Starmer on what a woman is, and GRA reform

I agree it's better that he says what he thinks rather than obfusticating and sidestepping the questions. At least it's possible to know where he stands.

The first part is reasonably coherent. It is true that women are adult human females and that transwomen with a GRC are also women legally speaking. Up to that point he's just stating facts not opinions.

Where the coherence of his position starts to get wobbly is when saying that the GRA should be reformed to make getting a GRC easier, with solely the requirement to live in the acquired gender for 2 years without a diagnosis or panel approval. How can that be workable without either a sexist and regressive written definition of what an originally male person has to show that they do in order to be "living as a woman" (and if there's no diagnosis who is going to judge whether such a list of criteria has been met. And the existence of such a list would be hideously insulting to all the actual women who don't meet its criteria, so that's clearly unworkable). And in the absence of such a list there is only self-declartion and therefore no gatekeeping at all. ef there is an individual I know of who is very involved with lesbian groups on facebook. Because they dress and present similarly to q "butch lesbian" and are in a relationship with a female woman and have no dysphoria abouut their biologically male body and they are in fact totally indistinguishable from a heterosexual man for all objectively observable criteria. What makes them a lesbian woman is solely their own say-so. If such a person can in their own opinion be "living in their acquired gender" then a self-declaration is also utterly meaningless.

I suspect that in the unlikely event that labour came to power while Starmer is still in charge, he would find it impossible to find an intellectually and morally coherent way to resolve this. I suspect therefore that he would end up kicking it into the long grass abd going back to avoiding and obfusticating until such time as he loses power with a sigh of relief and allows these questions to be resolved unsatisfactorily by people of lesser intellectual and moral integrity.

I wish interviewers would follow up now with “what is a trans woman?”

Stop trying to get the TWAW crowd to differentiate between TW and women, and get them to explain how they differentiate between TW and men.

Any woman who has not seen the speed at which legal protections and rights for women are being ditched by all parties, and what this means in terms of the appalling reality of the prejudice against women that this has exposed, has not realised how very easily her right to vote could be just as easily ditched should that become a desired outcome and women having votes begins to be inconvenient. And it will probably be framed as 'hate' to wish to retain your vote, and not something anything but saggy titted old white middle class harridan dinosaurs would wish to do.

He says, 'I don’t think it furthers the interests of anybody to continue the debate in the way that it’s been going on now for some time.'

How would he like to have the debate? I'd like to hear him debate this issue in the House of Commons, with full reference to the laws he believes support his position, and why they are the right laws to have. You know, like this is a democracy rather than an enclave of lobby groups.

I can only assume it's the nice red dress she's wearing when she says it

At other times, who knows?

Do they seriously think that "TWAW in law" will stand even the lightest scrutiny. He's a fucking lawyer. With a GRA and the intention to get a TRA, they have a protected characteristic (define "intending to get one" and remember that TRAs want it to be a 5 minute process not a 2 year one). With a GRA, they are legally the acquired sex but rules on single sex places

The next general election should technically be a walk in the park for Labour, given the current cabinet. However, all the Tories need to do is spend their campaigning budget on a few leaflets clearly explaining the consequences of this imbecility (flagging hospital wards is always a good one) and nobody in their right minds would vote Labour.

I can’t bring myself to vote Labour, despite my views on the economy and disgust and the current government.

The Labour Party need to get off Twitter, stop giving campaigning groups too much credit and listen to actual voters.

I need my blood pressure meds now.

He thinks this is a vote winner. He has forgotten that women also have a vote.

So “A car is a motor vehicle, and in addition to that broccoli are cars" and therefore broccoli are motor vehicles and if you believe in spaces for cars then you must be very clear that broccoli belong on the roads

Women can and should have 'safe spaces', with male people having free access to them at will. Which is what male people who wish to access female spaces want: for those spaces to exist and to have uncontested access to them.

Starmer isn't mentioning the whole this ending them being safe, that they're no longer single sex, and this excludes a whole lot of female humans from women's spaces in favour of male people having all the choices and their feelings and wishes respected. It passes the point of sexism and heads straight into male supremacism.

And this is why Labour is unelectable. I am no fan of the current government, but I'm not voting in a party that sees the female half as the human race as male owned resources with no rights or autonomy, and lies their liberal little heads off about it. I'll take corrupt and screamingly incompetent over bloody dangerous.

Annalise Dodds uses the word 'obviously' - what is it about her that is distinguishable from a male person that leads her to say 'obviously'?

The contrast with Yvette Cooper, Analise Dodds that they didn't actually say the same. They know deep down that men aren't women, they know the implications but they can't go against the party line.

I keep thinking about Anneliese saying in Parliament "I am a woman, obviously". Where does she think that gets her, these days?

Somebody who is obviously not a woman has all the same rights, can enter all the same places.

The Tories will use this at the next election and, despite being a bunch of criminally incompetent shites, they will win it. It is their last chance. And the fall out for LGB people, for gender non-conforming people and people uncomfortable with their birth sex , will be terrible.

Sarah Ditum's written a blistering article about this:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4502884-Sarah-Ditum-Whats-a-woman-Dont-ask-Labour

It doesn't say where or when he gave this 'clarification'. Does anyone know?

Trans women are women according to Kier starker and it's so so disappointing because now there is no option for me to vote Labour. I cannot. This issue is too important for the future of my dd and the future of all women really for me to vote for him now.

Keir Starmer isn't scared, this is what he really believes. He can't be elected PM because this is idiotic.

How is what he said not utterly confused?

It doesn't affect him so he couldn't give a shit about women.

The contrast with Yvette Cooper, Analise Dodds that they didn't actually say the same. They know deep down that men aren't women, they know the implications but they can't go against the party line.

Telling its never about trans men

Asked about the Scottish government’s plans, Starmer replied: “The Gender Recognition Act needs to be reformed. And I believe in safe spaces for women — I’m very clear about those too. I think the 2004 act needs to be reformed, I think the 2010 act, the Equality Act, which does provide for safe spaces for women is right. And therefore I’m very straightforward about this.”

What the fuck does that actually mean?

The article about the woman who seems to be describing living in an abusive relationship is sad.

• only women

And when Starmer says 'safe spaces for women', what he means is 'safe spaces for women and anyone who says they're a woman'. He's not a friend to women.

Does he still think "Inly women have a cervix " is something that should never be said?

And in addition, this is exactly why women don't support the reform of the GRA. It's not because we think it affects safe spaces. It is because it vastly expands the category of people who - as Starmer argues, although I think he's wrong - can't be legally distinguished from us, but are in fact different to us. That touches upon our dignity.