Starmer on what a woman is, and GRA reform

I saw a screenshot of this on twitter and through that Mole had made it up for a giggle.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10604829/Keir-Starmer-calls-respectful-debate-controversial-issue.html

As pp said we can't vote Labour, we can't vote Green and I won't vote Conservative so I am between a rock and a hard place. Is it too much to ask for just a common sense approach to this and all the other problems this country is experiencing; well yes of course it is. Government is captured at every point; bullied, persuaded, paid to forget the basic requirements of the everyday human.

I’ve just seen this on Twitter. It’s so depressing. Also cannot believe it’s this that’s so important when he was on visit about the war 🤷🏻‍♀️

Brilliant,

Now get him to define ‘trans women’

I just don't get this. Surely it's simple;

A woman is an adult female human.
A man is an adult human male.
A trans woman is and adult male who identifies as a woman
A trans man is an adult female who identifies as a man

4 clearly distinct categories there. And no amount of surgical process or otherwise will alter this.

It's been understood for millennia that biology of species are male and female. We cannot reproduce without these 2 clear categories. Trans rights are important, of course, and provisions should be made, but separate to women's rights. I won't vote for anybody that can't recognise basic fact.

I am also heartened by the fact that much as the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people but have their good name tarnished by a small but loud proportion of extremists, so too are most trans people happily going about their lives but being caught up in a circus led by a loud minority.

bellinisurge, why do you think the Tories winning the next election would be awful for gays and lesbians?
It was a Tory MP (Matthew Paris) who co-founded Stonewall, back in the days when it was a wonderful organisation for gay rights, before it was hijacked by the TRAs.

I'm done with Labour, having been a member most of my adult life. I left the party last year after the car crash with Lammy and 'dinosaurs'. I keep getting begging letters asking me to rejoin, but I just can't while they peddle this crap. I'd hoped for a bit of sanity from Starmer, but clearly not.

I see Labour are still basing their policies on Twitter likes. Clearly I was wrong to hope they'd learnt their lesson on that last time.

At least he let us know in good time for the local elections. If a Labour council will not ensure funding for single sex services where they are needed, they can jog on.

As Starmer supports 'safe spaces for women' I expect he'll be supporting Women Talk Back who are taking Bristol student union to court for banning them from being female only?

He is an utter shyster.

He is actually saying males can become females. He is relying on the GRA to say that the definition of 'woman' in the EA includes natal males. They aren't just 'women' to him; they're female in every way.

I'm still pretty ambivalent about it. but I simply don't see how I can vote labour as they currently present themselves

so women are female adults

but also some male adults are women

yep, that's nice and clear

not voting for labour until starmer fucks off then

no men are women, come on people. stop trying to make me believe bollocks

Sarah Ditum nailed it in the Times: "It matters because the law depends on language, and people who pretend to strategic idiocy about the natural and ordinary meanings of words really have no business being lawmakers."

Transwomen are transwomen. Transmen are transmen.

Well mumsnetters, I think this will forever answer the question 'Why do people still vote Tory?'

😂😂😂

“A woman is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women”

This means that trans men are women. They are female adults.
He’s also using the word “woman” in two different ways in the same sentence. He tells us a “woman” is an adult female, and in addition trans women are “women”. But trans women are adult males. Adult males cannot be adult females. So trans women must be “women” in a different sense. And he hasn’t told us in what sense trans women are “women”, such that they can be differentiated from other adult males.

Also if trans women are women then why does starmer support the female only spaces in the equality act which exclude trans women?

What pisses me off about this is it’s glaringly illogical, and yet no one but gender critical feminists seems to notice.

I read a Harriet Harman interview this week and she said the same think so I knew this was going to be their new 'clear' stance ie let's tell them that we know women are adult human females and then tell them that men are also women. We're not stupid Mr Starner - you're basically saying anyone can be a woman.

The problem here is that, in many areas affected eg safe spaces, sport etc, the question hasn't been why would we let men into these spaces but rather they're blanket allowed and now you have to have good reason to exclude. Labour know that women's group, refuges etc are petrified of being sued etc so they believe everyone will just suck it up and shut up. Except we bloody well won't.

I would like to see a full on debate on what is a woman and a man. If KS is so confident I want to see him answer direct questions e.g what defines 'living as a woman'.

'I genuinely wonder how he thinks he is helping trans people at this point.'

Because he really, really isn't. He is driving resentment. I don't resent transwomen, but people will transfer their resentment of mealy-mouthed politicians and their failure to protect women's rights to them. And that will be unfair and unpleasant.

I have MS. This is a lifelong biological condition that can, at times, be disabling but it varies. Luckily it tends not to be too severe and I can "pass" as a person without disabilities most of the time. I can't identify out if it.
I can get things like bladder urgency and need the loo but I prefer to stay out of disabled toilets because I don't have a blue badge. I'm not entitled to one because I don't meet the criteria. I always feel a person more disabled than I am needs that loo.
I can get horribly tired and can't stand for a long time but I don't take a disabled seat unless I have no option in case a more disabled person needs it.
The blue badge application process is long, difficult and expensive. Fortunately, I can work part time and don't need to go through the humiliating and uncertain benefit application process yet. People right now with MS - an incurable chronic condition- have to do this.
MS is particularly prevalent in Scotland for reasons not fully understood. JK Rowling's mum died of severe version of MS and, unsurprisingly, she set up the Ann Rowling foundation in Scotland.
And yet someone with a dick in Scotland can put on lippy and a dress and call me a hateful bigot if I don't call them a woman.

"And therefore I’m very straightforward about this.”

Starmer identifies as being straightforward about this. Whether he is widely considered as being 'straightforward' and others believe he when he says he is being straightforward will be shown in the next general election...when the Tories are elected...gain.

I agree with @bellinisurge on this.

What I don’t get is that he is a smart lawyer, so he can’t not know that what he says is inaccurate. As well as confusing and contradictory. How the hell does he believe this pile of wank will work?

We need a fucking opposition party we can vote for. Is he perhaps a Tory stooge, paid to ensure the Tories stay in for evermore?

Blame 'the way the debate is happening' so as to avoid the question.

I genuinely wonder how he thinks he is helping trans people at this point. Given the Cass report which spells out the woeful state of medical care in the country, why does he think giving out GRCs more readily than swimming certificates is the way to go?