Starmer on Marr now

"The trans community, as I say, are the most marginalised and abused of many, many communities and we need to make progress on the Gender Recognition Act."

I see no "among" here.

That’s really interesting, thank you charlie

I have seen nothing at all in what Labour has said in the last two years that leads me to conclude they have given up on those plans.

No, quite.

I would like to clarify something here, that many seem unaware of. What Keir Starmer is saying here:

"and wherever we've got to in the law, we need to go further. And we want to go further on that."

Is not a commitment they take lightly, and it is not limited to bringing in self-id.

I engaged with my TWAW Labour MP on this issue before she lost her seat, and she made it very clear that Labour is not satisfied with merely reforming the GRA. They know that self-id without changing the Equality Act 2010 will not bring the desired result.

"Going further with the law" is a commitment, however much they currently hide it, to change the Equality Act 2010 to enshrine gender identity in law as a protected characteristic. There was no clarity exactly how they wanted to do this, whether by joining gender identity to the protected characteristic of sex, or by replacing sex altogether, or by removing gender reassignment and replacing it with gender identity, but the desired result was to make it impossible to use sex-based exceptions in a way that lawfully excludes all males from female-only provisions.

And it's worth pointing out here that Labour created the Gender Recognition Act and during the law writing and all the debates suppressed the voices raising concerns about women's rights.

They even wrote it in such a way that the Genuine Occupational Requirement from the Sex Discrimination Act was disapplied from male GRC-holders.

Before Covid hit, I was in the National Archives in Scotland reading all of the documents, meeting minutes, correspondence between ministers, politicians, trans rights organisations, constituents, faith leaders. They did not ignore the potential impact of the GRA on women's rights accidentally. That was deliberate and the GRA undermining the rights women had in 2004 was at the very least an accepted if not necessarily intended consequence.

Then the Equality Act 2010 put sex as a protected characteristic back onto an equal footing with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. That's why trans rights organisations have been campaigning to change and undermine it since then.

The Labour commitment to trans rights has not changed. They will fudge as much as they can about this, but I go by what my MP told me a few months before the election: Labour would seek to change the Equality Act 2010 to better protect trans people. Any detrimental effects on the sex-based rights of women are incidental to their primary motivation to improve the lives of trans people.

I have seen nothing at all in what Labour has said in the last two years that leads me to conclude they have given up on those plans.

Mmm. I've seen elsewhere that what he was saying "shouldn't be said was that *it's transphobic to say..."

He was trying to say that the "he said she said" wasn't the way to conduct a debate so I wonder if he was actually just not very clearly saying "it's transphobic" shouldn't be said?

Any thoughts?

Starmer has a wife and a daughter. He thinks the truth about female bodies ''shouldn't be said''.

That attitude is why women and girls are being referred to as ''bodies with vaginas'' and ''menstruators'', not even 'people'. What kind of man gets on his hands and knees for an ideology that defines his wife and daughter as nothing more than pieces of meat, by their body parts 🤮

Not surprised Starmer was in charge of the CPS who decided not to prosecute Saville he’s a total misogynistic apologist idiot

I was a member of the Labour Party for decades.

I rowed back on my volunteering for them when the direction of travel on this became clear, but continued as a member.

I resigned my membership when it became clearer, but continued to give them my vote.

In the last GE, I spoiled my ballot because I couldn’t bring myself to give them support.

My constituency was one of the Red Wall seats which turned blue for the first time in decade.

In the next GE, I will actively vote Tory, if Labour don’t made a hard turn on this.

Financial self interest never made me a Conservative voter, but this will even though I despise our current government.

I am incandescent with rage about this, and horrified at such a wilful rejection of reality.

I’d really really like to know his answer to

1. Are the trans community the most marginalised of all - where’s your evidence for that? and
2. Why is only women have a cervix something that shouldn’t be said?

Suspect the answers are

1. “No evidence but some people told me they were”
2. “Because the word woman doesn’t actually mean woman, it means anyone who wants to describe themselves thus and it’s important not to draw attention to the lack of a cervix because biological sex doesn’t matter (except it does when women are being murdered at a rate of 3 a week, rape conviction rates are appalling, women are not equally represented in Parliament, birthing children causes issues that specifically impact on women’s health and earning power etc etc)

As dear Miranda Yardley once said: fuck. This. Shit.

I'm mailing my Tory MP tomorrow to tell him if he wants my vote, all he has to do is say women have cervices.

Oh Labour Party. When did you become so detached from reality? A debate where only preferred views are allowed? Telling us words we are not allowed to use to describe our experiences? Enough of this gaslighting abusive behaviour. Enough of these luxury beliefs. Women matter and we are allowed to talk about women’s rights using any damn language we like.

That's not to say she's wrong per se, I'm no Tory but surely you've got to play the game a bit more smartly than that.

I think this government are awful but by Angela Rayner's age and position you really should understand that the world is not divided into baddies and goodies.

The fact that she seems not to and Starmer's awful performance in that interview just make me despair.

As a PP said- the opposition have left the field.

There are more women in Canterbury than students, Starmer you absolute body with a penis.

@Jaysmith71 your OP has been screenshot and posted on Standing For Women’s FB page. Just letting you know

Sophocles

Many women do not have cervices. I am one of them. It’s invariably a horrible, painful story behind each and every one of those missing cervices.

Where is all the handwringing about us? Where is all of the accommodation? Where are all the rewrites of reality to make us feel better?

Only women have cervices. If among those number are people who do not care to be reminded of that, or a number of people who wish they were included, but are not, then that is on them to deal with, the same way that I have to deal with being repeatedly invited for smear tests on my non existent cervix. Reality will not change to accommodate them, and it is unreasonable to ask.

This. ^ Absolutely every word of this.

This 'inclusive' bull and rush to be sensitive only ever gets pulled out when it actively works against women to benefit males. This agenda is as sexist as fuck, it is bald male supremacism.

He knows the debate and where it's heading. Canterbury must mean the world to him. It's certainly more important than the safety of women and girls
Well maybe not Canterbury specifically, though he wouldn’t want to lose another seat, but certainly the ‘youth vote’ is seemingly more important to him than the ‘pissed off woman vote’. I guess his problem is, like the Labour party itself, it’s supporters are from two very distinct and different groups.

I knew it would come to this. I don't trust Labour one bit when it comes to women's rights.

When they say they will enforce the EA and maintain single sex spaces, what the mean is single sex spaces will be there in name only, any men can self ID into them

And now keir wants to control our language and the way we speak about our experiences. He can fuck off.

Well, he's nailed his colours to the mast, hasn't he? That's thousands of women who held their nose and voted Labour at the last election, plus many many more who weren't even aware of this issue back then, told clearly by a man that they are a thing that can't be defined or named.