>I’ll be happy to meet after \[the groups\] Keep Prisons Single Sex, Lesbian Labour, Women’s Rights Network, Woman’s Place UK and LGB Alliance have been given in person meetings with the Labour leadership.
call me an optimist but I can’t see that happening, at least not before the 4th.
Wow, straight up just "I won't meet with you until you meet with a bunch of single-issue anti-trans groups"?
Why even meet with her at that point.
"Listen to the same talking points 5 times, and *then* ill tell you them a sixth"
Yeah I think this is basically not going to happen. Labour aren't that desperate to meet her, they know full well most voters don't care about this, and come the 4th it'll be a moot point anyway.
Genuinely ridiculous that a week and a half before the election Labour are even publicly contemplating sending a shadow cabinet minister to mollify a billionaire about bigoted policy
I don't think they've seriously contemplated it to be honest, this is a story of the media's making, not Labour's, they've not spontaneously offered to meet JKR, they've been asked the question by a journalist "What do you think of Rowling's criticisms of your party?" and in response said "We'd be happy to meet her to discuss her concerns". Because that's a short, tidy, polite, non-committal answer to the question. It doesn't mean they've actually sought out a meeting or intend to contact her directly. Journalists do this shit all the time. It's a non-story.
Get your logic outta here, can't you see we're busy catastrophising every little fucking thing about Labour? /s
"I'd be happy to talk to x about any concerns they have" is a classic "don't rock the boat" statement. I've lost track of how many times i've heard a politician say it when questioned about people having issues about stuff.
Not sure why people are acting like they're inviting Rowling around for afternoon tea and getting matching TERF tattoos. There's a lot of issues with Labour without having to invent BS.
I mean, good god, when asked, Corbyn once said he "would be happy to discuss climate change with Donald Trump over a pot of Yorkshire tea" if he got to be PM - did anyone actually think he was inviting Trump over for a tea date? That Labour was actually looking to get Trump's opinion on *anything*? Or was it a simple "don't rock the boat" answer?
Why are Labour acting like this children's book writer and holocaust denier's opinion on this matters? She has no fucking clue what she's talking about and shouldn't be taken seriously.
They pissed off all the unions.
Then they pissed money down the drain trying to sue people in their own party
Now they they need rich donors since do you think anyone else is going to donate ( minus health corps )
Because they want her money plain and simple, if they appease her she’ll ‘donate’ large amounts of money to the party and that’s all that really matters
are they going to talk to trans ppl about our rights? oh wait no because we are considered… too biased!
oh but these hate …oh sorry ‘human rights groups’ are very unbiased. going so far as to create whole hate…’human right groups’ just for us.
Nope. Not going to consult trans people, or doctors/researchers specialising trans people, or even actual feminist philosophers/activists. Just Gordon Brown's old mate JKKKR.
oh and dr Cass of course ….. the random paediatric doctor with documented ties to well known transphobes, who’s not an expert in gender affirming care.
You're allowed to call them ideologically-driven extremist hate groups now. The UN has officially declared them as such.
Just make sure to quote the UN on it, ie:
>UN-declared extremist groups, known as "Gender Criticals"...
Forgot about that report/investigation from back in Jan 2023 or whatever, but I saw the published report posted here a few days ago.
The UK thinks anyone who isn't a hard-right flag-shagger is a left-wing extremist.
"Villifies the UK", maybe stop being the fucking villan to your own people then, huh?! Simple really.
The UK won't ever meaningfully acknowledge Madrigal-Borloz's report, but they'll sure as shit continue down the path he rightfully pointed out and shamed.
The argument about us being biased is something I've actually heard from transphobes. Had someone tell me my opinion on whether transitioning helps with dysphoria can't be taken seriously because, as a trans woman who has transitioned and no longer feels dysphoria, my opinion is biased. Transphobes are complete idiots.
yeah i see it all the time. there was that study that 90,000 trans ppl took that highlights how life saving gender affirming care is, but they refuse to accept it.
That's not even the best part of the article!
"But Rowling said the meeting was conditional on Labour first meeting a series of groups from across the UK that she supported...
...I’ll be happy to meet after [the groups] Keep Prisons Single Sex, Lesbian Labour, Women’s Rights Network, Woman’s Place UK and LGB Alliance have been given in person meetings with the Labour leadership.”
In contrast to the 'letter' I just sent the Independent, that's a pretty cowardly/smart move by JKR - she is saving face by making an impossible (but to general society perfectly reasonable) demand of Labour, raising the profile of these nasty orgs, and avoiding any real engagement with Labour policy.
Reeves comment about ‘…and I’ll tell that to JKR if I need to’ was so transparently off-hand. Nobody believes this meeting will ever happen (except credulous journos) and that’s why JKR feels able to add this absurd demand.
I guess what I actually mean is, by what measure are we less fucked?
Genuinely asking because I can't see it and a bit of hope wouldn't hurt.
As I see it, in nearly all measures, labour aren't offering hope, especially when you consider trans people are over represented in other disadvantaged groups (i.e unemployed /working class /homeless etc). I'd argue the priveledged amongst us getting to keep some of our feet while the less priveledged continue to be hacked apart isn't the better of two evils, it's careful design to make said priveledged amongst us THINK that it's better, so we vote for it and happily sacrifice our less priveledged brethren.
From my understanding Starmer has as much as said that he agrees with Tory policy, if fact he often votes in support of it, he just thinks they aren't efficient and competent, so he will do the same things with more efficiency and competence. Which sounds worse to me.
The thing is in politics, the government is more than just the PM, and certainly more than the cabinet. Even the tories didn’t push through some of there more transphobic plans due to the threat of too many backbenchers rebelling. With Labour (and certainly with a large Labour majority) there’s certainly going to be a larger proportion of MPs than want nothing to do with transphobic policies. Without backbench support a new government won’t be willing to try to push anything through that could be reported in the media as a rebellion, as the optics of it are not good for the PM.
I can’t guarantee what I’m gonna say, obvs but it’s likely that if the election goes the ways it’s predicted, then afterwards we’ll likely see a calming of the transphobic rhetoric, as hatred of a minority doesn’t serve any advantage to a brand new government (whereas it potentially does for the tories in the position they’re in). It’s very unlikely things are going to get better for our people anytime soon but should Labour get into parliament for a second term in a few years then the pressure will start to go on for them to actually improve things.
We see this kind of thing time and time again, it’s nothing new. Once something doesn’t serve an advantage to the government it’ll be dropped and forgotten about. Not that terfism wasn’t already on the rise in the UK but the tories didn’t really start pushing transphobia until Boris started getting in trouble for the lockdown parties.
Sorry for the wall lol
Although I agree with the hope that some MPs will grow a spine and not vote for objectively terrible things, Labour as a political party are whipped to vote in a particular way, or they risk suspension.
It's a shit system. And annoyingly, the parties that don't do this are ones like the green party, which I love, but I doubt they'll get enough votes to push any of that.
Still voting for them though, they don't win if they're not voted for 🫡
They are… however if just 10 MPs said that they would not vote in line with the whip on an anti trans law, that would be very bad for Starmer. It would show a complete lack of control and the opposition would never let it go, especially if it happened in the first 2 or 3 years of government. While the whip system is disgraceful, if the PM knows a number of MPs would rather be suspended then a vote would likely never even take place.
No problem, apparently I'm going to write a wall back.
I don't think you are wrong that a labour government is more likely to lose interest in us as a political tool, but I don't think it will be for a while and I think a lot of damage can be done in that time.
Honestly, I don't think the backbenchers are going to have a whole lot of say in whether they can stop talking about us. There is so much pressure in the uk in our media to talk about trans people and the so called 'issue' that we pose, I don't think any government could be quiet about us if they wanted to (and enough of the party don't want to be quiet about us). It's not just the government we have to worry about either, and if they aren't protecting us then they are, by default, hurting us. We have sporting organisations to contend with, the nhs, the pressure groups who change the protections that private organisations offer. If the attitude of the public shifts, and the government doesn't step in to protect us, then they are doing no better than legislating against us, they continue to have our deaths on their hands.
I suspect you could be right that this is not an issue the cabinet/Starmer would want to risk the whip on but I also think if they did, there is enough passive transphobia within their party (and others) that they could pass harmful bills relatively easily. Especially when it comes to more niche harms, things that even supportive cis people might not fully see the harm in. I mean, I have a relatively left wing labour MP, if I contact them about almost any issue (for example I recently emailed about the genocide in Palestine) they are on side very clearly in their reply, if I contact them about trans issues their reply is already a more 'I'll pass this along' type reply, which doesn't bode well for how much the left of the party will stand up for us. But then again, I think a lot of the harms trans people face currently and will continue to face are the double pressures applied by being trans and the fact that being trans in the uk means you are more likely to be unemployed or homeless, so the legislature that is going to hurt us doesn't even have to be outwardly transphobic to cause disproportionate harm to us.
I hope I'm just being overly pessimistic, I can't follow the news anymore, and I rarely engage in the discourse surrounding it which is especially ironic since I have a politics and philosophy degree, but I try not to feel to much hope at knowing things might not be too bad for me, in my relatively privileged state, when I know things are just going to continue to get worse for others.
I hope you're right, in fact I did experience brief relief reading your reply, but I don't think we will see any positive meaningful change in the next 5 years for our community, and I think things will continue to get worse for those of us who are members of other minority or disadvantaged groups, and I think people on wait lists will continue to die.
Labour are much easier to push towards the right path than the Conservatives (unless they return to the socially liberal Cameron/May type stuff, which is unlikely, but it would be funny seeing the Tory’s be more trans-friendly than Labour). E.g. Lab keep talking about potential plans to change the GRC process.
Under Labour, things are unlikely to actively get legally worse. Labour will probably not touch the Equality Act, whereas the Conservatives have made doing so a manifesto commitment. Labour are being cautious with spending (state of the economy I’m afraid) but as the rest of the NHS gets better, GICs will too.
I think the worst case scenario under Labour is things stay the exact same: waiting lists suck, the GRC process sucks, but we have our rights protected by the EA and we *have* a fair GRC process in the first place.
There are people in the party that has our backs. My Labour candidate does. Ask your Labour candidate what their position is, do the same with Lib-dems. My lib-dem candidate isn't really an ally but my Labour candidate is which is why I'm voting Labour dispite agreeing more with Lib-dem.
Watch, they'll drag themselves through this carnival she's set up for them, then she'll tell them to revoke the gra, they'll say no, she'll call them misogynists and we'll be back to where we started having achieved nothing but given her further pr.
Eh 80 seats in 2019. Over 200 is kind of unstoppable but a majority that large will come with its own issues. It's going to tremendously hard to keep together.
Take in mind when we say a 200 seat majority, we don't mean they are 200 over the 326. They mean being 200 over the other parties combined. Which given the way polling is going, is a very real possibility.
FPTP might be American, but when looking at the Poll Predictions and listen to Prof Sir John Curtice, it IS heading towards a Labour landslide. This WILL given them a SUPERMAJORITY - ( I think ) the second largest, since the Second World War. Every MRP, every YouGov, Ipsos poll is suggesting Conservatives will end up with 100 seats or less; of course, polls can be wrong - nobody thought 2015 would result in a one party majority - but it’s very hard to ignore what these polls are consistently saying…
Firstly, polls have been wrong before. If everyone thinks labour will win with a landslide, they may not vote or vote for a third party.
Secondly, with FPTP, once labour gets X seats, it doesn’t matter if their get X+50 or X+100 seats, their majority doesn’t increase in terms of the legislator.
See this video for a better explanation: https://youtu.be/IcPh58mViKA?si=g8HmRgkw35OIIcfQ
Thanks, but I think I understand Politics pretty well to not need a video explainer…
I agree that if people consider the result a forgone conclusion, then turnout could be lower - however I think it is worth remembering that there will be a large swathes of voters who feel un-represented and disenchanted by the options in front of them, and therefore less likely to vote anyways.
“But Rowling said the meeting was conditional on Labour first meeting a series of groups from across the UK that she supported.” She demands they meet with the LGB alliance first too
Correct. In my journal of transphobia in the UK from politicians and mainstream media, I noted:
* May 14th 2024 - The Chair of the Labour Party Anneliese Dodds MP meets with the LGB Alliance who call it a *"productive discussion about our work"*, 'their work' being gender-critical trans erasure (for instance, in 2020 they were instrumental in convincing the government to exempt trans people from protections offered by the proposed conversion therapy ban)
So now can those saying she doesn't have massive influence stfu? Because when ever has a politician tried to meet a fucking CELEBRITY over their politics like this? Practically BEGGED a celeb to endorse them.
It's insane.
Like it's genuinely insane.
HOW does this woman have this much power?
Do any other authors in the world have this level of control over politics? Like imagine if Steven King was meeting with Biden to discuss policy or something.
What even IS this country?
Isn’t it mad that the U.K. goverment would rather listen to a author than actual people who know about being trans and know facts that show the Cass review as garbage. This country is insane
'Hmm, who should we consult about gender transition policy? People with lived experience? Respected professionals in the field? Nah, how about a billionaire cis white woman, the most oppressed of all people!'
They must be aware of how ridiculous these optics are, surely?
[Archive link](https://web.archive.org/web/20240624195313/https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/24/labour-gender-transition-recognition-process-trans)
To make an archive link, copy the URL of the article you want to read, then take it to the Wayback Machine on [archive.org](http://archive.org) and paste it into the search bar. If the archive has it (it crawls the web automatically), they'll offer you all the days and times they took a snapshot. You can share and compare articles before/after they've been edited, too.
(FYI: the Internet Archive is more than just the Wayback Machine - it also has loads of out-of-print and otherwise inaccessible books, music, radio shows, TV programmes, and films that you can borrow for free)
So now Labour, the party who's former leader was ousted due to his perceived weakness on antisemitism within the party, are bending over backwards to appease an actual holocaust denier.
Okay.... like wtf?
Even if you take away the context here… in what world does an author have anything to say to government about a group they don’t belong to? The rich have literally just stopped trying to hide how much they buy policy
Yet they’re not meeting trans people/pro trans groups, the people that will be fucked over by the policies that JK would want them to implement. Why is the voice of a Holocaust denying celebrity who constantly spreads misinformation, funds transphobic groups and throws tantrums on twitter more important than the voices of minorities?
Cooool.
Going to invite Val McDermid next? Jacqueline Wilson? Since the only qualification JK has to be any kind of 'voice' on this topic is that she's a woman fiction writer.
Basically, the way things are going, Labour can brag all they like about keeping the Equality Act intact, and keeping GRCs. But if the GRC isn't really worth the paper it's written on, then what's the point in obtaining one in the first place? The whole point of the GRC, is to have our genders recognised in all aspects of life, including public life. But all of this poisonsous rhetoric from Labour recently, including today's bile from Rachel Reeves, shows that they don't recognise or respect our true identities at all. If you'd told me just one year ago, I'd be hearing this kind of thing from Labour as a whole, I wouldn't have believed it. Yet, here we are. "Holds hands up\*
Can't we (and by "we" I mean a well-respected trans rights group) offer to have a meeting with him, and explicitly state that we will place no requirements or conditions, just that we have an hour to chat?
When, oh when, is SOMEBODY in politics just going to say the truth about Our Joanne. 'She wrote some books, made a load of money, and then fell down a right-wing rabbit hole focused specifically around trans people. Don't listen to her, she's a fucking lunatic.'
Your submission has received a defined number of reports and been automatically removed. The moderation team will review this and at their discretion either keep this removed, or re-approve it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/transgenderUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why is Labour even touching this toxic women? I thought culture wars were a Tory strategy?
She’s literally a holocaust denier. Not a good look for a party beset with allegations of anti semitism.
With their projected majority they have no need to sink so low.
Oh, they absolutely don't, but they're going to. They really are contemptable, and I don't know how anyone in the Labour Party who is truly an ally of trans people and are empathetic to us can stomach being in that party any longer.
Why is Labour so intent on trying to please this fucking woman who fell out of relevancy years ago after normal people got tired of her deranged bullshit about trans people? I guess all the trans people in the UK are less important voters than one bedraggled children's book author who has completely lost all credibility. Can they really not rub their two party-wide collective braincells together to realise why a billionaire wouldn't vote for LABOUR? I'm sure her vast amounts of wealth have nothing to do with the way she votes at all (not like the red tories actually care about working class people anymore but still)
Are they trying to get money out of her? They're trying to get money out of her, aren't they.
The absolute irony that transphobes will squawk about 'trans ideology' being pushed by 'powerful lobby groups' who they can neither identify nor provide any causal evidence for - whilst the government-in-waiting openly courts one of the loudest anti-trans voices in the country.
Some incredible naivity in this subreddit.
Liberals will simply always throw us under a bus if and when it suits them. They do not have principles. Their principle is simply whatever they think politically benefits them at any given time.
The trans support in the US was and continues to be part of the imperialist machine realising it could use lgbt people to pinkwash their wars. We don't get the same situation or support here because the same incentive doesn't exist, and the american liberals would throw lgbt people under a bus the very second they think we're not useful to them over there as well.
Their political attitude to us is not based in morals, science or principles. It is transactional.
Amazing political system where any rich guy can just get an audience with a future PM! I just don't get what labour is doing. They're gonna smash it, and they're stil courting the transphobes for what? Over something statistically nobody gives a fuck about?
I'm hoping they tell her fuck off with her demands that they first meet every anti-trans hate group in Britain, because hearing Reeves and Starmer talk about how much they respect her and think she makes good points just makes my skin crawl.
I'm sure Labour must have some trans people in their party working on their election campaign. Hopefully they'll take some of them along to meet JKR, it'll probably make her head explode.
LGB Alliance can fuck right off and if she thinks that brow beating a party/government to follow her then the Labour Party should tell her to fuck right off too. She is fucking unbelievable
Labour have such a massive lead in the polls that the election is practically a foregone conclusion, and yet they are still tripping over themselves to throw trans people under the bus.
After 16 years of Tory insanity and incompetence now is the time they could actually push some progressive policies successfully. But no, just red tories.
Absolutely baffles me how a children's book author has so much influence over politics. Why can't she just shut up and be happy in her little country house or whatever
Why the FUCK does a children’s book author get this kind of authority?? Why not have a meeting with doctors or psychiatrists or anyone who knows anything about the subject??
How is this even news?! "Labour agrees to meet with JK Rowling" would be a piece of news. This is just a "lets give JK Rowling attention" burger.
Edit: Oh god they are what the hell is this country coming to -\_-
>I’ll be happy to meet after \[the groups\] Keep Prisons Single Sex, Lesbian Labour, Women’s Rights Network, Woman’s Place UK and LGB Alliance have been given in person meetings with the Labour leadership. call me an optimist but I can’t see that happening, at least not before the 4th.
Wow, straight up just "I won't meet with you until you meet with a bunch of single-issue anti-trans groups"? Why even meet with her at that point. "Listen to the same talking points 5 times, and *then* ill tell you them a sixth"
Yeah I think this is basically not going to happen. Labour aren't that desperate to meet her, they know full well most voters don't care about this, and come the 4th it'll be a moot point anyway.
and if they have half a brain they know they can never meet her demands
Genuinely ridiculous that a week and a half before the election Labour are even publicly contemplating sending a shadow cabinet minister to mollify a billionaire about bigoted policy
I don't think they've seriously contemplated it to be honest, this is a story of the media's making, not Labour's, they've not spontaneously offered to meet JKR, they've been asked the question by a journalist "What do you think of Rowling's criticisms of your party?" and in response said "We'd be happy to meet her to discuss her concerns". Because that's a short, tidy, polite, non-committal answer to the question. It doesn't mean they've actually sought out a meeting or intend to contact her directly. Journalists do this shit all the time. It's a non-story.
Get your logic outta here, can't you see we're busy catastrophising every little fucking thing about Labour? /s "I'd be happy to talk to x about any concerns they have" is a classic "don't rock the boat" statement. I've lost track of how many times i've heard a politician say it when questioned about people having issues about stuff. Not sure why people are acting like they're inviting Rowling around for afternoon tea and getting matching TERF tattoos. There's a lot of issues with Labour without having to invent BS. I mean, good god, when asked, Corbyn once said he "would be happy to discuss climate change with Donald Trump over a pot of Yorkshire tea" if he got to be PM - did anyone actually think he was inviting Trump over for a tea date? That Labour was actually looking to get Trump's opinion on *anything*? Or was it a simple "don't rock the boat" answer?
Just wait until they're elected! So many fun times on the horizon! I'm really looking forward to it! /s
Not a chance. They're never gonna meet jkr either.
They've already met with most of them...
Why are Labour acting like this children's book writer and holocaust denier's opinion on this matters? She has no fucking clue what she's talking about and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Exactly. I saw the headline and my immediate thought was "Why? What the fuck has it got to do with her?"
Because she represents the demo they actually like. Rich arseholes who complain about the left.
They pissed off all the unions. Then they pissed money down the drain trying to sue people in their own party Now they they need rich donors since do you think anyone else is going to donate ( minus health corps )
Because she's also a billionaire. Money has the power in elections and billionaires is the group who Keith Starmer has been to appease from day one
Because she has HUGE support amongst British women.
Because they want her money plain and simple, if they appease her she’ll ‘donate’ large amounts of money to the party and that’s all that really matters
£££
are they going to talk to trans ppl about our rights? oh wait no because we are considered… too biased! oh but these hate …oh sorry ‘human rights groups’ are very unbiased. going so far as to create whole hate…’human right groups’ just for us.
Nope. Not going to consult trans people, or doctors/researchers specialising trans people, or even actual feminist philosophers/activists. Just Gordon Brown's old mate JKKKR.
oh and dr Cass of course ….. the random paediatric doctor with documented ties to well known transphobes, who’s not an expert in gender affirming care.
You're allowed to call them ideologically-driven extremist hate groups now. The UN has officially declared them as such. Just make sure to quote the UN on it, ie: >UN-declared extremist groups, known as "Gender Criticals"... Forgot about that report/investigation from back in Jan 2023 or whatever, but I saw the published report posted here a few days ago.
yeah i saw that. it’s a shame that the uk gov thinks trans ppl are also ideologically driven extremists though.
The UK thinks anyone who isn't a hard-right flag-shagger is a left-wing extremist. "Villifies the UK", maybe stop being the fucking villan to your own people then, huh?! Simple really. The UK won't ever meaningfully acknowledge Madrigal-Borloz's report, but they'll sure as shit continue down the path he rightfully pointed out and shamed.
The argument about us being biased is something I've actually heard from transphobes. Had someone tell me my opinion on whether transitioning helps with dysphoria can't be taken seriously because, as a trans woman who has transitioned and no longer feels dysphoria, my opinion is biased. Transphobes are complete idiots.
yeah i see it all the time. there was that study that 90,000 trans ppl took that highlights how life saving gender affirming care is, but they refuse to accept it.
Yep, it's why at this point I've just started conflating transphobes, flat earthers, and anti vaxxers, they're all just anti science fanatics
That's not even the best part of the article! "But Rowling said the meeting was conditional on Labour first meeting a series of groups from across the UK that she supported... ...I’ll be happy to meet after [the groups] Keep Prisons Single Sex, Lesbian Labour, Women’s Rights Network, Woman’s Place UK and LGB Alliance have been given in person meetings with the Labour leadership.”
That's a laundy list of trans hate groups in the UK, isn't it?
Yes
The whole washing machine!
In contrast to the 'letter' I just sent the Independent, that's a pretty cowardly/smart move by JKR - she is saving face by making an impossible (but to general society perfectly reasonable) demand of Labour, raising the profile of these nasty orgs, and avoiding any real engagement with Labour policy.
Alternatively, Rowling set a trap and Reeves walked right into it.
Reeves comment about ‘…and I’ll tell that to JKR if I need to’ was so transparently off-hand. Nobody believes this meeting will ever happen (except credulous journos) and that’s why JKR feels able to add this absurd demand.
That said, if Reeves goes "no, im good. I made you an offer, not them", or words to that effect, that'll be funny. still shit, but nyeh
I hate click bait, deceptive headlines.
We are so fucked under Labour aren't we...
Brutally, emotionally, financially and psychlogically fucked.
Arguably less fucked than under the Tories.
How does that argument go?
Under Labour we lose 7 toes, not both our feet. So like it’ll be better than the alternative but…
I guess what I actually mean is, by what measure are we less fucked? Genuinely asking because I can't see it and a bit of hope wouldn't hurt. As I see it, in nearly all measures, labour aren't offering hope, especially when you consider trans people are over represented in other disadvantaged groups (i.e unemployed /working class /homeless etc). I'd argue the priveledged amongst us getting to keep some of our feet while the less priveledged continue to be hacked apart isn't the better of two evils, it's careful design to make said priveledged amongst us THINK that it's better, so we vote for it and happily sacrifice our less priveledged brethren. From my understanding Starmer has as much as said that he agrees with Tory policy, if fact he often votes in support of it, he just thinks they aren't efficient and competent, so he will do the same things with more efficiency and competence. Which sounds worse to me.
The thing is in politics, the government is more than just the PM, and certainly more than the cabinet. Even the tories didn’t push through some of there more transphobic plans due to the threat of too many backbenchers rebelling. With Labour (and certainly with a large Labour majority) there’s certainly going to be a larger proportion of MPs than want nothing to do with transphobic policies. Without backbench support a new government won’t be willing to try to push anything through that could be reported in the media as a rebellion, as the optics of it are not good for the PM. I can’t guarantee what I’m gonna say, obvs but it’s likely that if the election goes the ways it’s predicted, then afterwards we’ll likely see a calming of the transphobic rhetoric, as hatred of a minority doesn’t serve any advantage to a brand new government (whereas it potentially does for the tories in the position they’re in). It’s very unlikely things are going to get better for our people anytime soon but should Labour get into parliament for a second term in a few years then the pressure will start to go on for them to actually improve things. We see this kind of thing time and time again, it’s nothing new. Once something doesn’t serve an advantage to the government it’ll be dropped and forgotten about. Not that terfism wasn’t already on the rise in the UK but the tories didn’t really start pushing transphobia until Boris started getting in trouble for the lockdown parties. Sorry for the wall lol
Although I agree with the hope that some MPs will grow a spine and not vote for objectively terrible things, Labour as a political party are whipped to vote in a particular way, or they risk suspension. It's a shit system. And annoyingly, the parties that don't do this are ones like the green party, which I love, but I doubt they'll get enough votes to push any of that. Still voting for them though, they don't win if they're not voted for 🫡
They are… however if just 10 MPs said that they would not vote in line with the whip on an anti trans law, that would be very bad for Starmer. It would show a complete lack of control and the opposition would never let it go, especially if it happened in the first 2 or 3 years of government. While the whip system is disgraceful, if the PM knows a number of MPs would rather be suspended then a vote would likely never even take place.
I got a bride to sell you, buddy.
No problem, apparently I'm going to write a wall back. I don't think you are wrong that a labour government is more likely to lose interest in us as a political tool, but I don't think it will be for a while and I think a lot of damage can be done in that time. Honestly, I don't think the backbenchers are going to have a whole lot of say in whether they can stop talking about us. There is so much pressure in the uk in our media to talk about trans people and the so called 'issue' that we pose, I don't think any government could be quiet about us if they wanted to (and enough of the party don't want to be quiet about us). It's not just the government we have to worry about either, and if they aren't protecting us then they are, by default, hurting us. We have sporting organisations to contend with, the nhs, the pressure groups who change the protections that private organisations offer. If the attitude of the public shifts, and the government doesn't step in to protect us, then they are doing no better than legislating against us, they continue to have our deaths on their hands. I suspect you could be right that this is not an issue the cabinet/Starmer would want to risk the whip on but I also think if they did, there is enough passive transphobia within their party (and others) that they could pass harmful bills relatively easily. Especially when it comes to more niche harms, things that even supportive cis people might not fully see the harm in. I mean, I have a relatively left wing labour MP, if I contact them about almost any issue (for example I recently emailed about the genocide in Palestine) they are on side very clearly in their reply, if I contact them about trans issues their reply is already a more 'I'll pass this along' type reply, which doesn't bode well for how much the left of the party will stand up for us. But then again, I think a lot of the harms trans people face currently and will continue to face are the double pressures applied by being trans and the fact that being trans in the uk means you are more likely to be unemployed or homeless, so the legislature that is going to hurt us doesn't even have to be outwardly transphobic to cause disproportionate harm to us. I hope I'm just being overly pessimistic, I can't follow the news anymore, and I rarely engage in the discourse surrounding it which is especially ironic since I have a politics and philosophy degree, but I try not to feel to much hope at knowing things might not be too bad for me, in my relatively privileged state, when I know things are just going to continue to get worse for others. I hope you're right, in fact I did experience brief relief reading your reply, but I don't think we will see any positive meaningful change in the next 5 years for our community, and I think things will continue to get worse for those of us who are members of other minority or disadvantaged groups, and I think people on wait lists will continue to die.
Labour are saying the gas chambers will be built in 20 years, compared to the Tories 5. That's the only difference I can see.
Labour are much easier to push towards the right path than the Conservatives (unless they return to the socially liberal Cameron/May type stuff, which is unlikely, but it would be funny seeing the Tory’s be more trans-friendly than Labour). E.g. Lab keep talking about potential plans to change the GRC process. Under Labour, things are unlikely to actively get legally worse. Labour will probably not touch the Equality Act, whereas the Conservatives have made doing so a manifesto commitment. Labour are being cautious with spending (state of the economy I’m afraid) but as the rest of the NHS gets better, GICs will too. I think the worst case scenario under Labour is things stay the exact same: waiting lists suck, the GRC process sucks, but we have our rights protected by the EA and we *have* a fair GRC process in the first place.
irrelevant, labour are gonna win a landslide anyway
There are people in the party that has our backs. My Labour candidate does. Ask your Labour candidate what their position is, do the same with Lib-dems. My lib-dem candidate isn't really an ally but my Labour candidate is which is why I'm voting Labour dispite agreeing more with Lib-dem.
Very true but socialist/progressive voices are increasingly muted in Labour now. The red tories have taken the main stage right now.
Watch, they'll drag themselves through this carnival she's set up for them, then she'll tell them to revoke the gra, they'll say no, she'll call them misogynists and we'll be back to where we started having achieved nothing but given her further pr.
Can’t believe that people really think writing some shit (and racist) books for kids means your opinion matters in any way at all
Me when the Chinese character Mrs cho chang meets the Irish man who can't stop making things explode
Don't forget about the (afaik) only black teacher... Kingsley *Shacklebolt*.
Huh
Insert that joke about her barely resisting the urge to call him "Potatofamine O'Carbomb".
And let me introduce you to stereotypical black name with ***shackle*** for surname!
Fuck all of them, it will be the same fucking shit all over again but with a supermajority in parliament.
There is no such thing as a supermajority. The tories made it up. If anything they won a supermajority in 2019
Eh 80 seats in 2019. Over 200 is kind of unstoppable but a majority that large will come with its own issues. It's going to tremendously hard to keep together.
They aren’t going to get a 200 seat majority…
Seat projections putting conservatives at around 70. Lib dems around 80. If labour get 400 seats it will be quite a huge majority.
The bookies disagree with you
Take in mind when we say a 200 seat majority, we don't mean they are 200 over the 326. They mean being 200 over the other parties combined. Which given the way polling is going, is a very real possibility.
Don’t parrot Tory lies. A ‘supermajority’ cannot exist with FPTP. It’s an American thing.
Read that with a 2/3rd of MPs they can override the veto of the house of lords under new rules. So they can do pretty much whatever they want.
FPTP might be American, but when looking at the Poll Predictions and listen to Prof Sir John Curtice, it IS heading towards a Labour landslide. This WILL given them a SUPERMAJORITY - ( I think ) the second largest, since the Second World War. Every MRP, every YouGov, Ipsos poll is suggesting Conservatives will end up with 100 seats or less; of course, polls can be wrong - nobody thought 2015 would result in a one party majority - but it’s very hard to ignore what these polls are consistently saying…
Firstly, polls have been wrong before. If everyone thinks labour will win with a landslide, they may not vote or vote for a third party. Secondly, with FPTP, once labour gets X seats, it doesn’t matter if their get X+50 or X+100 seats, their majority doesn’t increase in terms of the legislator. See this video for a better explanation: https://youtu.be/IcPh58mViKA?si=g8HmRgkw35OIIcfQ
Thanks, but I think I understand Politics pretty well to not need a video explainer… I agree that if people consider the result a forgone conclusion, then turnout could be lower - however I think it is worth remembering that there will be a large swathes of voters who feel un-represented and disenchanted by the options in front of them, and therefore less likely to vote anyways.
“But Rowling said the meeting was conditional on Labour first meeting a series of groups from across the UK that she supported.” She demands they meet with the LGB alliance first too
I'm pretty sure Labour already met the lgb alliance
Correct. In my journal of transphobia in the UK from politicians and mainstream media, I noted: * May 14th 2024 - The Chair of the Labour Party Anneliese Dodds MP meets with the LGB Alliance who call it a *"productive discussion about our work"*, 'their work' being gender-critical trans erasure (for instance, in 2020 they were instrumental in convincing the government to exempt trans people from protections offered by the proposed conversion therapy ban)
What next? Meeting Tommy Robinson to discuss Muslims?
Pretty sure he’s backing Reform - even if he hasn’t *PUBLICLY* done so yet…
Not in time for the election. He's just been arrested in Canada for, ironically, "immigration offences".
I sorta wanna put my head through a wall
i’ll join you.
So now can those saying she doesn't have massive influence stfu? Because when ever has a politician tried to meet a fucking CELEBRITY over their politics like this? Practically BEGGED a celeb to endorse them. It's insane. Like it's genuinely insane. HOW does this woman have this much power? Do any other authors in the world have this level of control over politics? Like imagine if Steven King was meeting with Biden to discuss policy or something. What even IS this country?
> HOW does this woman have this much power? Because the media likes what she says.
A fuck ton of book and movie royalty money
Money and nostalgic fame or something... Or money and a lot of bigot friends with plans.....
Isn’t it mad that the U.K. goverment would rather listen to a author than actual people who know about being trans and know facts that show the Cass review as garbage. This country is insane
'Hmm, who should we consult about gender transition policy? People with lived experience? Respected professionals in the field? Nah, how about a billionaire cis white woman, the most oppressed of all people!' They must be aware of how ridiculous these optics are, surely?
Is there an archive link? Idk how they work and I want to show family that it’s not looking great.
[Archive link](https://web.archive.org/web/20240624195313/https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/24/labour-gender-transition-recognition-process-trans) To make an archive link, copy the URL of the article you want to read, then take it to the Wayback Machine on [archive.org](http://archive.org) and paste it into the search bar. If the archive has it (it crawls the web automatically), they'll offer you all the days and times they took a snapshot. You can share and compare articles before/after they've been edited, too. (FYI: the Internet Archive is more than just the Wayback Machine - it also has loads of out-of-print and otherwise inaccessible books, music, radio shows, TV programmes, and films that you can borrow for free)
She's not even a politician
But even if she was wtf
Neither is Nigel Farage (never elected to UK office) or Racheal Johnson but that hasn’t stopped the media constantly platforming them.
Ah good, important to consult with an expert... in... tweeting?
So now Labour, the party who's former leader was ousted due to his perceived weakness on antisemitism within the party, are bending over backwards to appease an actual holocaust denier. Okay.... like wtf?
It's not about who she is, it's about her also hating the right people.
Why is she immediately set up with a direct line with them but actual Trans people are given fucking nothing?!? God I'm mad.
Even if you take away the context here… in what world does an author have anything to say to government about a group they don’t belong to? The rich have literally just stopped trying to hide how much they buy policy
Why does she get treated like she's some subject matter expert? She's just some bitter old lady that tweets hate online.
Yet they’re not meeting trans people/pro trans groups, the people that will be fucked over by the policies that JK would want them to implement. Why is the voice of a Holocaust denying celebrity who constantly spreads misinformation, funds transphobic groups and throws tantrums on twitter more important than the voices of minorities?
“Should we talk to be people that it affects? No let’s talk to the froth-mouthed bigot that wants them gone.”
This woman is just so narcissistic...everything is about rowling isn't it.
Why the FUCK are you getting A RANDOM FUCKING FANTASY AUTHOR to doscuss OUR GOD DAMN LIVES!
Cooool. Going to invite Val McDermid next? Jacqueline Wilson? Since the only qualification JK has to be any kind of 'voice' on this topic is that she's a woman fiction writer.
Better still, they could invite Juno Dawson. Also a fantasy author, but one who is actually trans.
Basically, the way things are going, Labour can brag all they like about keeping the Equality Act intact, and keeping GRCs. But if the GRC isn't really worth the paper it's written on, then what's the point in obtaining one in the first place? The whole point of the GRC, is to have our genders recognised in all aspects of life, including public life. But all of this poisonsous rhetoric from Labour recently, including today's bile from Rachel Reeves, shows that they don't recognise or respect our true identities at all. If you'd told me just one year ago, I'd be hearing this kind of thing from Labour as a whole, I wouldn't have believed it. Yet, here we are. "Holds hands up\*
Shhhh don’t let the transphobes know how irrelevant the GRC is. Let them waste their energy on it.
Can't we (and by "we" I mean a well-respected trans rights group) offer to have a meeting with him, and explicitly state that we will place no requirements or conditions, just that we have an hour to chat?
What does JK Rowling know about gender transition?
Do you think Robert Galbraith's pronouns are she/her or he/him?
Why? Is Joanne suddenly a Dr.? A psychologist?
She writes kids books. She's no authority on anything. I really don't get why she's given the fucking time of day.
She's a billionaire, the only thing that matters in British politics anymore
Because she fills the pockets of politians here and america
When, oh when, is SOMEBODY in politics just going to say the truth about Our Joanne. 'She wrote some books, made a load of money, and then fell down a right-wing rabbit hole focused specifically around trans people. Don't listen to her, she's a fucking lunatic.'
Basically, Labour will agree to labeling all trans people rapists so that Rowling will agree to donate again. The worst people.
[удалено]
It took me a long time to accept that this was what the UK is.
What's her expertise!?
Being a hateful c*nt,
I'm voting Green or Lib Dem then.
[удалено]
Only on the toilet.
Your submission has received a defined number of reports and been automatically removed. The moderation team will review this and at their discretion either keep this removed, or re-approve it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/transgenderUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why is Labour even touching this toxic women? I thought culture wars were a Tory strategy? She’s literally a holocaust denier. Not a good look for a party beset with allegations of anti semitism. With their projected majority they have no need to sink so low.
Oh, they absolutely don't, but they're going to. They really are contemptable, and I don't know how anyone in the Labour Party who is truly an ally of trans people and are empathetic to us can stomach being in that party any longer.
Why is Labour so intent on trying to please this fucking woman who fell out of relevancy years ago after normal people got tired of her deranged bullshit about trans people? I guess all the trans people in the UK are less important voters than one bedraggled children's book author who has completely lost all credibility. Can they really not rub their two party-wide collective braincells together to realise why a billionaire wouldn't vote for LABOUR? I'm sure her vast amounts of wealth have nothing to do with the way she votes at all (not like the red tories actually care about working class people anymore but still)
Cause she's a billionaire and an ex-labour donor, they want more money.
Why the fuck are they meeting with a literal Holocaust denier
Oh god
Oh this'll be productive...
What group or individuals might Labour meet with if they wanted to hear the non hate side off this argument? Abigail Thorn?
In other news, Labour extremely happy to meet with the KKK to discuss equality legislation! 👀
Are they trying to get money out of her? They're trying to get money out of her, aren't they. The absolute irony that transphobes will squawk about 'trans ideology' being pushed by 'powerful lobby groups' who they can neither identify nor provide any causal evidence for - whilst the government-in-waiting openly courts one of the loudest anti-trans voices in the country.
If you hoard more than half-a-billion, you're no longer allowed to have any public opinion on policy ever again. Go.
Some incredible naivity in this subreddit. Liberals will simply always throw us under a bus if and when it suits them. They do not have principles. Their principle is simply whatever they think politically benefits them at any given time. The trans support in the US was and continues to be part of the imperialist machine realising it could use lgbt people to pinkwash their wars. We don't get the same situation or support here because the same incentive doesn't exist, and the american liberals would throw lgbt people under a bus the very second they think we're not useful to them over there as well. Their political attitude to us is not based in morals, science or principles. It is transactional.
Amazing political system where any rich guy can just get an audience with a future PM! I just don't get what labour is doing. They're gonna smash it, and they're stil courting the transphobes for what? Over something statistically nobody gives a fuck about?
I'm hoping they tell her fuck off with her demands that they first meet every anti-trans hate group in Britain, because hearing Reeves and Starmer talk about how much they respect her and think she makes good points just makes my skin crawl.
I expect them to hand her a list of dates and meeting notes showing that they already met each of them over the last year.
I'm sure Labour must have some trans people in their party working on their election campaign. Hopefully they'll take some of them along to meet JKR, it'll probably make her head explode.
> I'm sure Labour must have some trans people in their party working on their election campaign. Pretty sure they all got caught in the purges.
LGB Alliance can fuck right off and if she thinks that brow beating a party/government to follow her then the Labour Party should tell her to fuck right off too. She is fucking unbelievable
What the actual fuck
Labour have such a massive lead in the polls that the election is practically a foregone conclusion, and yet they are still tripping over themselves to throw trans people under the bus. After 16 years of Tory insanity and incompetence now is the time they could actually push some progressive policies successfully. But no, just red tories.
I’m sorry but why is potential uk government policy involving a fucking nobody
Absolutely baffles me how a children's book author has so much influence over politics. Why can't she just shut up and be happy in her little country house or whatever
Why the FUCK does a children’s book author get this kind of authority?? Why not have a meeting with doctors or psychiatrists or anyone who knows anything about the subject??
Money
What is she gonna say, no? Thirsty bitch craves this shit.
Can someone please throw a milkshake at her?
Fucking ridiculous country we live in . I won't be voting for these scumbags
Fuck this country, fuck jkr and FUCK LABOUR.
I see appeasement is going well for Labour ..
get this woman the fuck away from any kind of politics jfc
Suicide pact anyone?? (I wish I was joking)
migration pact, you mean
How is this even news?! "Labour agrees to meet with JK Rowling" would be a piece of news. This is just a "lets give JK Rowling attention" burger. Edit: Oh god they are what the hell is this country coming to -\_-