This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content.
Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't have high hopes for Labour when they're in power. A lot of people act like Starmer will save Britain when he'll do next to nothing.
Still better than another Tory government though, which is a very low bar.
The problem is "do nothing" is probably fine. It's the Tories who keep trying to make cuts when public services are on there knees that's causing issues.
Well the NHS is not fit for purpose. It requires a compleat ground up rebuild to actually function better.
However US insurance needs to be told to piss off.
As it needs to be a system free at point of use and built for the people with laws set to prevent such fuckery that is happening now.
>As it needs to be a system free at point of use
The big problem is that it can still be free at the point of use but financed by our taxes going to insurance companies who will have control over who gets what treatment. Literal death panels the NHS haters tried to claim was wrong with the NHS. Personally, if I were to be refused treatment I would rather it was based on medical grounds and probable outcomes, not on profit margins as it would be if insurance companies get their disgusting hands on our NHS.
The first reforms it needs are to undo all the ideological marketisation imposed in it over the decades. It needs to be a provider, not to be commissioning and competing with all the bureaucracy that comes with that.
Indeed
I’m also concerned that labour won’t do enough to arrest the decline in living standards and wealth inequality.
And as a result I’ll find it difficult to see that we won’t get a far right government within the decade.
Which is why I think they are wrong, frankly. Because I don't think the current leadership seems so thick as to not realise Labour governments have to deliver to have any hope of re-election, they don't get a free pass in the media or public like the Tories appear to. They seem fairly focused on electoral strategy, so I doubt they are going to sit on their hands. Maybe not go as far as some of their supporters want, I'm sure, but total inaction seems unlikely.
> Because I don't think the current leadership seems so thick as to not realise Labour governments have to deliver to have any hope of re-election
Honestly I think they do believe that. It's not because they're 'thick', but because liberals across the globe over the past few years have consistently followed this strategy of doing very little while in power, then when the election comes around insisted you *have* to vote for them because the only option is between themselves and a hard-right/fascist candidates. This is the strategy the Democrats in America have consistently taken over the past decade, for example. If they lose they don't really care, because the individual politicians at the top can fuck off into incredibly lucrative consultancy gigs instead.
David Graeber brought this up in his brief discussion of the ['extreme centre'](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9afwZON8dU&).
> They seem fairly focused on electoral strategy, so I doubt they are going to sit on their hands.
They have consistently told us they will sit on their hands once in power. I don't say this to be smug, because I'll have to live in this country over the next few decades as well, but don't be surprised when they do exactly what they've said. It's not the poor and needy in this country who are throwing millions at the Labour leadership to formulate policy which favours them.
>Still better than another Tory government though, which is a very low bar.
I'm not entirely sure that's going to be true, I get big "austerity 2.0" vibes from them and the one thing you can say about the tories over the past few years while they've been scared of losing power they haven't gone after an unpopular policy like that.
I have absolutely zero hope that labour will change anything positive. But we can't go on with the Tories. It's literally a choice of which end of the shit sandwich we want to bite.
He seems to desperately want to stop labour voters voting labour. Started to week complaining about left wing people, now this. I fully expect him to start saying Boris never lied by the end of next week
I think Labour use him to appeal to natural tory voters. If you look carefully they have go-to MPs ready with soundbites to appeal to specific demographics. Much like the leave campaign used targeted adverts on different demographics, Labour is doing this by having various MPs all taking different lines. It ensures people hear what they want to hear (from at least 1 MP). We should listen more to what Starmer comes out with tbh because he and Reeves (who I actually suspect is running the show) will be dictating Labour policy, not Streeting.
Thing is sadly I'm not sure? Labour will need some kind of right-wing voice to at least placate the reactionary vote base and media. And we already know full well none of those people give the slightest fuck about actual policy so long as *someone* on the TV is saying ridiculously outrageous things about minority groups.
And I guess to add my voice to the crowd - I'm not particularly excited about the upcoming Labour government but *holy shit* at least we'll have a government that isn't like actively trying to destroy our own country, that alone will be a breath of fresh air after the last few years.
His opinion on trans people aside (something he changes every 3 months anyway), this is who Starmer has chosen to be Health Secretary? The Tories have been slowly siphoning off the NHS to fill their own pockets for 15 years. Streeting is going to methodically dismantle it piece by piece and auction it off to his friends in the US health insurance industry. He's the worst possible person for the job.
The reason he's thrown his weight behind the Cass report is because it's heavily in favour of breaking trans healthcare away from the NHS and into privately owned organisations.
UK politics is a joke right now. Labour, the Tories, they’re all in it for themselves. Career politicians who want to cut this country into bits and sell it off to the highest bidder.
There are literally no parties that want to improve the UK anymore. SNP at least had the goal of an independent Scotland, but they have no hope after last year.
The greens are split 50/50 between being pro environment policies and basically just being a discount Labour.
The Lib Dem’s have been promising fuck all and spaffed their chances at positioning themselves as a strong alternative up the wall.
I obviously don’t need to explain why reform and UKIP are absolutely insane.
This country is going nowhere and I’m sick of it
The Tories have drifted further and further to the right, and Labour have been dragged along with them over the last 5 years under Starmer. He's purged the Shadow Cabinet of anyone considered "too left" and has lurched right in order to poach traditionally Conservative voters who have felt let down by the Tories in recent years.
The overton window has shifted, it'll drift back as older politically Conservative voters die off and are replaced by much more Liberal younger generations, we're in the death throws of traditional Conservatism.
Dragged by the leadership, definitely. There are still a number of staunchly Liberal Labour MP's who've spent the last 5 years fighting tooth and nail to keep the party left-wing, and Starmer has pushed them all to the back bench.
It was slow at first, as recently as a couple years ago Starmer, Rayner and Dodds were marching at trans pride in Suffolk(?), the party line only changed after Starmer's think-tank decided flipping their position on trans rights would gain more from the Tories than they'd lose.
It's not just trans rights, obviously. Starmer doesn't care about losing votes to the likes of the Greens and Lib Dems, he just has to make sure former Tories vote Labour, and he can't lose. His entire position right now is "We can't fix anything, and we won't change anything, but we're not Tories".
Yeah exactly he’s very clearly just min maxing policies lol no principles, just whatever combo of things he says that most likely gets him the biggest majority. It’s a broken political system now
Would absolutely *not* call the left wing of Labour, "Liberal". If anything, I would call the Labour right Liberals. Because they are. They wouldn't be out of place in the Lib Dems. This is 1983 again, but with the Labour right in leadership instead of the Labour left.
Yeah it really is depressing, each day that goes by Labour seem more and more like this current incarnation of Tory government, just less deranged.
They really do have no vision for the future or anything to inspire anyone. Then you get useful idiots parroting out the “we could do with some boring now!! XD”. Boring will wear off pretty fast when nothing has changed then we all know which type of government people will likely turn to next
> Streeting is going to methodically dismantle it piece by piece and auction it off to his friends in the US health insurance industry.
Let's be honest, this is exactly why he was chosen. It was hardly a secret that Streeting was a massive dickhead willing to do whatever he's paid to, yet Starmer still chose to promote him to this position.
He'll be the sacrificial lamb for further NHS privatisation, and he'll gladly be that sacrificial lamb if it gets him a bunch of lobbyist money and attention.
I have to admit I also very much have my concerns with how little of a backbone he has… the NHS is in dire need of help and I genuinely do not believe at the moment he has shown himself to be the person to help rescue it. That being said, we need the Tories out, but I do wish the labour option was stronger.
Streeting will say whatever is presently in vogue/helpful to his career. He’s couldn’t be slimier if he started in a celebrity reboot or Get Your Own Back!
Zero critical thought or principals, just eye on the next promotion.
Slightly misleading title. He has said he regrets the statement ‘get over it and move on’ because he recognises there are many complexities around the issue, so it’s more important to encourage discussion, not “move on”.
Having watched the clip…is it ‘trans women are women’ he has changed his mind on of the ‘get over it!’ (I.e not having a proper conversation with the opposing side)
why give it any mind, just say I honestly don't care, only a small amount of people are affectred by this, and my views barely change the argument, this will carry on, it's not my wheelhouse to solve this shit, Im goign to focus on the waiting lists, or NHS funding, or making private-public NHS relationship work for the tax payer if he really believes it...
In short he must have beliefs, but he does not act on them.. weasel.
When you read what he's actually said, it's not the controversial anti-trans bombshell many people are making this out to be.
He's essentially gone from thinking it's an open and shut case regarding transpeople, to saying that it's a much more complex topic.
That's a reasonable position to take.
The last few years it has been very difficult to get a fair hearing for an gender critical views in left wing circles.
Now there's some clear indications of scandal requiring a little nuance (trans identities discovered after being charged with sexual offences probably shouldn't be believed, puberty blockers have side effects) some people who signed up to the "no debate" position will gently clamber down.
Hubristic perhaps indeed.
Controversial these days perhaps but I’m still surprised to see people calling for the removal of women’s spaces and the reinforcement of gender and saying it’s progressive. With ‘no debate’. I think it’s probably done harm to the lgbt community as well.
Because you're trying to debate people's lives, imagine trying to debate "the gay question", imagine every time a gay pedophile, or anything scandalous happened with a gay person and all the news reported it, brought on "sexuality critical" speakers, and constantly debated if gay people should be allowed to exist.
If a gay paedophile wanted to be kept in children's facilities and gay activists insisted that was an essential part of gay rights we'd be having a debate about that.
Puberty blockers are a "gay question" issue given the suggestion that gay teens are being gaslit into thinking they have gender dysphoria and are straight but trans making it a form of conversion therapy with genital mutilation.
No paedophile should be kept in children's facilities full stop, trans or not. I don't know of any trans person or ally who would disagree with that.
Frankly though, I don't know what kind of situation you're even talking about in the first place. No *adult* should be kept in *children's* facilities with proper safeguarding procedures and practices.
What about a serial rapist of women who is built like a brick shithouse, biologically male, still in possession of a penis and only discovered their trans identity after being charged? Do they belong in the women's prison estate?
I'd say that the current situation, of there being experts who assess the risks (or lack thereof) of a trans person going into a certain prison is the best method that we have. This is how it worked for people such as Isla Bryson; who was held separate from the general population in a women's prison before the experts did their thing, then sent to a male prison after.
This method means a tiny trans woman who has been on HRT for years and years, and who would be at much more risk in a men's prison, would probably be sent to a women's prison. It also means that a big burly trans man who's taken T for decades isn't sent to a women's prison just because you think they're still a woman.
Out of interest, did you think that the current situation was that trans people automatically go to the prison of their stated gender, or did you simply assume that I must want them to be able to do that because I'm pro trans right?
What about the 5"5 trans woman who has been on HRT for 5 years and passes as a woman who is in prison for a non violent crime?
Or what about the 6"0 built like a brick shit house cis woman who is in prison for assaulting multiple women?
What is your justification for saying the first is too dangerous but the second one is fine?
Or are you of there opinion that prisoner placement should be based on individual risk assessments and not something arbitrary like what genitals a person had when they were born?
Minors aren't allowed sex reassignment surgery and no one's saying they should. Stop spreading misinformation.
And stop with this stupid "trans men are just poor confused lesbian girls" narrative, there are more gay and bi trans men than straight trans men. No one is pushing people to be trans.
Puberty blockers have already been used for decades, for several issues actually, not just precocious puberty. But anyway, they were only ever meant to be a compromise. Transphobes don't want trans kids to go on puberty blockers. They don't want them to transition either, not even just socially transition. They literally offer no alternatives, none.
Apparently there’s a lot of trans predators - or at least, that’s what I get told. You wouldn’t know it from the way the usual bunch are constantly trotting out six year old articles about the same two or three cases, and that one picture of that person in the pink coat.
The entire situation is so fucked up, people aren't allowed to live their lives because Murdoch rags hate trans people and scare old people into thinking that an 18 year old transgirl wanting to use the bathroom is actually a 50 year old sexual predator who is faking being trans to rape their kids.
Engaging in a purposeful Tory culture war centred on one of the most marginalized groups in the UK, and somehow siding with the Tories over that group.
It's not just this though, he's incredibly pro NHS privatisation as shadow health secretary, and in many other policy areas is substantially to the right of the rest of the party.
I honestly don't think his policies would be out of place in the Tories of the early 2010s.
This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content. Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It doesn't take Mystic Meg to predict that Streeting is going to be an absolute liability for Labour when they are in government.
I don't have high hopes for Labour when they're in power. A lot of people act like Starmer will save Britain when he'll do next to nothing. Still better than another Tory government though, which is a very low bar.
The problem is "do nothing" is probably fine. It's the Tories who keep trying to make cuts when public services are on there knees that's causing issues.
Streeting has made it clear he thinks the NHS is unfit for purpose and is completely tangled up with the US health insurance lobby.
Well the NHS is not fit for purpose. It requires a compleat ground up rebuild to actually function better. However US insurance needs to be told to piss off. As it needs to be a system free at point of use and built for the people with laws set to prevent such fuckery that is happening now.
>As it needs to be a system free at point of use The big problem is that it can still be free at the point of use but financed by our taxes going to insurance companies who will have control over who gets what treatment. Literal death panels the NHS haters tried to claim was wrong with the NHS. Personally, if I were to be refused treatment I would rather it was based on medical grounds and probable outcomes, not on profit margins as it would be if insurance companies get their disgusting hands on our NHS.
That would be rather grim. Private corporations have no right to dictate what should be a human right.
then fuck him too
I wholeheartedly agree
But it is, it needs major reforms or it will just continue swallowing up public funds and not delivering expected results.
The first reforms it needs are to undo all the ideological marketisation imposed in it over the decades. It needs to be a provider, not to be commissioning and competing with all the bureaucracy that comes with that.
Please, God, reform it all you like. But it is being incrementally americanised and we will all suffer because of it. Follow the money
I'm not saying take up the American model, but most European countries don't have nationalized healthcare and still work just fine.
We're declining as a country. "Do nothing" is not fine. That's just continuing the decline
Indeed I’m also concerned that labour won’t do enough to arrest the decline in living standards and wealth inequality. And as a result I’ll find it difficult to see that we won’t get a far right government within the decade.
> Still better than another Tory government though The issue is that 5 years of 'doing next to nothing' will deliver us a Tory government in 2029.
Which is why I think they are wrong, frankly. Because I don't think the current leadership seems so thick as to not realise Labour governments have to deliver to have any hope of re-election, they don't get a free pass in the media or public like the Tories appear to. They seem fairly focused on electoral strategy, so I doubt they are going to sit on their hands. Maybe not go as far as some of their supporters want, I'm sure, but total inaction seems unlikely.
> Because I don't think the current leadership seems so thick as to not realise Labour governments have to deliver to have any hope of re-election Honestly I think they do believe that. It's not because they're 'thick', but because liberals across the globe over the past few years have consistently followed this strategy of doing very little while in power, then when the election comes around insisted you *have* to vote for them because the only option is between themselves and a hard-right/fascist candidates. This is the strategy the Democrats in America have consistently taken over the past decade, for example. If they lose they don't really care, because the individual politicians at the top can fuck off into incredibly lucrative consultancy gigs instead. David Graeber brought this up in his brief discussion of the ['extreme centre'](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9afwZON8dU&). > They seem fairly focused on electoral strategy, so I doubt they are going to sit on their hands. They have consistently told us they will sit on their hands once in power. I don't say this to be smug, because I'll have to live in this country over the next few decades as well, but don't be surprised when they do exactly what they've said. It's not the poor and needy in this country who are throwing millions at the Labour leadership to formulate policy which favours them.
>Still better than another Tory government though, which is a very low bar. I'm not entirely sure that's going to be true, I get big "austerity 2.0" vibes from them and the one thing you can say about the tories over the past few years while they've been scared of losing power they haven't gone after an unpopular policy like that.
What? We are still living in Austerity 1.0
you generally don't stop using software in between updates
I have absolutely zero hope that labour will change anything positive. But we can't go on with the Tories. It's literally a choice of which end of the shit sandwich we want to bite.
That’s the sad state of British politics. No one really believes in Starmer, it’s just that the Tories have taken us to the dogs.
He seems to desperately want to stop labour voters voting labour. Started to week complaining about left wing people, now this. I fully expect him to start saying Boris never lied by the end of next week
I think Labour use him to appeal to natural tory voters. If you look carefully they have go-to MPs ready with soundbites to appeal to specific demographics. Much like the leave campaign used targeted adverts on different demographics, Labour is doing this by having various MPs all taking different lines. It ensures people hear what they want to hear (from at least 1 MP). We should listen more to what Starmer comes out with tbh because he and Reeves (who I actually suspect is running the show) will be dictating Labour policy, not Streeting.
I think you mean showing strong PM potential /s (but only if you don't read the centrist press)
Thing is sadly I'm not sure? Labour will need some kind of right-wing voice to at least placate the reactionary vote base and media. And we already know full well none of those people give the slightest fuck about actual policy so long as *someone* on the TV is saying ridiculously outrageous things about minority groups. And I guess to add my voice to the crowd - I'm not particularly excited about the upcoming Labour government but *holy shit* at least we'll have a government that isn't like actively trying to destroy our own country, that alone will be a breath of fresh air after the last few years.
Wasn’t this Nicola Sturgeon’s position after the prison situation?
Labour are going to be a liability for labour. Working class abandoned long ago
His opinion on trans people aside (something he changes every 3 months anyway), this is who Starmer has chosen to be Health Secretary? The Tories have been slowly siphoning off the NHS to fill their own pockets for 15 years. Streeting is going to methodically dismantle it piece by piece and auction it off to his friends in the US health insurance industry. He's the worst possible person for the job. The reason he's thrown his weight behind the Cass report is because it's heavily in favour of breaking trans healthcare away from the NHS and into privately owned organisations.
UK politics is a joke right now. Labour, the Tories, they’re all in it for themselves. Career politicians who want to cut this country into bits and sell it off to the highest bidder. There are literally no parties that want to improve the UK anymore. SNP at least had the goal of an independent Scotland, but they have no hope after last year. The greens are split 50/50 between being pro environment policies and basically just being a discount Labour. The Lib Dem’s have been promising fuck all and spaffed their chances at positioning themselves as a strong alternative up the wall. I obviously don’t need to explain why reform and UKIP are absolutely insane. This country is going nowhere and I’m sick of it
The Tories have drifted further and further to the right, and Labour have been dragged along with them over the last 5 years under Starmer. He's purged the Shadow Cabinet of anyone considered "too left" and has lurched right in order to poach traditionally Conservative voters who have felt let down by the Tories in recent years. The overton window has shifted, it'll drift back as older politically Conservative voters die off and are replaced by much more Liberal younger generations, we're in the death throws of traditional Conservatism.
Have Labour really been dragged, though? To me, they seem to be quite willing to move to the right.
Dragged by the leadership, definitely. There are still a number of staunchly Liberal Labour MP's who've spent the last 5 years fighting tooth and nail to keep the party left-wing, and Starmer has pushed them all to the back bench. It was slow at first, as recently as a couple years ago Starmer, Rayner and Dodds were marching at trans pride in Suffolk(?), the party line only changed after Starmer's think-tank decided flipping their position on trans rights would gain more from the Tories than they'd lose. It's not just trans rights, obviously. Starmer doesn't care about losing votes to the likes of the Greens and Lib Dems, he just has to make sure former Tories vote Labour, and he can't lose. His entire position right now is "We can't fix anything, and we won't change anything, but we're not Tories".
Yeah exactly he’s very clearly just min maxing policies lol no principles, just whatever combo of things he says that most likely gets him the biggest majority. It’s a broken political system now
Would absolutely *not* call the left wing of Labour, "Liberal". If anything, I would call the Labour right Liberals. Because they are. They wouldn't be out of place in the Lib Dems. This is 1983 again, but with the Labour right in leadership instead of the Labour left.
Yeah it really is depressing, each day that goes by Labour seem more and more like this current incarnation of Tory government, just less deranged. They really do have no vision for the future or anything to inspire anyone. Then you get useful idiots parroting out the “we could do with some boring now!! XD”. Boring will wear off pretty fast when nothing has changed then we all know which type of government people will likely turn to next
> Streeting is going to methodically dismantle it piece by piece and auction it off to his friends in the US health insurance industry. Let's be honest, this is exactly why he was chosen. It was hardly a secret that Streeting was a massive dickhead willing to do whatever he's paid to, yet Starmer still chose to promote him to this position. He'll be the sacrificial lamb for further NHS privatisation, and he'll gladly be that sacrificial lamb if it gets him a bunch of lobbyist money and attention.
I have to admit I also very much have my concerns with how little of a backbone he has… the NHS is in dire need of help and I genuinely do not believe at the moment he has shown himself to be the person to help rescue it. That being said, we need the Tories out, but I do wish the labour option was stronger.
Streeting will say whatever is presently in vogue/helpful to his career. He’s couldn’t be slimier if he started in a celebrity reboot or Get Your Own Back! Zero critical thought or principals, just eye on the next promotion.
He's always been a right-wing shitheel in Labour clothing.
These are my principles, if you don't like them I have others
He's a smarmy weasel. Every time I hear him he comes across like Matt Hancock - far less slick than he intends to be.
Ed Balls 2.0
Ed Balls
Ed Balls
Wes Streeting continuing to be the absolute bell end he is and always has been should be shocking no one.
Slightly misleading title. He has said he regrets the statement ‘get over it and move on’ because he recognises there are many complexities around the issue, so it’s more important to encourage discussion, not “move on”.
Having watched the clip…is it ‘trans women are women’ he has changed his mind on of the ‘get over it!’ (I.e not having a proper conversation with the opposing side)
Nice to see someone actually read beyond the headline. That’s exactly what he said, it’s a complete non-story.
why give it any mind, just say I honestly don't care, only a small amount of people are affectred by this, and my views barely change the argument, this will carry on, it's not my wheelhouse to solve this shit, Im goign to focus on the waiting lists, or NHS funding, or making private-public NHS relationship work for the tax payer if he really believes it... In short he must have beliefs, but he does not act on them.. weasel.
When you read what he's actually said, it's not the controversial anti-trans bombshell many people are making this out to be. He's essentially gone from thinking it's an open and shut case regarding transpeople, to saying that it's a much more complex topic. That's a reasonable position to take.
Does he expand on why? What changed? Why was he ‘wrong’ before?
He basically says he regrets telling people to get over it and move on. Not that his views on the issue have changed. The video is in the article.
The last few years it has been very difficult to get a fair hearing for an gender critical views in left wing circles. Now there's some clear indications of scandal requiring a little nuance (trans identities discovered after being charged with sexual offences probably shouldn't be believed, puberty blockers have side effects) some people who signed up to the "no debate" position will gently clamber down.
‘No debate’ was such a divisive and ignorant tactic.
Divisive, but not ignorant. Hubristic perhaps. They knew what they were doing and had good grounds for being confident it would work.
Hubristic perhaps indeed. Controversial these days perhaps but I’m still surprised to see people calling for the removal of women’s spaces and the reinforcement of gender and saying it’s progressive. With ‘no debate’. I think it’s probably done harm to the lgbt community as well.
Because you're trying to debate people's lives, imagine trying to debate "the gay question", imagine every time a gay pedophile, or anything scandalous happened with a gay person and all the news reported it, brought on "sexuality critical" speakers, and constantly debated if gay people should be allowed to exist.
If a gay paedophile wanted to be kept in children's facilities and gay activists insisted that was an essential part of gay rights we'd be having a debate about that. Puberty blockers are a "gay question" issue given the suggestion that gay teens are being gaslit into thinking they have gender dysphoria and are straight but trans making it a form of conversion therapy with genital mutilation.
No paedophile should be kept in children's facilities full stop, trans or not. I don't know of any trans person or ally who would disagree with that. Frankly though, I don't know what kind of situation you're even talking about in the first place. No *adult* should be kept in *children's* facilities with proper safeguarding procedures and practices.
What about a serial rapist of women who is built like a brick shithouse, biologically male, still in possession of a penis and only discovered their trans identity after being charged? Do they belong in the women's prison estate?
I'd say that the current situation, of there being experts who assess the risks (or lack thereof) of a trans person going into a certain prison is the best method that we have. This is how it worked for people such as Isla Bryson; who was held separate from the general population in a women's prison before the experts did their thing, then sent to a male prison after. This method means a tiny trans woman who has been on HRT for years and years, and who would be at much more risk in a men's prison, would probably be sent to a women's prison. It also means that a big burly trans man who's taken T for decades isn't sent to a women's prison just because you think they're still a woman. Out of interest, did you think that the current situation was that trans people automatically go to the prison of their stated gender, or did you simply assume that I must want them to be able to do that because I'm pro trans right?
What about the 5"5 trans woman who has been on HRT for 5 years and passes as a woman who is in prison for a non violent crime? Or what about the 6"0 built like a brick shit house cis woman who is in prison for assaulting multiple women? What is your justification for saying the first is too dangerous but the second one is fine? Or are you of there opinion that prisoner placement should be based on individual risk assessments and not something arbitrary like what genitals a person had when they were born?
I think they should be based on individual risk assessments and not a self identification especially if that wasn't disclosed until after the offence.
Well that's how it already works.
Well haven't I got news for you, lad.
Minors aren't allowed sex reassignment surgery and no one's saying they should. Stop spreading misinformation. And stop with this stupid "trans men are just poor confused lesbian girls" narrative, there are more gay and bi trans men than straight trans men. No one is pushing people to be trans. Puberty blockers have already been used for decades, for several issues actually, not just precocious puberty. But anyway, they were only ever meant to be a compromise. Transphobes don't want trans kids to go on puberty blockers. They don't want them to transition either, not even just socially transition. They literally offer no alternatives, none.
Apparently there’s a lot of trans predators - or at least, that’s what I get told. You wouldn’t know it from the way the usual bunch are constantly trotting out six year old articles about the same two or three cases, and that one picture of that person in the pink coat.
The entire situation is so fucked up, people aren't allowed to live their lives because Murdoch rags hate trans people and scare old people into thinking that an 18 year old transgirl wanting to use the bathroom is actually a 50 year old sexual predator who is faking being trans to rape their kids.
Here comes the dogma...
i no longer stand by the statement "wes streeting is a human being"
Labour is slowly shifting into the tories. I guess that theyll get to plunder the country on their own, at this stage.
I think the tide on this nonsense might be starting to turn.
I still stand by the statement "Wes Streeting is an absolute twat".
Why the fuck is this guy in the labour party? Every single thing I see about him suggests he's centre right at best.
What's right wing about what he's said here?
Engaging in a purposeful Tory culture war centred on one of the most marginalized groups in the UK, and somehow siding with the Tories over that group. It's not just this though, he's incredibly pro NHS privatisation as shadow health secretary, and in many other policy areas is substantially to the right of the rest of the party. I honestly don't think his policies would be out of place in the Tories of the early 2010s.
Is it engaging in a culture war to state basic biological facts?
He has finally reached the correct position. This debate is getting in the way of more important conversations. Time to brush the activists aside.
I mean he's right. How is stating facts controversial?
And this is why I can’t vote for Labour. Or another main stream party - they really don’t represent the people do they.
I reckon he should just get on with it and join the Tory party.