backwards, making it harder for reformist forces in Islam. This is something that today’s secular politicians struggle to comprehend.

Kemi Badenoch put it well back in February, in response to Annaliese Dodds' demand that the Tories tackle "the scourge of Islamophobia":

We use the term “Anti-Muslim hatred”. It makes clear the law protects Muslims. In this country, we have a proud tradition of religious freedom AND the freedom to criticise religion. The definition of “Islamophobia” she uses creates a blasphemy law via the back door if adopted.

As I said some years back:

The charge of Islamophobia deliberately obscures that separation between a person and their beliefs. It accepts the Islamic vision of an immutable union of person and religion. We should refuse to accept those terms. A person's ethnic origins may be Pakistani, Arab, Kurd, European, whatever, and to criticise or abuse them for that is racist and unacceptable. Their beliefs, whether in Islam, Scientology, UFOs, or any other ideology, creed or cult, is an entirely different matter, and should be open to criticism, debate, scepticism, up to and including ridicule. That's the way we do it, and that's what we should be defending. Worship who or what you want, wear what you want, think what you want, but don't expect to be spared from being offended by the opinions and beliefs of others. The charge of Islamophobia is, precisely, an attempt to make criticism of Islam illegitimate – and that attempt should be resisted. We should be free to criticise Islam just as we criticise Christianity, socialism, capitalism, or any other system of beliefs.

The fact that the most well-known Islamic apostate, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is under constant police protection, that Ibn Warraq, author of "Why I am Not a Muslim", has to write under a pseudonym, and that cartoons of Mohammed still attract death threats and Facebook bans, suggests how far we still have to go. The aim should be, at least for those Muslims resident in the West, that they feel as free to abandon the faith of their parents (or not to, of course) as Christians, atheists, and all the rest of us are free now to make our own choices. As long as Islamophobia is accepted as a legitimate term of criticism, we won't start making any progress.

The misogynist fucks the Taliban have demanded that a UN conference on Afghanitan exclude women. And the UN agreed.

"It is a betrayal not just of Afghan women but all women around the world.”https://t.co/26XZTacLXf

— Mona Eltahawy (@monaeltahawy) June 21, 2024

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

We went from #MeToo to “reeducate yourself to like men staring at you as you get undressed at work” in 5 years, and I doubt it’s an accident. pic.twitter.com/dCXXuGy3jS

— Sall Grover (@salltweets) June 22, 2024

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

ul), but my fear all along has been that this front bench is flaky and willing to bend to the latest manifestation of progressive opinion. It appears to be packed with chameleons who don’t really have solid foundations and can therefore be cowed by a transitory mob, as long as it is co-ordinated and determined, like the extreme end of the trans lobby during the high point of its cultural power.

Many in this shadow cabinet, after all — including Keir Starmer himself — openly supported Jeremy Corbyn (Starmer said he would make a “great prime minister”) and paraded themselves with this radical socialist when they thought it was in their interest but are now seeking to pass themselves off as fiscally responsible types, hoping we will not notice the contradiction. Others happily dog-whistled to the antisemitic base in the Labour Party when it was in the ascendancy and then surreptitiously backtracked when the wind shifted.

Is it any surprise, then, that when we hit peak trans activism, they started to obediently spout the ideology of the dominant group, like Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution?

And if they fell so heavily for gender ideology, what future absurdities will they embrace in the belief that they're "progressive"?

o put themselves forward were chosen.

The school is facing a backlash from parents and female pupils who claimed that girls are being denied opportunities under the supposedly “progressive” policy.

Securing the posts can boost university applications and offer other opportunities such as public speaking.

East Renfrewshire Council, which runs the school, said the move away from head boys and girls was part of a national trend designed to “allow for greater equality”.

Greater equality as in, more power for men. That is, less equality.

However, feminist campaigners claimed that the supposedly forward-thinking move would limit opportunities for female pupils while handing an advantage to boys.

Marion Calder, a director at the For Women Scotland campaign group, said: “There have been multiple studies which show that in this type of election, girls are perfectly willing to vote for boys but boys will typically only vote for other boys.

“This is yet another misplaced policy in the guise of equality which in reality leads to the erasure of females and denies girls opportunities.

“It is no wonder that parents are up in arms. This school and any others that have adopted this regressive change should immediately scrap it and return to a system that has served them well for decades.”

The school is currently in the process of applying for charter status from the controversial charity LGBT Youth Scotland, which advises against use of words such as boy and girl in classrooms.

Aha. LGBT Youth Scotland is the Scottish equivalent of Stonewall.

The organisation advises schools that terms such as “head pupil” are “more inclusive” as alternatives may distress pupils who identify as transgender or non-binary.

Not more inclusive for women, of course – but that's not the point.

I just wrote this about Keir Starmer (not really. It's from 18 months ago, but we always *knew* you would do this) https://t.co/5rP51YZ71q pic.twitter.com/1cbdqjbLOu

— Victoria Smith (@glosswitch) June 21, 2024

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js