During ‘Pride Month’ 2021, Sir Keir Starmer recorded a video aimed at the LGBT+ community.
The Labor leader boasted: “We are committed to updating the GRA (Gender Recognition Act) to introduce self-declaration for trans people.”
Two years later, Anneliese Dodds, Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, has unequivocally backtracked on this controversial policy, which would have allowed any biological man to self-identify as a woman.
In a Guardian article published on Monday outlining Labour’s new approach, Dodds (who has refused to submit to media questions about this policy change) wrote that “sex and gender are different.” “.
He stressed that a formal medical diagnosis would still be needed for trans people to receive gender-affirming treatment on the NHS if the Labor Party wins the next election.
James Esses is a writer, commentator, and co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists.
During ‘Pride Month’ 2021, Sir Keir Starmer (pictured with Angela Rayner at Pride in London in July 2022) recorded a video aimed at the LGBT+ community.
The U-turn prompted Women and Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch to ask Sir Keir to “apologize” for his “hypocrisy”, demanding: “Will you tell us why you have changed your mind?” Will he admit that he was wrong?
At first glance, one could be fooled into thinking that Labour’s U-turn was a positive intervention: a triumph for feminists who have long pointed out the obvious dangers that self-identification poses to women-only spaces such as prisons and rape centres, and indeed, women’s sport.
But dig beneath the surface and it becomes clear that Labor will continue to push a regressive and divisive ideology if it ever comes to power.
Dodds’ own language made this clear. He still took time to criticize the “calculating cynicism” of “desperate” conservatives who, he said, were trying to “go down the drain” over transgender issues.
I find Dodds’s doublespeak deeply troubling as someone who has been a victim of gender ideology at its most toxic.
In 2021, three years into my five-year Master’s degree in Psychotherapy at the Middlesex University-accredited ‘Metanoia Institute’, I received an email expelling me from my course.
The reason? I launched a public petition, which subsequently received 10,000 signatures, raising concerns about the medicalization of children with gender dysphoria.
This petition sparked a fierce backlash on social media from the trans rights lobby, and my career plans were extinguished overnight. I am currently fighting hugely expensive and time-consuming litigation alleging discrimination against my beliefs, protected by the Equality Act 2010.
That’s why I’m very skeptical that Labour’s proposals to “reform” trans rights will help anyone, like me, who has been written off by this vociferous lobby, including countless feminists who have lost their jobs and been kicked out.
Let’s briefly look at the details of Labour’s proposals. Dodds plans to abolish the current system, under which a panel of independent doctors decides whether or not to grant a “Gender Recognition Certificate” (GRC) to someone with gender dysphoria. Crucially, under these rules, the applicant does not know the identity of the doctors, allowing them to make their decision fairly and privately.
According to the Labor Party, a single doctor chosen by the applicant and a registrar rather than a panel could grant the certificate.
This gives all the power to the person who wants a GRC.
It also means that an applicant could simply attend one of Britain’s many private gender clinics (often run by self-proclaimed trans activists) and pay a few hundred pounds to receive a diagnosis, possibly even after a single telephone conversation.
Given that the granting of a GRC is used to justify biological males entering female-only spaces, the stakes are high.
Currently, legislation requires applicants to have lived in their “acquired gender” for at least two years. This is to ensure that applicants are genuine and have no bad motives. The Labor Party proposes scrapping this requirement entirely and replacing it with a “reflection period” of unspecified duration. Once again, vital safeguards are being diluted.
The Labor Party has further pledged to remove the “spousal consent” requirement, saying it is “outdated”. Currently, a full GRC cannot be granted to a person without the consent of his or her spouse, unless and until any existing marriage is annulled or ends in divorce. (A ‘provisional certificate’ may still be granted).
This important provision defends the dignity of the spouse. Without it, they may not even know the app. A wife could wake up and discover that she was married to another “woman”… without knowing it.
There is one last issue that worries me deeply. There is no mention of children’s welfare at all, other than Anneliese Dodds re-emphasizing Labour’s support for “transition-related healthcare”.
Given the growing evidence of irreversible physical and emotional damage caused to some children through medical “transitioning” for gender dysphoria, this shows little concern for the well-being of young people.
Two years on, Anneliese Dodds (pictured), Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, has unequivocally backtracked on the controversial policy of introducing self-identification, which would have allowed any biological male to self-identify as a woman.
Yes, Labour’s U-turn is welcome. But, if the Labor Party has truly moved away from “self-identification”, it is clear as day that this is not a moral defense of biological reality and women’s rights. Rather, it is an overtly political ploy.
Dodds and Starmer have undoubtedly studied the SNP’s attempts to impose “self-identification” north of the border, a bizarre decision that helped precipitate the downfall of Nicola Sturgeon. Self-identification was a disastrous policy in Scotland, clearly opposed by the majority of Scottish people. The Labor Party knows it would have no chance in an election if it stood on a similar ticket.
But the unfortunate truth is that, despite the new U-turn, the Labor Party has been captured by an ideology with minimal respect for women’s rights.
Last month, Starmer and Dodds met with senior figures from Stonewall (the controversial charity which I believe is hell-bent on pushing gender ideology, often to the detriment of women, children and gays) to discuss the inclution”.
In April, Starmer claimed that “99.9 percent of women…don’t have a penis,” implying that one in every 1,000 women does. She has never backed down from this extraordinary statement.
At a 2022 LGBT awards ceremony, Starmer, in a keynote speech, pledged to introduce stricter “hate crime laws” that could end up criminalizing someone for “misgendering” someone else.
The evidence continues. The Labor Party has refused to firmly defend its own MP, Rosie Duffield, after she spoke out against the dangers of gender ideology.
In April, Duffield said she felt “isolated, persecuted and harassed” after speaking out for women’s rights, adding that there had been an “absolute lack of support” from her own colleagues, including many who in Private individuals agreed with her, during years of “toxic” abuse.
However, the party has continued to pander to MPs such as Corbynite Lloyd Russell-Moyle, who criticized Conservative MP Miriam Cates in Parliament in January, calling her “transphobic”. (The same man who told parents who view their children according to biological reality that they are guilty of “abuse” and “forcing their children to have sex.”)
All of this coming from the party that has the audacity to accuse others of waging “culture wars.”
The truth is that, in recent years, the Labor Party has changed almost beyond recognition. He has abandoned his founding principles and is now obsessed with identity politics at the expense of voters who care about women’s safety, child protection, and freedom of speech.
Dodds’ shoddy new offer could be disguised as reform. But the truth is that it is a dangerous and sinister step.
- James Esses is a writer, commentator, and co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists. A version of this article previously appeared on spectator.co.uk.