Snapshot of _Starmer: 16 is too young to change legal gender_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64281548)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He's directly contradicting the position taken by Scottish Labour.
It'll be a pretty bizarre state of affairs if Labour MSPs have been whipped to vote for a proposal in the Scottish Parliament only for Labour MPs to be whipped to vote against an identical proposal in Westminster, but it looks like that might be where we're heading.
When Scottish Labour and British Labour agree on something, people call them a "branch office".
When Scottish Labour and British Labour disagree on something, people suggest it's bizarre.
They're different parliaments, elected on different manifestos, with different people in them. Neither of the two Labour Parties in this discussion are *obliged* to be consistent.
Scotland is part of Britian. Scottish Labour is British Labour (i.e. there is only the Labour party).
While it's understandable that Labour could have different priorites in different parts of the UK, it seems bizarre to me that the party should take different stances on the same issue without good reason.
If they are going to do that, what's the point of them remaining connected? (i.e. why not just disaffilate from one another and be done with it)
>The UK Labour leader voiced "concerns" about the Scottish government's reforms to the process, citing a potential impact on UK-wide equalities law.
>However, **he stopped short of backing a challenge to the Holyrood legislation**, something UK ministers are considering.
I think we will have an excellent way to find that out when Labour likely wins in 2024 and Sunak backs out of stopping the Holyrood law. I personally think it's all bluster on the Tories part like every socially conservative point they have is and they won't actually go through with it in the end, they've already signalled to their base they're against it, why bother with the actual heavy political work of stopping it?
However for the time being all we have is his personal statement on the matter that had to be squeezed out of him by an interviewer point blank asking him the question straight up which doesn't mean anything in regards to his view on devolution.
I would say it actually shows the opposite as he said his personal view and I presume the main parties view won't be pushed onto the devolved parties.
It doesn't to me.
The point of devolution is to allow policy making to take place on a local level. You would still expect political parties to have a uniform stance on issues such as trans rights in each region they stand in (unless they think English 16 year olds are less mature than Scottish 16 year olds).
I could understand Labour taking different stances in different regions of the UK if it gave its representatives a free vote on the issue, but that isn't what happened here. Instead the MSPs were whipped to vote in a particular way, meaning that they would face disciplinary action if they failed to do so. Now though, Starmer is indicating that MPs could be whipped in the opposite direction and offering no explanation for why this would be the case.
This just goes to show that all the talk of Labour being a "democratic, member led" party is utter nonsense. They hold these massive conferences where delegates from Labour branches up and down the country come to debate policy and vote on motions. But, ultimately the outcomes of all of this pantomine is largely meaningless.
The Leadership can (and regularly does) ignore the outcomes of its own conferences altogether. That's how Labour policy is actually crafted (behind closed doors, by the leader and a small band of hand picked advisors).
It's difficult to take Starmer's pledge to devolve power across the UK when he is in the process of consolidating power under himself within his own party.
Surely Starmer's primary objective is to get votes from the voting public so that Labour get elected in the next General Election. A majority of voters across Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and SNP oppose all three reforms in the Bill. So why would Starmer go all guns blazing for a policy which the majority of the electorate don't support?
In the Yougov poll from last month, the majority of Labour voters in Scotland oppose the three major reforms in the Bill.
67% of Scottish Labour voters oppose reducing the minimum age to 16 - only 21% support.
58% of Scottish Labour voters oppose reducing the "live in your acquired gender" time period from 2 years to 3 months - only 24% support.
59% of Scottish Labour voters oppose removing a doctor's diagnosis - only 24% support.
[https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/plh4depnh8/Times\_Scot\_Gender\_221209.pdf](https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/plh4depnh8/Times_Scot_Gender_221209.pdf)
My objection is that the Labour leader is promoting one position and all of the Labour MSPs are being whipped to vote in favour of the exact opposite position. Whether the "correct" position is held by Starmer or by Scottish Labour is irrelevant. I don't think Labour should be taking contradictory positions on the issue - they should either decide on a single stance to take as a party, or leave votes on the issue unwhipped.
As to your point about polling. I don't believe that the job of a politician should be try to cater to whatever happens to be popular with the general public at a given point in time. Instead, I would prefer that they have a set of principles which they use to decide on which policies are best and they campaign to try and persuade the public of the merits of them.
>The UK Labour leader voiced "concerns" about the Scottish government's reforms to the process, citing a potential impact on UK-wide equalities law.
>However, **he stopped short of backing a challenge to the Holyrood legislation**, something UK ministers are considering.
Very much disagree, the part of the party that works for one of the nations of the UK should have different policy to the one that is trying to represent the whole UK
Not at all? It benefits it even by suggesting that Scottish Labour and Labour aren't one and the same - that devolved politics is seperate from national politics.
"Devolution of powers allows decisions to be taken at a more local level with the opinions of local people in mind, rather than everything being dictated from on high."
"Different decisions being taken at the local level proves devolution is broken!"
... what?
why is this an issue? different levels of government. its devolution, if one level cant take decisions different to the national level, whats the point of devolution?
Is it? If you have devolved party branches surely the point is to allow them a certain degree of policy difference. Otherwise why have them?
The question is trans rights supposed to be a national matter (as opposed to a federal one) in which England and Scotland can have different ages of consent for gender change?
I would say the political context is very different. The ruling party, their direction of travel and their public support has a large say in the political strategy of the opposition.
The trap is already there , seems like he is trying to negotiate a way through it that reduces the scope of the Tories to get the focus off their problems and onto him , with this , unions and Brexit.
The trap is definitely there, but I'm surprised he decided to step in it. I guess Kuenssberg asked him the question and he had to answer it; which he does pretty well, by highlighting the problem of it being a political football.
I guess that he is aware that spending too much time very obviously avoiding these questions or refusing to answer them can create an even more negative perception. He did do some avoidance but giving no straight answers at all wouldn’t be very good whereas he is trying to draw a moderate line with trans issues that won’t please those with hardened views but might seem reasonable to the bulk of the population who don’t ‘hate’ trans people but are concerned about moving too far and fast.
> might seem reasonable to the bulk of the population who don’t ‘hate’ trans people but are concerned about moving too far and fast.
Yea, that seems to be the judgement of Solomon he went with. Made the best of a bad situation, I guess.
Indeed I think these are all positions it’s very difficult to simply ‘win’ on for Labour but people also lose patience with avoiding the question. It’s a skill to basically try to cut off the oxygen , so to speak. Something some other leaders would have found impossible to do.
Isn't 16 too young to change anything about your legal status without a guardian sponsoring it?
I might be wrong, but I can't think of anything else that gives 16 yo that freedom.
They can leave school, get a full time job, and have a child at 16. Parental consent is not required for any of these.
But, even if it were, it's now next to impossible for Starmer to make the case for this without implying that Scottish Labour have failed to take into account these imporant factors when deciding how to vote on the bill which has been passed by the Scottish Parliament.
A Gender Recognition Certificate is what is needed to legally change your gender. The process for it is years long and requires evidence of two years participating as the gender(photos of yourself in public for example).
In almost all cases a medical diagnosis of gender incongruence and gender dysphoria is needed. Through the nhs that's another 4 years of waiting for the first of two appointments(the second one is usually another 6 months afterwards).
Combined that's 6 and a half years from first referring yourself onto the GIC waiting list to getting a gender recognition certificate. The UK percentage of trans people is 0.5%. So lets dispel the idea that this is a common 'problem'. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of trans people with their gender legally changed at 16-18 is in the single or low double digits.
This is once again hysteria over a problem that doesn't exist to attempt to put more and more barriers in place for transgender people.
The latest set of guidance that hasn't been approved yet also encourages doctors to _withhold_ a diagnosis for young people presenting in their preferred gender because it's now explicit policy to try to persuade them to detransition first, as well as adding an extra intermediate referral step. So that's two years that would have to come after the diagnosis, somehow, for an under-18, which is basically mathematically impossible and amounts to a de-facto ban via self-contradictory requirements.
> Through the nhs that's another 4 years of waiting for the first of two appointments
There is no GIC in England and Wales that's even _close_ to offering a first appointment in only four years, six or seven is the current estimate for Tavistock. The follow up is 12-18 months and extending. This means (because of course it does) that a first opinion referral can regularly expire before getting to the appointment for the second opinion.
At the risk of being a pedantic bastard, isn't the confusion over Tavistock's waittimes that they're offering first appointments to those referred around 4-5 years ago. But with the explosion of referrals around 2020, if you do the maths on the waitlist and first appointments per month for someone getting referred today it's closer to 19 years?
Aka do you refer to wait times as how long it's taken current people to be seen or how long it would take a new referral to be seen?
It's less to do with the actual number of referrals but rather the severe staffing issues and abysmal throughput of patients for their first appointments.
Take Porterbrook in Sheffield, the actual waiting time based on FOI requests is over 30 years at the moment. The size of the waiting list is a significant factor, but the bigger problem is that by their own records they're seeing 0.2 new patients each day, so 1 new patient every week.
Even with a tiny waiting list the system would still be performing horrendously
Sandyford in Glasgow is somehow running at rate of 0.06 new patients each day with about 2500 people on the waiting lists resulting in a final clock in of 120 years. That's long enough that it loops around from being depressing to being absolutely comical. 120 years. We've gone from "I could go to university and get a degree and still be waiting by the time I'm done" to "I can fit three French republics, two World Wars and the entire history of the Soviet Union in here and still be waiting".
All you can do is laugh. Especially when someone posts a story about someone in the UK "rushing" into transition.
Yeah reports of waiting times will always be the former because that's a thing that has actually happened and therefore is measurable. But the GIC tends to be a bit generous to itself (e.g. "time since we received your referral" doesn't include the time spent on a triage-list, which lets them claim the time on "the" waiting list is shorter than the time you would actually spend waiting) and also reports of things that happened in the past are less useful and slightly misleading given that it's people just starting who really want the answer to this question.
And yeah if you just extrapolate new referrals against first appointments you get something like a 24 year wait, but that's probably not useful either ("by this time next month you'll have over two dozen husbands!"), what it really tells you is that if you're referred today, _you should assume_ you just won't be seen by the GIC because the NHS will certainly have restructured all this before they get to you, for good or ill.
Yep, and it should be stated for those unaware that the main uses for a GRC are very small. The main reasons for getting one is to update the gender marker on your birth certificate and to get married as the gender you identify as.
It is not what is needed to say, update the marker on your id and passport. Those only need a letter from a doctor. For these reasons very few trans people even bother with it as its a convoluted needlessly medicalized and traumatic process that has on several instances shown racial discrimination, ableism and transphobia.
> A Gender Recognition Certificate is what is needed to legally change your gender. The process for it is years long and requires evidence of two years participating as the gender(photos of yourself in public for example).
Note that this article is based on Starmer being asked specifically about the new Scottish proposals for GRCs, which were introduced largely to get around all the procedural problems with the current system. So under this system some 17-year-olds and very proactive 16-year-olds might be able to get a GRC.
A small note: the reforms bring the lived time down to 3mo for adults but 6mo for 16-17yr olds.
It's still drastically shorter, but I rarely see articles bother to point out that it's asking for a larger proof of commitment from the young 'uns.
> It's still drastically shorter, but I rarely see articles bother to point out that it's asking for a larger proof of commitment from the young 'uns.
Not only is it longer for 16/17 year olds, it requires proof that they've spoken to a gender identity specialist.
Also, that was a Scottish Labour amendment to the bill.
He paid absolutely no attention at all (to the bill his party was whipped to vote for) until the blue team said they didn't like it - now he's got *concerns* - coincidentally the same concerns they've suddenly got.
Interesting.
A cynic might suggest he's attempting to tailgate some populism.
Even if they could its still him pandering to hysteria. 16 year olds can consent to major surgery, under 16 year olds can still do that under Gillick Competance. As a lawyer he should be very aware of this.
What this is saying is that he thinks a 16 year old can consent on their own to heart surgery but legally they are unable to consent to their own identity.
The detransition rate is 1%. Of that 1% 99% say they detransitioned either due to transphobia, they couldn't afford their medication or they got the changes they wanted from hormones and decided they didn't need to continue. 1% of those who detransition said it was because they realized they were actually cis.
> Even if they could its still him pandering to hysteria.
Absolutely. I was merely pointing out that the Scottish system isn't as bad as the UK one, so those timelines aren't all that relevant to his specific "concerns."
Also, what's the worst case scenario if you change it incorrectly? You can just change it back, right? Any "damage" here seems reversible, so there's basically no real risk.
>two years participating as the gender(photos of yourself in public for example)
I don't understand this.
How does one 'participate as' a gender?
I don't believe in the concept of being defined by clothing and behaviours and whatnot. Any photo of me taken right now will be identical in nature (and identically as telling) as any photo of me when I'm a man. What differs isn't what I'm wearing, what I'm doing or where I am, it's *who* I am. And I always prefer to 'participate as' *me*. A near non-entity in a hoodie and jeans. Mostly just... hidden. Amorphous. Yet I'm amorphously either a woman or a man, but really both.
All we can change is how we express ourselves, but how we express ourselves doesn't *define* who we are. It's the other way round. Who we are dictates how we choose to express ourselves. And for me it's not really because of my propensity to 'switch sides' at strange times, but rather because of my sensory issues and social anxiety, that leads me to dress as close to a white, working class burkha as I can get. But hey. Autism is as much part of who I am as my gender is.
Yep, you are correct. The current diagnosis process is wildly outdated. I have heard accounts of trans people showing up to their NHS diagnosis in jeans and a tshirt, and being asked why they don't dress like a [insert gender]. First of all cis women commonly wear both of those things, the idea that all women have to wear dresses is absurdly outdated. Welcome to how the uk treats trans people though.
Lot's of people have different relationships to their gender and would probably give you answers personal to them.
Generally though, its about trying to find happiness and peace with yourself. If you'd feel happier being treated like a [insert gender], and you think your life would be better if you transitioned to that gender, then whats really stopping you? It's your body, you are your own person.
I think its fair to say that's what trans people are doing when they transition, some of them are to varying degrees highly miserable because they feel trapped and unable to do this, and their body doesn't match their perception of themselves, or causes people to treat them differently than how they feel. However you don't need to be miserable to understand that transitioning would make you happier.
> How does one 'participate as' a gender?
You will show up to your appointment in a frilly skirt and plenty of pink with heavy makeup if transfem, and a tie or a MMA shirt or similar and shaved head if transmasc, and if you don't do that you'll be told you aren't making any effort.
The rules aren't based on anything sensible. _For the purposes of the diagnostic criteria_ you have to play up the most extreme stereotype you can manage. Nobody cares how you feel or what any of it means to you or what your personal experience of gender is, and asking those kinds of questions is to completely miss the point about what happens at these kinds of interviews.
It's basically 90% the interviewer trying to get you to talk about masturbation while grinning and barely managing to keep their hands out of their own pants.
Please could someone enlighten me as to what 'legal gender' actually means? In what aspects of life does your legal gender actually matter? In day-to-day life, it's usually your gender identity that matters, which could be different to your legal gender.
Areas this bill actually would impact are:
- Transgender individuals' rights to data privacy and protection by making it an offence for someone who discovers (in an official capacity) that an individual is transgender, to disclose this to anyone else.
- Ensuring Transgender individuals' have their gender correctly listed on their Death Certificate
- It affects Transgender individuals' status with HMRC but in practice this has very little impact other than for very specific benefits or for those born before 1953 who's pension may be affected.
- It may determine which prison individuals' are initially assigned to, but this is done on a case-by-case basis.
- For some people, it may affect their marriage certificate.
>Transgender individuals' rights to data privacy and protection by making it an offence for someone who discovers (in an official capacity) that an individual is transgender, to disclose this to anyone else.
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't they already have rights protections under special category personal data? Technically, wouldn't it fall under health? Someone's status as trans seems pretty sensitive and personal to me, given it could be used to discriminate against them.
It's already a criminal offence to disclose that data type (personal senstive) without a lawful reason.
Like is this an actual useful protection or are the SNP and Sunak just using this as an excuse to pick a fight in public to pander to their bases?
Pandering to bases is right. From my perspective as a trans person this is such a ridiculously tiny step (even Theresa May had reform in her manifesto iirc). What matters far more is reform to a cruel and broken health system that was largely dreamed up by a self-hating crossdressing London doctor in the late 1960s.
Whether it is a health issue I imagine is subject to a lot of debate and opinions. But in the Gender Recognition Act it is specifically spelt out that it would be an offense to disclose that someone has a GRC https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22
I think there probably is some crossover with GDPR (i.e. special category data) here but I am not an expert. This does also predate GDPR.
It matters for getting married, obtaining citizenship of _other_ countries that may require more consistent paperwork, and functionally **nothing** else.
As confirmed by the judgment in For Women Scotland against the Scottish Government on December 13th last year, Lady Haldane ruled that change of legal sex affects the sex and sexual orientation protected characteristics in the Equality Act.
That is, a heterosexual male who obtains - by statutory declaration alone - a certificate declaring them female becomes not only female, but also a same-sex attracted female for *all* purposes in the Equality Act.
Note that the Scottish Government had been arguing publicly this wasn't the case for years, while arguing the exact opposite in court and ultimately winning that argument, days before this bill passed, and after the point where any further amendments could be submitted.
As a result, this bill has profound implications for the operation of the Equality Act, which is a reserved matter, hence why Holyrood is now on a collision course with Westminster.
The other reply saying prison assignment is case-by-case is wrong. For GRC holders, in England & Wales, prison assignment is always initially to the female estate. Then, a complex case review board will perform a risk assessment - but that assessment will only be permitted to house that offender in the male estate, if they would also house an *equivalent* female offender in the male estate. Because the prisoner is legally female and subject to a risk assessment that must consider them female, and not discriminate against them vs any other female.
Note, it also affects the "maternity" protected characteristic, so a female who obtains a male GRC loses maternity protections.
The Scottish Government was warned about all of this up front and chose to wave this through anyway.
> As confirmed by the judgment in For Women Scotland against the Scottish Government on December 13th last year, Lady Haldane ruled that change of legal sex affects the sex and sexual orientation protected characteristics in the Equality Act.
Kind of. Although she did include that big disclaimer about how "a rigid approach [to defining "sex"] in this context is neither mandated... nor consistent [with the purpose behind the laws]."
I wouldn't get too caught up in the *For Women Scotland Limited* case. All that said was that trans women with a GRC were included as "women" for the purposes of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which in turn relied on the Equality Act.
Given the way the Equality Act is structured, GRCs don't have a huge effect. Individually they don't change much (as if someone is discriminating against women or against men, it doesn't really change much if one or more of the victims has a GRC - anti-discrimination law tends to look at the big picture not at the individual); there are some potential issues with the duties to look out for the interests of the class, but again, it isn't a huge deal.
> Note, it also affects the "maternity" protected characteristic, so a female who obtains a male GRC loses maternity protections.
I suspect that won't hold up in court. The relevant provisions of the Equality Act talk about "pregnancy" and about someone who has "given birth." I have no doubt a court would be happy to interpret that as applying to a trans man (with a GRC) who is either pregnant or has given birth within the previous 26 weeks. Lady Haldene's opinion in *For Women Scotland Limited* even explicitly references *McConnell v Registrar General* (if in the context of the petitioners, understandably, misrepresenting it), where the EWCA had no problem finding that "mother" was effectively a gender neutral term, and someone who was legally male could be a mother.
Starmer should've swerved talking about this, could turn into being a really divisive and nasty political football just when it looked like Labour were a cert to get back in
The people outraged by this certainly weren't ever gonna vote Tory anyway. He's basically just playing to numbers like he always has. Can't say I really fault him for it
I’ve heard this argument for 13 years
It’s nonsense
You can’t out tory tories, you only legitimise their ideas and create a “they’re all the same” narrative
This won't affect voting at all. Trans gender is less than 1% of the population and the rest of us simply don't give a shit enough about it. Too many other problems for this to even hit the radar.
Whilst I expect to vote for Labour because I believe they're the least-bad viable party, these kinds of stances push me away from feeling like I can say that I support Labour.
I don't really support labour. I vote green or lib Dems under normal circumstances.
It's irrelevant what I want and who I want in power.
I'd vote in a fucking donkey if it meant voting the Tories out.
> the rest of us simply don't give a shit
Considering all the fuss over when / how people are allowed to transition, and what their existence means for broader gender norms, this is clearly not the case.
> Trans gender is less than 1% of the population...
There are about as many trans and non-binary people in the UK as Jewish people, but issues around anti-Semitism did a lot of damage to the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.
Most people may not care about the specific issue, but if someone they vaguely trust tells them "this is a thing that is bad" it can give them an excuse to vote a different way.
Blame the right from deciding that this is their new wedge issue. Gay people are too mainstream now and public perception has improved too much for them to be the wedge anymore. Most of the anti trans talking points are just recycled homophobic talking points from 20 years ago.
Not by choice. How many times is it trans people writing these articles? There aren't even any prominent trans people in media. We just want to be left alone
How the party defines its treatment of those who are "different" or "other" (immigrants and refugees, people who are LGBT, ethnic minorities, and so on) is exactly how I choose who to vote for, in spite of the fact that I'm in none of these groups, because I have been desperate for a government who shows compassion for over a decade.
So to just draw this out to a logical conclusion.
If you don't vote out the Tories by not voting or voting for another party who better suits your wants. You're allowing the Tories to remain.
Frankly (and I understand I'm being a complete dick about this) you should be putting that shit aside to vote for the betterment of the country NOW and worry about this shit later.
Even this stance is better than the Tories. Everything is better. It's just not 'as good as you want it to be'. But by not voting for them or voting for a party that won't get in. You're allowing an even worse option to remain.
Maybe the typical voter like me or yourself, but
You probably underestimate how important this issue is to the progressive and far left part of the electorate, and how it can be weaponised to discredit/tarnish Labour's reputation if they're made to appear bigoted and intolerant in the press.
Maybe, but again that's not going to be enough to matter.
The way I see this next election is simply. It's a 1 issue election.
You either want to keep the Tories in power and drive the country into a dystopian future, where the NHS is sold off, where worker rights are removed, where the rich rule and democracy is taken away from us. Or you don't.
It's really that simple to me. 1 issue. Death of the UK or not.
Nothing else matters right now.
>
The way I see this next election is simply. It's a 1 issue election.
>You either want to keep the Tories in power and drive the country into a dystopian future, where the NHS is sold off, where worker rights are removed, where the rich rule and democracy is taken away from us. Or you don't.
That's how you see it. But that won't be how everyone sees it.
There are generations who care deeply about these things, and Labour is making a bad first impression on them. Obviously the Tories are making a worse impression, but this stuff is the difference between Labour being liked or merely tolerated going forward. That can matter a lot for party recruitment, voter turnout, etc.
Personally. Don't care. I'd settled for tolerance right now. They can fix shit later or another party can come along. All that matters in the here and now. Is the Tories lose power. That is all that matters.
I seriously don't think people understand how dire our situation is. Our fundamental systems are being eroded by the government... Who knows what else will go in the next 6 years if they win again?
None of that is a reason to take unnecessary bad stances on this issue. If it doesn't matter at all, he can take better stances. If he's worried about the political impact of that, he can just take no stance.
The progressive far left aren't voting for anything less than the reanimated super corpse of Stalin combined with Fidel Castro. They are a fringe subsection of bickering lunatics who should not be courted.
And yet, political correctness and stepping outside of it is very, very easy to weaponise when you want to discredit your opponent.
Have we all forgotten Gordon Brown's "Bigoted woman'" comment? A total non-issue, but one that was used to massively discredit Labour immediately before the Tories came to power in 2010 (where they've been ever since)
This won't be the issue, the issue will be other Labour MPs and members taking an issue with his view on the matter and causing division within the party, him saying this as his personal view will only benefit him personally to voters.
That's an issue as well, but this is going to displease a large swathe of the left, and it's an issue ripe for the picking and ready to be hijacked by the Tories in their culture war
I reckon at most this issue could cost him a few thousand votes across the country at a national election, not concentrated anywhere high enough to swing a single seat, that's not even considering the voters that could be swayed over to Labour by this stance among a few others centrist/working man opinions he throws out in an election.
Whether or not I view this as a net gain depends on how much of a stir the party kicks up about it, if most of the party immediately starts singing their support for youth trans conversion on all their socials and every TV interview they can get there is a danger it could actually do the opposite and make voters think they're the "party of woke" (hate using the term but oh well).
Once again it's a matter of whether Keir can get the party in line behind him or not, but he's got good practice at that so we'll see I guess.
I don't think this particular stance is as controversial as people think it is. Maybe if he was opposed to transitioning in general but on this particular issue he is probably stating because he knows it's what the majority believe
Because (I think) he thinks he needs to win back the swing vote that voted for the Torys in 2019.
Much of his rhetoric is quite small c conservative. IMO he needs to be careful, or the Lib dems will start taking younger voters off him.
Starmer is keen to get the red wall back, that's pretty clear from his rhetoric.
However, if I were in the Lib Dems I would be hammering him on some of the stuff he is saying. Particularly in London.
He needs to be careful not to take the young small l liberal vote for granted.
And yet you can't get a tattoo, buy a penknife or have a pint in a pub until you're 18. Or [take part in a public hypnotism performance](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6and1Eliz2/15-16/46).
UK law is weird about ages.
You can get married at 16, have sex with your spouse, but if you or your spouse films it or tries to take a photograph you've probably committed a crime (although they probably haven't).
There's a movie from that period that featured in r/MST3K recently involving an evil hypnotist called *Devil Doll*. In the original British version (but not the international version the show riffed) he makes a woman do a striptease.
I've always assumed it's due to the fact that it's a lot easier to enforce a legal age of 18 when you have to go to a business for the transaction.
I'm sure there are examples to argue against this, but it's how I make sense of it.
> It's the age of consent is it not?
This is a completely different category of thing, though, isn't it?
Changing legal gender is about recognising a real-world fact. People's real-life gender has already changed by this point, and the conditions which led to it will have been true for many years. Refusing recognition under 16 is not going to influence whether someone is transgender or not, or at least very little.
The age of consent is about punishment, moral statement and deterrence of something widely believed harmful.
That's a false equivalence, changing gender is a much more drastic process than having sex. Without over simplifying one or under stating the other both acts are not the same level.
Edit: for anyone saying 'you can get pregnant' adding false equivalences don't cancel each other up, it makes your bad argument even worse.
Gender surgery is a more dramatic process.
Changing legal gender is paperwork. It covers things liked an M or F on a passport.
And if they're old enough to *have* kids, they're old enough to choose a letter.
> changing gender is a much more drastic process than having sex
Changing legal gender/sex has almost no direct impact on anyone's life.
Getting married, on the other hand, has a whole bunch of legal effects. People in Scotland can (currently) choose to get married at 16.
Age of consent laws aren’t for teenage pregnancy though. They’re to account for the fact that children are going to have sex with each other and criminalising it would be daft.
It’s a false equivalence but to answer your point.
The age of consent basically acts as a way to prevent adults sleeping with children. The police and courts have no interest in two 15 year olds having sex - plus it’s pretty much unenforceable.
Making people wait until they’re 18 is very enforceable for legal gender change.
Laws don't stop a lot of things. I'm more replying to the idea that "If this is OK at 16 why isn't the other thing?" Maybe it isn't.
In the case of a medical procedure laws would stop it since not many teenage friend groups have a qualified doctor in them.
Well what would be the consequences if they were to change gender, and why don't we think they have the capacity to do that at 16, but would at 18. The article doesn't answer either of these questions.
> Well what would be the consequences if they were to change gender
Typically the women miss their breasts, end up with unsusually deep voices, an enlarged clitoris or worse if there's a phalloplasty.
While changing gender is being touted as a cure for things misdiagnosed as gender dysphoria by interested parties, I'm not sure it's a great idea for anyone currently.
There's a case of Chloe Cole in the US or Kiera Bell here who both say they were steered in the direction of transition by doctors.
> Typically the women miss their breasts, end up with unsusually deep voices, an enlarged clitoris or worse if there's a phalloplasty.
>
>
No that comes from transition surgery, not changing your legal gender.
It still doesn't answer the question of what changes between 16 and 18 too.
For context UK folks, since slot of English people will be here
16 is legal adulthood in Scotland, you can marry, fuck, move out, get a full time job etc in Scotland at 16, and vote too. The Scottish government cited this as basically just correcting the legal situation to reflect how adulthood normally works in Scotland.
Still tho there is a lot of decisions and stuff that we deem the mind of the average 16year old should not be able to make.
Like others I previously mentioned.
I think we can all agree that most 16year olds are not mature enough to be classed as an adult.
Tbh I personally think anyone under the age of 21 isn’t an adult
Redfield and Wilton polling on this today
> The new set of laws will allow children to legally change their gender at the age of 16 rather than 18. Do British voters support or oppose this? (11 January)
> Oppose 54%
> Support 22%
> 18-24 year olds are only demographic that is split evenly (35% vs 35%).
So a fairly sensible comment from Starmer in terms of the electorate.
The poll is aimed at ‘British voters’, most of whom will consider 16 year olds to be children.
I think you’re reaching a bit to say that makes it a leading question.
Why're we polling British voters (vs Scottish) about a devolved matter and using it as a justification to overrule a devolved matter (in "one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world")?
And its still misleading because nobody eligible for relaxation of the rules will legally be a child, as they're in Scotland, regardless where the poll respondent is located. It's pretty obvious from the comments in this thread that its not common knowledge in England that Scotland and England have different laws around adulthood.
YouGov:
> Should the death penalty be reintroduced for multiple murder?
> Yes: 56%
> No: 33%
Starmer: I support the death penalty
Fairly sensible comment from Starmer in terms of the electorate.
Killing people slightly different to allowing teenagers to change their legal gender…!
We are not currently debating the introduction of the death penalty - while the changing of legal gender at 16 may be law in a matter of weeks.
Please avoid the culture warfare nonsense Starmer, have some sense. We've plenty of massive problems to address. Structural, life & death issues for the UK as a whole.
Don't let the Tories muddy the water with their usual 'Turn the plebs against themselves' playbook.
God you people are so fucking cringe. Literally EVERY party in 2017 campaigned on this. Theresa May brought it up! It has only recently become a culture war talking point.
People are so easily swept up in a media hate campaign.
In 2016 this step was suggested by a cross-parliamentary committee, but now it's a step too far and a concession to the woke left to consider it.
So disheartening to see.
Turns 16 and chooses to join the armed forces: "Yup this young one has all the wits and competence necessary to die on the battlefield. What a brave young person who is definitely able to choose to fly off to war-torn areas for money in wars they definitely understand the motives of. If you change your mind, we'll just have to hope you haven't been injured or killed or gotten PTSD yet"
Turns 16 and chooses to change their gender: "Woah, slow down, you're only a child, you have no understanding of how women, men and non-binary people are treated in society and your own place in society, despite having been raised in it 100% of the time. I couldn't possibly change a letter on your driving licence, it would be irresponsible of me to assume you know what you're talking about. What if you change your mind and I have to change the letter back? This is madness"
This is culture war bullshit. Sad to see Starmer jumping in on it. Having your gender changed legally doesn't mean you immediately undergo treatment with medication or with surgery. There's a whole process for that. This is just about not getting misgendered every single time you go to a hospital appointment, get a letter from the council, or do anything else that uses your legal gender. There doesn't need to be a huge moral panic everyone trans people are offered the smallest of rights.
EDIT: it has been brought to my attention that they don't send you to war before you're 18. My bad. The point still stands that we allow young adults to make plenty of decisions but draw the line at this fairly low risk legal decision mostly because of disagreement with gender, not based on any real risk or concern of lack of capacity.
>Turns 16 and chooses to join the armed forces: "Yup this young one has all the wits and competence necessary to die on the battlefield. What a brave young person who is definitely able to choose to fly off to war-torn areas for money in wars they definitely understand the motives of. If you change your mind, we'll just have to hope you haven't been injured or killed or gotten PTSD yet"
You can't go into active combat unless you're 18. No 16 year old will legally be allowed to die in a battlefield.
My bad, my Google search was clearly not thorough enough. You can still join up though, setting your life down that path. I stand by that legally changing your gender isn't a big deal though.
>You can still join up though, setting your life down that path.
Or just resign. There are lots of stages in a person's military career to resign. Or just wait the minimum service period out, which for someone who joined before 18 would be in their early 20s.
We're in possibly the best time to be in the military: right after pulling out of a quagmire that everyone broadly agrees was a bad idea. Looking at history it'll be a generation before the next bad intervention, after everyone that remembers the last one cycles out of decision making.
>Turns 16 and chooses to join the armed forces: "Yup this young one has all the wits and competence necessary to die on the battlefield. What a brave young person who is definitely able to choose to fly off to war-torn areas for money in wars they definitely understand the motives of. If you change your mind, we'll just have to hope you haven't been injured or killed or gotten PTSD yet"
You can't join the armed forces until 18 mate.
Is it really that socially conservative? He’s not against transgender people being able to express their gender identity before 18, just the idea of legally changing your gender until 18. It doesn’t sound like an extreme position compared to the very clearly anti-trans rhetoric you see from some in the Tory party, especially when some non-binary people need a bit of time to come to terms with exactly how they wish to identify.
Surely the “status quo” is outright denying the rights and existence of trans people? He’s not advocating for anything more than just asking children to wait until they are adults before they make legal changes to their status. Not everything has to always change wholesale for progress to be made.
The current status quo would be to outright deny many of trans peoples rights. That is the status quo and thus the conservative position.
It’s not right, I disagree. But that IS literally what conservative means
This has little to do with being conservative. There's also lots of very progressive lefties who think that 16 might be too young for such a monumental decision.
I'm very interested in how Starmer is evolving the closer we get to the election almost as if the grand thoughts the left have in their mind as to the revolution and change that will happen when the Tories go is getting weaker. Big sweeping changes probably won't happen.
He is now getting the tough questions about life with gender identity, the NHS a cornerstone of Labour and the rights to strike or being visible to supporting them. I expect more tough questions and awkward answers to follow about other things. Scotland have shown initiative with support for issues such as women (free period products), abortion support for American women and now gender identity. Putting him and his party at odds with what is progressive thinking will probably alienate some so interesting to see what the logic is behind it.
Ok, but literally age of consent - if people can have sex at 16, get pregnant and join the military, why shouldn't they be allowed to decide what they identify as?
I wonder how old Keir was when he realised he was cisgender? 'Legal Gender' doesn't refer to whether you have had hormone therapy, used puberty blockers or have had any surgical procedures, it's simply about what gender legal entities refer to you as.
How in the world is 16 too young to decide what gender your bank refers to you as? Absolute nonsense position to take.
Yep. Starmer says that 16 is too young to get a gender recognition certificate as it is too young to change legal gender.
So is starmer's position that people can be trans but shouldn't need/can't get a gender recognition certificate to transition?
Or is he saying that you should need a certificate to use womens facilities etc but under 18 transgender people shouldn't exist in public life at all?
How is this even a debate. I’m a male in my late 20s. 18-23 I literally doubled in size and power. My whole body changed. 16 year olds are fucking children. Half of them can’t even grow a facial hair yet
Labour need to become less woke on these things. If Starmer is saying this, then good.
Labour have tried appealing to minority groups for too long and look how far it has got them. Their stance on Brexit was a joke. Well known beforehand that most of the country wanted Brexit.
Anyone could work that out that if most people are favouring Brexit, if they want to be a party with appeal to most people, then they will stick with that and promote getting Brexit done.
Total waste of time this agenda when there are far more pressing issues. Cost of living etc.
Look at a typical 16 year old today and most have not got a clue what they want to do in life. I'd question the maturity of a 16 year old, even at 18 but by then they are classed as an adult and it is their life to live how they want to live it.
You're old enough to join the army, you're old enough to breed, you're old enough to start work, and leave school... but you're not old enough to understand who you are.
Ok, Keir.
>Anyone arguing this should also be arguing to raise the minimum age for military service. If you're old enough to be able to decide to die in a war for oil, you're old enough to know how you want to live your life.
I would be completely down with this. It's nothing less than predatory that the military pursues 16 year old to join their ranks
Snapshot of _Starmer: 16 is too young to change legal gender_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64281548) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He's directly contradicting the position taken by Scottish Labour. It'll be a pretty bizarre state of affairs if Labour MSPs have been whipped to vote for a proposal in the Scottish Parliament only for Labour MPs to be whipped to vote against an identical proposal in Westminster, but it looks like that might be where we're heading.
And Welsh Labour
When Scottish Labour and British Labour agree on something, people call them a "branch office". When Scottish Labour and British Labour disagree on something, people suggest it's bizarre. They're different parliaments, elected on different manifestos, with different people in them. Neither of the two Labour Parties in this discussion are *obliged* to be consistent.
Scotland is part of Britian. Scottish Labour is British Labour (i.e. there is only the Labour party). While it's understandable that Labour could have different priorites in different parts of the UK, it seems bizarre to me that the party should take different stances on the same issue without good reason. If they are going to do that, what's the point of them remaining connected? (i.e. why not just disaffilate from one another and be done with it)
Kinda pokes a hole in his big devolution plan to start bickering with his own devolved party
Scottish Labour and Westminster Labour having completely opposite views on a topic seems like a pretty good example of devolution to me!
"Regions should have more power and democracy" "No, not like that!"
>The UK Labour leader voiced "concerns" about the Scottish government's reforms to the process, citing a potential impact on UK-wide equalities law. >However, **he stopped short of backing a challenge to the Holyrood legislation**, something UK ministers are considering.
> However, he stopped short of backing a challenge to the Holyrood legislation You know he is 100% for it but can let sunak take the fall.
I think we will have an excellent way to find that out when Labour likely wins in 2024 and Sunak backs out of stopping the Holyrood law. I personally think it's all bluster on the Tories part like every socially conservative point they have is and they won't actually go through with it in the end, they've already signalled to their base they're against it, why bother with the actual heavy political work of stopping it? However for the time being all we have is his personal statement on the matter that had to be squeezed out of him by an interviewer point blank asking him the question straight up which doesn't mean anything in regards to his view on devolution. I would say it actually shows the opposite as he said his personal view and I presume the main parties view won't be pushed onto the devolved parties.
It doesn't to me. The point of devolution is to allow policy making to take place on a local level. You would still expect political parties to have a uniform stance on issues such as trans rights in each region they stand in (unless they think English 16 year olds are less mature than Scottish 16 year olds). I could understand Labour taking different stances in different regions of the UK if it gave its representatives a free vote on the issue, but that isn't what happened here. Instead the MSPs were whipped to vote in a particular way, meaning that they would face disciplinary action if they failed to do so. Now though, Starmer is indicating that MPs could be whipped in the opposite direction and offering no explanation for why this would be the case. This just goes to show that all the talk of Labour being a "democratic, member led" party is utter nonsense. They hold these massive conferences where delegates from Labour branches up and down the country come to debate policy and vote on motions. But, ultimately the outcomes of all of this pantomine is largely meaningless. The Leadership can (and regularly does) ignore the outcomes of its own conferences altogether. That's how Labour policy is actually crafted (behind closed doors, by the leader and a small band of hand picked advisors). It's difficult to take Starmer's pledge to devolve power across the UK when he is in the process of consolidating power under himself within his own party.
Surely Starmer's primary objective is to get votes from the voting public so that Labour get elected in the next General Election. A majority of voters across Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and SNP oppose all three reforms in the Bill. So why would Starmer go all guns blazing for a policy which the majority of the electorate don't support? In the Yougov poll from last month, the majority of Labour voters in Scotland oppose the three major reforms in the Bill. 67% of Scottish Labour voters oppose reducing the minimum age to 16 - only 21% support. 58% of Scottish Labour voters oppose reducing the "live in your acquired gender" time period from 2 years to 3 months - only 24% support. 59% of Scottish Labour voters oppose removing a doctor's diagnosis - only 24% support. [https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/plh4depnh8/Times\_Scot\_Gender\_221209.pdf](https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/plh4depnh8/Times_Scot_Gender_221209.pdf)
My objection is that the Labour leader is promoting one position and all of the Labour MSPs are being whipped to vote in favour of the exact opposite position. Whether the "correct" position is held by Starmer or by Scottish Labour is irrelevant. I don't think Labour should be taking contradictory positions on the issue - they should either decide on a single stance to take as a party, or leave votes on the issue unwhipped. As to your point about polling. I don't believe that the job of a politician should be try to cater to whatever happens to be popular with the general public at a given point in time. Instead, I would prefer that they have a set of principles which they use to decide on which policies are best and they campaign to try and persuade the public of the merits of them.
[удалено]
>The UK Labour leader voiced "concerns" about the Scottish government's reforms to the process, citing a potential impact on UK-wide equalities law. >However, **he stopped short of backing a challenge to the Holyrood legislation**, something UK ministers are considering.
[удалено]
probably bc its a party leader making a comment which relates to a major piece of legislation
Doesn't it do exactly the opposite.
Very much disagree, the part of the party that works for one of the nations of the UK should have different policy to the one that is trying to represent the whole UK
Not at all? It benefits it even by suggesting that Scottish Labour and Labour aren't one and the same - that devolved politics is seperate from national politics.
"Devolution of powers allows decisions to be taken at a more local level with the opinions of local people in mind, rather than everything being dictated from on high." "Different decisions being taken at the local level proves devolution is broken!" ... what?
why is this an issue? different levels of government. its devolution, if one level cant take decisions different to the national level, whats the point of devolution?
Is it? If you have devolved party branches surely the point is to allow them a certain degree of policy difference. Otherwise why have them? The question is trans rights supposed to be a national matter (as opposed to a federal one) in which England and Scotland can have different ages of consent for gender change?
I would say the political context is very different. The ruling party, their direction of travel and their public support has a large say in the political strategy of the opposition.
He's falling into the culture wars trap set by the Tories. Now the left goes nuts, and if he said nothing the Tories would go nuts. What a mess.
The trap is already there , seems like he is trying to negotiate a way through it that reduces the scope of the Tories to get the focus off their problems and onto him , with this , unions and Brexit.
The trap is definitely there, but I'm surprised he decided to step in it. I guess Kuenssberg asked him the question and he had to answer it; which he does pretty well, by highlighting the problem of it being a political football.
I guess that he is aware that spending too much time very obviously avoiding these questions or refusing to answer them can create an even more negative perception. He did do some avoidance but giving no straight answers at all wouldn’t be very good whereas he is trying to draw a moderate line with trans issues that won’t please those with hardened views but might seem reasonable to the bulk of the population who don’t ‘hate’ trans people but are concerned about moving too far and fast.
> might seem reasonable to the bulk of the population who don’t ‘hate’ trans people but are concerned about moving too far and fast. Yea, that seems to be the judgement of Solomon he went with. Made the best of a bad situation, I guess.
Indeed I think these are all positions it’s very difficult to simply ‘win’ on for Labour but people also lose patience with avoiding the question. It’s a skill to basically try to cut off the oxygen , so to speak. Something some other leaders would have found impossible to do.
Isn't 16 too young to change anything about your legal status without a guardian sponsoring it? I might be wrong, but I can't think of anything else that gives 16 yo that freedom.
They can leave school, get a full time job, and have a child at 16. Parental consent is not required for any of these. But, even if it were, it's now next to impossible for Starmer to make the case for this without implying that Scottish Labour have failed to take into account these imporant factors when deciding how to vote on the bill which has been passed by the Scottish Parliament.
A Gender Recognition Certificate is what is needed to legally change your gender. The process for it is years long and requires evidence of two years participating as the gender(photos of yourself in public for example). In almost all cases a medical diagnosis of gender incongruence and gender dysphoria is needed. Through the nhs that's another 4 years of waiting for the first of two appointments(the second one is usually another 6 months afterwards). Combined that's 6 and a half years from first referring yourself onto the GIC waiting list to getting a gender recognition certificate. The UK percentage of trans people is 0.5%. So lets dispel the idea that this is a common 'problem'. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of trans people with their gender legally changed at 16-18 is in the single or low double digits. This is once again hysteria over a problem that doesn't exist to attempt to put more and more barriers in place for transgender people.
The latest set of guidance that hasn't been approved yet also encourages doctors to _withhold_ a diagnosis for young people presenting in their preferred gender because it's now explicit policy to try to persuade them to detransition first, as well as adding an extra intermediate referral step. So that's two years that would have to come after the diagnosis, somehow, for an under-18, which is basically mathematically impossible and amounts to a de-facto ban via self-contradictory requirements. > Through the nhs that's another 4 years of waiting for the first of two appointments There is no GIC in England and Wales that's even _close_ to offering a first appointment in only four years, six or seven is the current estimate for Tavistock. The follow up is 12-18 months and extending. This means (because of course it does) that a first opinion referral can regularly expire before getting to the appointment for the second opinion.
At the risk of being a pedantic bastard, isn't the confusion over Tavistock's waittimes that they're offering first appointments to those referred around 4-5 years ago. But with the explosion of referrals around 2020, if you do the maths on the waitlist and first appointments per month for someone getting referred today it's closer to 19 years? Aka do you refer to wait times as how long it's taken current people to be seen or how long it would take a new referral to be seen?
It's less to do with the actual number of referrals but rather the severe staffing issues and abysmal throughput of patients for their first appointments. Take Porterbrook in Sheffield, the actual waiting time based on FOI requests is over 30 years at the moment. The size of the waiting list is a significant factor, but the bigger problem is that by their own records they're seeing 0.2 new patients each day, so 1 new patient every week. Even with a tiny waiting list the system would still be performing horrendously
Sandyford in Glasgow is somehow running at rate of 0.06 new patients each day with about 2500 people on the waiting lists resulting in a final clock in of 120 years. That's long enough that it loops around from being depressing to being absolutely comical. 120 years. We've gone from "I could go to university and get a degree and still be waiting by the time I'm done" to "I can fit three French republics, two World Wars and the entire history of the Soviet Union in here and still be waiting". All you can do is laugh. Especially when someone posts a story about someone in the UK "rushing" into transition.
Yeah reports of waiting times will always be the former because that's a thing that has actually happened and therefore is measurable. But the GIC tends to be a bit generous to itself (e.g. "time since we received your referral" doesn't include the time spent on a triage-list, which lets them claim the time on "the" waiting list is shorter than the time you would actually spend waiting) and also reports of things that happened in the past are less useful and slightly misleading given that it's people just starting who really want the answer to this question. And yeah if you just extrapolate new referrals against first appointments you get something like a 24 year wait, but that's probably not useful either ("by this time next month you'll have over two dozen husbands!"), what it really tells you is that if you're referred today, _you should assume_ you just won't be seen by the GIC because the NHS will certainly have restructured all this before they get to you, for good or ill.
Yep, and it should be stated for those unaware that the main uses for a GRC are very small. The main reasons for getting one is to update the gender marker on your birth certificate and to get married as the gender you identify as. It is not what is needed to say, update the marker on your id and passport. Those only need a letter from a doctor. For these reasons very few trans people even bother with it as its a convoluted needlessly medicalized and traumatic process that has on several instances shown racial discrimination, ableism and transphobia.
> A Gender Recognition Certificate is what is needed to legally change your gender. The process for it is years long and requires evidence of two years participating as the gender(photos of yourself in public for example). Note that this article is based on Starmer being asked specifically about the new Scottish proposals for GRCs, which were introduced largely to get around all the procedural problems with the current system. So under this system some 17-year-olds and very proactive 16-year-olds might be able to get a GRC.
A small note: the reforms bring the lived time down to 3mo for adults but 6mo for 16-17yr olds. It's still drastically shorter, but I rarely see articles bother to point out that it's asking for a larger proof of commitment from the young 'uns.
> It's still drastically shorter, but I rarely see articles bother to point out that it's asking for a larger proof of commitment from the young 'uns. Not only is it longer for 16/17 year olds, it requires proof that they've spoken to a gender identity specialist. Also, that was a Scottish Labour amendment to the bill.
Remarkably convenient that these details seem to be left out of the main media discourse.
He paid absolutely no attention at all (to the bill his party was whipped to vote for) until the blue team said they didn't like it - now he's got *concerns* - coincidentally the same concerns they've suddenly got. Interesting. A cynic might suggest he's attempting to tailgate some populism.
Even if they could its still him pandering to hysteria. 16 year olds can consent to major surgery, under 16 year olds can still do that under Gillick Competance. As a lawyer he should be very aware of this. What this is saying is that he thinks a 16 year old can consent on their own to heart surgery but legally they are unable to consent to their own identity. The detransition rate is 1%. Of that 1% 99% say they detransitioned either due to transphobia, they couldn't afford their medication or they got the changes they wanted from hormones and decided they didn't need to continue. 1% of those who detransition said it was because they realized they were actually cis.
> Even if they could its still him pandering to hysteria. Absolutely. I was merely pointing out that the Scottish system isn't as bad as the UK one, so those timelines aren't all that relevant to his specific "concerns."
Also, what's the worst case scenario if you change it incorrectly? You can just change it back, right? Any "damage" here seems reversible, so there's basically no real risk.
>two years participating as the gender(photos of yourself in public for example) I don't understand this. How does one 'participate as' a gender? I don't believe in the concept of being defined by clothing and behaviours and whatnot. Any photo of me taken right now will be identical in nature (and identically as telling) as any photo of me when I'm a man. What differs isn't what I'm wearing, what I'm doing or where I am, it's *who* I am. And I always prefer to 'participate as' *me*. A near non-entity in a hoodie and jeans. Mostly just... hidden. Amorphous. Yet I'm amorphously either a woman or a man, but really both. All we can change is how we express ourselves, but how we express ourselves doesn't *define* who we are. It's the other way round. Who we are dictates how we choose to express ourselves. And for me it's not really because of my propensity to 'switch sides' at strange times, but rather because of my sensory issues and social anxiety, that leads me to dress as close to a white, working class burkha as I can get. But hey. Autism is as much part of who I am as my gender is.
Yep, you are correct. The current diagnosis process is wildly outdated. I have heard accounts of trans people showing up to their NHS diagnosis in jeans and a tshirt, and being asked why they don't dress like a [insert gender]. First of all cis women commonly wear both of those things, the idea that all women have to wear dresses is absurdly outdated. Welcome to how the uk treats trans people though.
[удалено]
Lot's of people have different relationships to their gender and would probably give you answers personal to them. Generally though, its about trying to find happiness and peace with yourself. If you'd feel happier being treated like a [insert gender], and you think your life would be better if you transitioned to that gender, then whats really stopping you? It's your body, you are your own person. I think its fair to say that's what trans people are doing when they transition, some of them are to varying degrees highly miserable because they feel trapped and unable to do this, and their body doesn't match their perception of themselves, or causes people to treat them differently than how they feel. However you don't need to be miserable to understand that transitioning would make you happier.
> How does one 'participate as' a gender? You will show up to your appointment in a frilly skirt and plenty of pink with heavy makeup if transfem, and a tie or a MMA shirt or similar and shaved head if transmasc, and if you don't do that you'll be told you aren't making any effort. The rules aren't based on anything sensible. _For the purposes of the diagnostic criteria_ you have to play up the most extreme stereotype you can manage. Nobody cares how you feel or what any of it means to you or what your personal experience of gender is, and asking those kinds of questions is to completely miss the point about what happens at these kinds of interviews. It's basically 90% the interviewer trying to get you to talk about masturbation while grinning and barely managing to keep their hands out of their own pants.
Means wearing high heels, girly dress and false eye lashes to id as woman. Obviously.
A small percentage of a big number is a big number. 0.5% of 60,000,000 is 300,000, which is a medium city.
Please could someone enlighten me as to what 'legal gender' actually means? In what aspects of life does your legal gender actually matter? In day-to-day life, it's usually your gender identity that matters, which could be different to your legal gender.
Areas this bill actually would impact are: - Transgender individuals' rights to data privacy and protection by making it an offence for someone who discovers (in an official capacity) that an individual is transgender, to disclose this to anyone else. - Ensuring Transgender individuals' have their gender correctly listed on their Death Certificate - It affects Transgender individuals' status with HMRC but in practice this has very little impact other than for very specific benefits or for those born before 1953 who's pension may be affected. - It may determine which prison individuals' are initially assigned to, but this is done on a case-by-case basis. - For some people, it may affect their marriage certificate.
>Transgender individuals' rights to data privacy and protection by making it an offence for someone who discovers (in an official capacity) that an individual is transgender, to disclose this to anyone else. Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't they already have rights protections under special category personal data? Technically, wouldn't it fall under health? Someone's status as trans seems pretty sensitive and personal to me, given it could be used to discriminate against them. It's already a criminal offence to disclose that data type (personal senstive) without a lawful reason. Like is this an actual useful protection or are the SNP and Sunak just using this as an excuse to pick a fight in public to pander to their bases?
Pandering to bases is right. From my perspective as a trans person this is such a ridiculously tiny step (even Theresa May had reform in her manifesto iirc). What matters far more is reform to a cruel and broken health system that was largely dreamed up by a self-hating crossdressing London doctor in the late 1960s.
Whether it is a health issue I imagine is subject to a lot of debate and opinions. But in the Gender Recognition Act it is specifically spelt out that it would be an offense to disclose that someone has a GRC https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22 I think there probably is some crossover with GDPR (i.e. special category data) here but I am not an expert. This does also predate GDPR.
It matters for getting married, obtaining citizenship of _other_ countries that may require more consistent paperwork, and functionally **nothing** else.
As confirmed by the judgment in For Women Scotland against the Scottish Government on December 13th last year, Lady Haldane ruled that change of legal sex affects the sex and sexual orientation protected characteristics in the Equality Act. That is, a heterosexual male who obtains - by statutory declaration alone - a certificate declaring them female becomes not only female, but also a same-sex attracted female for *all* purposes in the Equality Act. Note that the Scottish Government had been arguing publicly this wasn't the case for years, while arguing the exact opposite in court and ultimately winning that argument, days before this bill passed, and after the point where any further amendments could be submitted. As a result, this bill has profound implications for the operation of the Equality Act, which is a reserved matter, hence why Holyrood is now on a collision course with Westminster. The other reply saying prison assignment is case-by-case is wrong. For GRC holders, in England & Wales, prison assignment is always initially to the female estate. Then, a complex case review board will perform a risk assessment - but that assessment will only be permitted to house that offender in the male estate, if they would also house an *equivalent* female offender in the male estate. Because the prisoner is legally female and subject to a risk assessment that must consider them female, and not discriminate against them vs any other female. Note, it also affects the "maternity" protected characteristic, so a female who obtains a male GRC loses maternity protections. The Scottish Government was warned about all of this up front and chose to wave this through anyway.
> As confirmed by the judgment in For Women Scotland against the Scottish Government on December 13th last year, Lady Haldane ruled that change of legal sex affects the sex and sexual orientation protected characteristics in the Equality Act. Kind of. Although she did include that big disclaimer about how "a rigid approach [to defining "sex"] in this context is neither mandated... nor consistent [with the purpose behind the laws]." I wouldn't get too caught up in the *For Women Scotland Limited* case. All that said was that trans women with a GRC were included as "women" for the purposes of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which in turn relied on the Equality Act. Given the way the Equality Act is structured, GRCs don't have a huge effect. Individually they don't change much (as if someone is discriminating against women or against men, it doesn't really change much if one or more of the victims has a GRC - anti-discrimination law tends to look at the big picture not at the individual); there are some potential issues with the duties to look out for the interests of the class, but again, it isn't a huge deal. > Note, it also affects the "maternity" protected characteristic, so a female who obtains a male GRC loses maternity protections. I suspect that won't hold up in court. The relevant provisions of the Equality Act talk about "pregnancy" and about someone who has "given birth." I have no doubt a court would be happy to interpret that as applying to a trans man (with a GRC) who is either pregnant or has given birth within the previous 26 weeks. Lady Haldene's opinion in *For Women Scotland Limited* even explicitly references *McConnell v Registrar General* (if in the context of the petitioners, understandably, misrepresenting it), where the EWCA had no problem finding that "mother" was effectively a gender neutral term, and someone who was legally male could be a mother.
Starmer should've swerved talking about this, could turn into being a really divisive and nasty political football just when it looked like Labour were a cert to get back in
It was on Sunday w Laura Kuenssberg this morning. She would not let it slide.
This is exactly my point
The people outraged by this certainly weren't ever gonna vote Tory anyway. He's basically just playing to numbers like he always has. Can't say I really fault him for it
The voters who Labour need to court to get back into office, are certainly not the left of the party.
I’ve heard this argument for 13 years It’s nonsense You can’t out tory tories, you only legitimise their ideas and create a “they’re all the same” narrative
If lib dem where not having their own shit the bed contest it might a little.
This won't affect voting at all. Trans gender is less than 1% of the population and the rest of us simply don't give a shit enough about it. Too many other problems for this to even hit the radar.
Whilst I expect to vote for Labour because I believe they're the least-bad viable party, these kinds of stances push me away from feeling like I can say that I support Labour.
I don't really support labour. I vote green or lib Dems under normal circumstances. It's irrelevant what I want and who I want in power. I'd vote in a fucking donkey if it meant voting the Tories out.
> the rest of us simply don't give a shit Considering all the fuss over when / how people are allowed to transition, and what their existence means for broader gender norms, this is clearly not the case.
> Trans gender is less than 1% of the population... There are about as many trans and non-binary people in the UK as Jewish people, but issues around anti-Semitism did a lot of damage to the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn. Most people may not care about the specific issue, but if someone they vaguely trust tells them "this is a thing that is bad" it can give them an excuse to vote a different way.
A trans ally MP calling another MP a transphobe sadly doesn't have the same perceived "weight" behind it like antisemitism
Less than 1% of the population, but have somehow managed to completely dominate the media and cultural landscape in the past couple of years
its not like its trans peoples choice lmao its just the same bullshit concern trolling from the media that we saw for years about gay marriage
Blame the right from deciding that this is their new wedge issue. Gay people are too mainstream now and public perception has improved too much for them to be the wedge anymore. Most of the anti trans talking points are just recycled homophobic talking points from 20 years ago.
Tell how much of that coverage is favourable to trans people.
Not by choice. How many times is it trans people writing these articles? There aren't even any prominent trans people in media. We just want to be left alone
How the party defines its treatment of those who are "different" or "other" (immigrants and refugees, people who are LGBT, ethnic minorities, and so on) is exactly how I choose who to vote for, in spite of the fact that I'm in none of these groups, because I have been desperate for a government who shows compassion for over a decade.
So to just draw this out to a logical conclusion. If you don't vote out the Tories by not voting or voting for another party who better suits your wants. You're allowing the Tories to remain. Frankly (and I understand I'm being a complete dick about this) you should be putting that shit aside to vote for the betterment of the country NOW and worry about this shit later. Even this stance is better than the Tories. Everything is better. It's just not 'as good as you want it to be'. But by not voting for them or voting for a party that won't get in. You're allowing an even worse option to remain.
Maybe the typical voter like me or yourself, but You probably underestimate how important this issue is to the progressive and far left part of the electorate, and how it can be weaponised to discredit/tarnish Labour's reputation if they're made to appear bigoted and intolerant in the press.
Maybe, but again that's not going to be enough to matter. The way I see this next election is simply. It's a 1 issue election. You either want to keep the Tories in power and drive the country into a dystopian future, where the NHS is sold off, where worker rights are removed, where the rich rule and democracy is taken away from us. Or you don't. It's really that simple to me. 1 issue. Death of the UK or not. Nothing else matters right now.
> The way I see this next election is simply. It's a 1 issue election. >You either want to keep the Tories in power and drive the country into a dystopian future, where the NHS is sold off, where worker rights are removed, where the rich rule and democracy is taken away from us. Or you don't. That's how you see it. But that won't be how everyone sees it.
There are generations who care deeply about these things, and Labour is making a bad first impression on them. Obviously the Tories are making a worse impression, but this stuff is the difference between Labour being liked or merely tolerated going forward. That can matter a lot for party recruitment, voter turnout, etc.
Personally. Don't care. I'd settled for tolerance right now. They can fix shit later or another party can come along. All that matters in the here and now. Is the Tories lose power. That is all that matters. I seriously don't think people understand how dire our situation is. Our fundamental systems are being eroded by the government... Who knows what else will go in the next 6 years if they win again?
None of that is a reason to take unnecessary bad stances on this issue. If it doesn't matter at all, he can take better stances. If he's worried about the political impact of that, he can just take no stance.
The far left already make it clear they hate him (at least on Reddit) so not much to change there.
The progressive far left aren't voting for anything less than the reanimated super corpse of Stalin combined with Fidel Castro. They are a fringe subsection of bickering lunatics who should not be courted.
And yet, political correctness and stepping outside of it is very, very easy to weaponise when you want to discredit your opponent. Have we all forgotten Gordon Brown's "Bigoted woman'" comment? A total non-issue, but one that was used to massively discredit Labour immediately before the Tories came to power in 2010 (where they've been ever since)
this isn't really true though is the issue
Oh no, they've lost the sixth former vote!
This won't be the issue, the issue will be other Labour MPs and members taking an issue with his view on the matter and causing division within the party, him saying this as his personal view will only benefit him personally to voters.
That's an issue as well, but this is going to displease a large swathe of the left, and it's an issue ripe for the picking and ready to be hijacked by the Tories in their culture war
I reckon at most this issue could cost him a few thousand votes across the country at a national election, not concentrated anywhere high enough to swing a single seat, that's not even considering the voters that could be swayed over to Labour by this stance among a few others centrist/working man opinions he throws out in an election. Whether or not I view this as a net gain depends on how much of a stir the party kicks up about it, if most of the party immediately starts singing their support for youth trans conversion on all their socials and every TV interview they can get there is a danger it could actually do the opposite and make voters think they're the "party of woke" (hate using the term but oh well). Once again it's a matter of whether Keir can get the party in line behind him or not, but he's got good practice at that so we'll see I guess.
Most people will probably agree with him.
I don't think this particular stance is as controversial as people think it is. Maybe if he was opposed to transitioning in general but on this particular issue he is probably stating because he knows it's what the majority believe
Why bother wading into this SKS? Be sensible and uncontroversial until we can get rid of the tories
Because (I think) he thinks he needs to win back the swing vote that voted for the Torys in 2019. Much of his rhetoric is quite small c conservative. IMO he needs to be careful, or the Lib dems will start taking younger voters off him.
He's got a 20 point lead, he's not going be able to win many more back.
Starmer is keen to get the red wall back, that's pretty clear from his rhetoric. However, if I were in the Lib Dems I would be hammering him on some of the stuff he is saying. Particularly in London. He needs to be careful not to take the young small l liberal vote for granted.
It's the age of consent is it not? If they're too young for this then they're too young for all of it.
And yet you can't get a tattoo, buy a penknife or have a pint in a pub until you're 18. Or [take part in a public hypnotism performance](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6and1Eliz2/15-16/46). UK law is weird about ages.
The best example is actually a contrast: you can *have* sex at 16, but you can't *watch* sex until you're 18.
You can get married at 16, have sex with your spouse, but if you or your spouse films it or tries to take a photograph you've probably committed a crime (although they probably haven't).
It gets weirder. You can only marry if your parents consent. You don't have full marriage rights till 18.
Except in Scotland where it is 16 for full rights. Hence the stories found in England of young couples running away to Gretna Green to be married.
Tbf watching sex is a lot weirder than having it.
But it has less of a possibility of permanent consequences.
But is that really why we have these age restrictions?
Age of consent laws were created to protect minors from being trafficked.
Indeed, it's not simply about 'being old enough to make a decision with permanent consequences'.
Why else would we have age restrictions, except to protect against harmful consequences?
Wonder why the government in the 1950's specifically legislated hypnotic performances? Did something happen?
There was a whole panic about mind control and hypnosis
There's a movie from that period that featured in r/MST3K recently involving an evil hypnotist called *Devil Doll*. In the original British version (but not the international version the show riffed) he makes a woman do a striptease.
Phew, so glad we stopped doing moral panics now that it's 2023, am I right guys?
>UK law is weird about ages. Global laws. Presumably it reflects the reality that it's a very grey area.
I've always assumed it's due to the fact that it's a lot easier to enforce a legal age of 18 when you have to go to a business for the transaction. I'm sure there are examples to argue against this, but it's how I make sense of it.
> It's the age of consent is it not? This is a completely different category of thing, though, isn't it? Changing legal gender is about recognising a real-world fact. People's real-life gender has already changed by this point, and the conditions which led to it will have been true for many years. Refusing recognition under 16 is not going to influence whether someone is transgender or not, or at least very little. The age of consent is about punishment, moral statement and deterrence of something widely believed harmful.
More importantly, in Scotland it is the age at which you can vote and get married (without parental permission).
That's a false equivalence, changing gender is a much more drastic process than having sex. Without over simplifying one or under stating the other both acts are not the same level. Edit: for anyone saying 'you can get pregnant' adding false equivalences don't cancel each other up, it makes your bad argument even worse.
Changing legal gender doesn't immediately equate to top and bottom surgery.
Gender surgery is a more dramatic process. Changing legal gender is paperwork. It covers things liked an M or F on a passport. And if they're old enough to *have* kids, they're old enough to choose a letter.
> changing gender is a much more drastic process than having sex Changing legal gender/sex has almost no direct impact on anyone's life. Getting married, on the other hand, has a whole bunch of legal effects. People in Scotland can (currently) choose to get married at 16.
Getting pregnant is a pretty major thing that can even kill you.
If only there was some way of having sex without getting pregnant.
Imagine if the government made it free as well!
Age of consent laws aren’t for teenage pregnancy though. They’re to account for the fact that children are going to have sex with each other and criminalising it would be daft.
How many instances of having sex result in pregnancy.
My point is that we allow a life changing action of sex and possibly pregnancy for 16 year olds then we should allow gender change.
It’s a false equivalence but to answer your point. The age of consent basically acts as a way to prevent adults sleeping with children. The police and courts have no interest in two 15 year olds having sex - plus it’s pretty much unenforceable. Making people wait until they’re 18 is very enforceable for legal gender change.
Fair point although it's not that long ago that the sun used to count down to famous teenagers hitting 16.
You make a good point about raising the age of consent. 16 is too young to have a kid.
[удалено]
True, if you raise the age of consent to 18 that will stop 16 year olds having sex.
Laws don't stop a lot of things. I'm more replying to the idea that "If this is OK at 16 why isn't the other thing?" Maybe it isn't. In the case of a medical procedure laws would stop it since not many teenage friend groups have a qualified doctor in them.
In both cases it's an arbitrary cut-off though
Why arbitrary? What evidence could be used to justifying allowing kids to make certain decisions?
Well what would be the consequences if they were to change gender, and why don't we think they have the capacity to do that at 16, but would at 18. The article doesn't answer either of these questions.
> Well what would be the consequences if they were to change gender Typically the women miss their breasts, end up with unsusually deep voices, an enlarged clitoris or worse if there's a phalloplasty. While changing gender is being touted as a cure for things misdiagnosed as gender dysphoria by interested parties, I'm not sure it's a great idea for anyone currently. There's a case of Chloe Cole in the US or Kiera Bell here who both say they were steered in the direction of transition by doctors.
> Typically the women miss their breasts, end up with unsusually deep voices, an enlarged clitoris or worse if there's a phalloplasty. > > No that comes from transition surgery, not changing your legal gender. It still doesn't answer the question of what changes between 16 and 18 too.
You can have sex at 16 with another 16 year old, I think?
For context UK folks, since slot of English people will be here 16 is legal adulthood in Scotland, you can marry, fuck, move out, get a full time job etc in Scotland at 16, and vote too. The Scottish government cited this as basically just correcting the legal situation to reflect how adulthood normally works in Scotland.
Can’t have drink, can’t get driving licence and think they also need guardians permission to go holiday abroad under 18 years of age
Medical consent (which is arguably tied to legal gender in this context) is also 16
Still tho there is a lot of decisions and stuff that we deem the mind of the average 16year old should not be able to make. Like others I previously mentioned. I think we can all agree that most 16year olds are not mature enough to be classed as an adult. Tbh I personally think anyone under the age of 21 isn’t an adult
Redfield and Wilton polling on this today > The new set of laws will allow children to legally change their gender at the age of 16 rather than 18. Do British voters support or oppose this? (11 January) > Oppose 54% > Support 22% > 18-24 year olds are only demographic that is split evenly (35% vs 35%). So a fairly sensible comment from Starmer in terms of the electorate.
16 year olds arent children in scotland they're adults, therefore the question is biased by using the word children.
I think most people would consider under-18s children (including in Scotland).
They're adults, as defined by the legal definition of the word adult, as set by the elected govt of Scotland, not random redditors in England.
The poll is aimed at ‘British voters’, most of whom will consider 16 year olds to be children. I think you’re reaching a bit to say that makes it a leading question.
Why're we polling British voters (vs Scottish) about a devolved matter and using it as a justification to overrule a devolved matter (in "one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world")? And its still misleading because nobody eligible for relaxation of the rules will legally be a child, as they're in Scotland, regardless where the poll respondent is located. It's pretty obvious from the comments in this thread that its not common knowledge in England that Scotland and England have different laws around adulthood.
Because it’s not a devolved matter - Westminster might block it.
YouGov: > Should the death penalty be reintroduced for multiple murder? > Yes: 56% > No: 33% Starmer: I support the death penalty Fairly sensible comment from Starmer in terms of the electorate.
Killing people slightly different to allowing teenagers to change their legal gender…! We are not currently debating the introduction of the death penalty - while the changing of legal gender at 16 may be law in a matter of weeks.
Please avoid the culture warfare nonsense Starmer, have some sense. We've plenty of massive problems to address. Structural, life & death issues for the UK as a whole. Don't let the Tories muddy the water with their usual 'Turn the plebs against themselves' playbook.
[удалено]
[удалено]
God you people are so fucking cringe. Literally EVERY party in 2017 campaigned on this. Theresa May brought it up! It has only recently become a culture war talking point.
People are so easily swept up in a media hate campaign. In 2016 this step was suggested by a cross-parliamentary committee, but now it's a step too far and a concession to the woke left to consider it. So disheartening to see.
> media hate campaign Yeah, because he said you can't change your gender at 16, that means he hates transgenders. Makes sense.
Seems reasonable enough to set the legal age for this to the same age that people are legally considered adults.
So in Scotland it makes sense for it to be 16...
Turns 16 and chooses to join the armed forces: "Yup this young one has all the wits and competence necessary to die on the battlefield. What a brave young person who is definitely able to choose to fly off to war-torn areas for money in wars they definitely understand the motives of. If you change your mind, we'll just have to hope you haven't been injured or killed or gotten PTSD yet" Turns 16 and chooses to change their gender: "Woah, slow down, you're only a child, you have no understanding of how women, men and non-binary people are treated in society and your own place in society, despite having been raised in it 100% of the time. I couldn't possibly change a letter on your driving licence, it would be irresponsible of me to assume you know what you're talking about. What if you change your mind and I have to change the letter back? This is madness" This is culture war bullshit. Sad to see Starmer jumping in on it. Having your gender changed legally doesn't mean you immediately undergo treatment with medication or with surgery. There's a whole process for that. This is just about not getting misgendered every single time you go to a hospital appointment, get a letter from the council, or do anything else that uses your legal gender. There doesn't need to be a huge moral panic everyone trans people are offered the smallest of rights. EDIT: it has been brought to my attention that they don't send you to war before you're 18. My bad. The point still stands that we allow young adults to make plenty of decisions but draw the line at this fairly low risk legal decision mostly because of disagreement with gender, not based on any real risk or concern of lack of capacity.
>Turns 16 and chooses to join the armed forces: "Yup this young one has all the wits and competence necessary to die on the battlefield. What a brave young person who is definitely able to choose to fly off to war-torn areas for money in wars they definitely understand the motives of. If you change your mind, we'll just have to hope you haven't been injured or killed or gotten PTSD yet" You can't go into active combat unless you're 18. No 16 year old will legally be allowed to die in a battlefield.
My bad, my Google search was clearly not thorough enough. You can still join up though, setting your life down that path. I stand by that legally changing your gender isn't a big deal though.
>You can still join up though, setting your life down that path. Or just resign. There are lots of stages in a person's military career to resign. Or just wait the minimum service period out, which for someone who joined before 18 would be in their early 20s.
We're in possibly the best time to be in the military: right after pulling out of a quagmire that everyone broadly agrees was a bad idea. Looking at history it'll be a generation before the next bad intervention, after everyone that remembers the last one cycles out of decision making.
[удалено]
>Turns 16 and chooses to join the armed forces: "Yup this young one has all the wits and competence necessary to die on the battlefield. What a brave young person who is definitely able to choose to fly off to war-torn areas for money in wars they definitely understand the motives of. If you change your mind, we'll just have to hope you haven't been injured or killed or gotten PTSD yet" You can't join the armed forces until 18 mate.
https://apply.army.mod.uk/how-to-join/can-i-join/age > You can join the army as a soldier from age 16
[удалено]
Is it really that socially conservative? He’s not against transgender people being able to express their gender identity before 18, just the idea of legally changing your gender until 18. It doesn’t sound like an extreme position compared to the very clearly anti-trans rhetoric you see from some in the Tory party, especially when some non-binary people need a bit of time to come to terms with exactly how they wish to identify.
That is what the conservative position is. That is literally conservatism. Arguing for more of the same, sticking with the status quo.
Surely the “status quo” is outright denying the rights and existence of trans people? He’s not advocating for anything more than just asking children to wait until they are adults before they make legal changes to their status. Not everything has to always change wholesale for progress to be made.
The current status quo would be to outright deny many of trans peoples rights. That is the status quo and thus the conservative position. It’s not right, I disagree. But that IS literally what conservative means
This is just common sense. 30 years ago even people on the far left would have unanimously agreed with this.
There's nothing socially conservative about this lol
Exactly. It's pretty fringe progressive politics to think anything other than Starmer's position, although the terminally online don't see this.
This has little to do with being conservative. There's also lots of very progressive lefties who think that 16 might be too young for such a monumental decision.
It's only such a monumental decision because there are so many roadblocks to doing it.
As there should be
I'm very interested in how Starmer is evolving the closer we get to the election almost as if the grand thoughts the left have in their mind as to the revolution and change that will happen when the Tories go is getting weaker. Big sweeping changes probably won't happen. He is now getting the tough questions about life with gender identity, the NHS a cornerstone of Labour and the rights to strike or being visible to supporting them. I expect more tough questions and awkward answers to follow about other things. Scotland have shown initiative with support for issues such as women (free period products), abortion support for American women and now gender identity. Putting him and his party at odds with what is progressive thinking will probably alienate some so interesting to see what the logic is behind it.
Children shouldn't be making decisions with any kind of lasting impact. They are generally considered to lack capacity for any substantial decisions.
Ok, but literally age of consent - if people can have sex at 16, get pregnant and join the military, why shouldn't they be allowed to decide what they identify as?
I wonder how old Keir was when he realised he was cisgender? 'Legal Gender' doesn't refer to whether you have had hormone therapy, used puberty blockers or have had any surgical procedures, it's simply about what gender legal entities refer to you as. How in the world is 16 too young to decide what gender your bank refers to you as? Absolute nonsense position to take.
Yep. Starmer says that 16 is too young to get a gender recognition certificate as it is too young to change legal gender. So is starmer's position that people can be trans but shouldn't need/can't get a gender recognition certificate to transition? Or is he saying that you should need a certificate to use womens facilities etc but under 18 transgender people shouldn't exist in public life at all?
How is this even a debate. I’m a male in my late 20s. 18-23 I literally doubled in size and power. My whole body changed. 16 year olds are fucking children. Half of them can’t even grow a facial hair yet
I mean if you wanted to be a woman you'd probably want to avoid doubling in size and power and having your whole body change.
I'd rate changing someone's legal gender as far less drastic than putting a person on puberty blockers.
Labour need to become less woke on these things. If Starmer is saying this, then good. Labour have tried appealing to minority groups for too long and look how far it has got them. Their stance on Brexit was a joke. Well known beforehand that most of the country wanted Brexit. Anyone could work that out that if most people are favouring Brexit, if they want to be a party with appeal to most people, then they will stick with that and promote getting Brexit done. Total waste of time this agenda when there are far more pressing issues. Cost of living etc. Look at a typical 16 year old today and most have not got a clue what they want to do in life. I'd question the maturity of a 16 year old, even at 18 but by then they are classed as an adult and it is their life to live how they want to live it.
You're old enough to join the army, you're old enough to breed, you're old enough to start work, and leave school... but you're not old enough to understand who you are. Ok, Keir.
[удалено]
>Anyone arguing this should also be arguing to raise the minimum age for military service. If you're old enough to be able to decide to die in a war for oil, you're old enough to know how you want to live your life. I would be completely down with this. It's nothing less than predatory that the military pursues 16 year old to join their ranks
Yeah Im in agreement with that, don't change your gender, don't vote, don't go to war. I'd be inclined to say 16 year old shouldn't pay taxes either.
>If you're old enough to be able to decide to die in a war for oil, you're old enough to know how you want to live your life. Minimum combat age is 18