Sir Keir Starmer on women's rights, sport, and penises, in LBC interview

'His answer was it's not my area of expertise, my response was women are 51% of the population it flaming well should be'

Jesus Christ. They cannot seriously think that is good enough. 'Nowt to do with me luv, it just never comes up on the doorstep '. FFS 🙄

I'm interested to see whether there would be a reversal process allowed. The GRC process effectively kills the prior identity and creates a new one, which causes havoc with medical, NI and tax records. In the new identity, you have no right to access the records of the former identity. In many ways, it is a similar situation to someone who is legally declared dead by mistake.

If self-id echoes this process, then there will need to be checks and balances to avoid self-id-ers from losing the connection to their former records held under their deadname/deadgender -- this is very awkward under GDPR.

There will also need to be a mechanism by which informed consent is given and verified to prevent the system being misused, abused or people being coerced. Would it, for example, be an easier way to side-step the consequences of criminal convictions, bankruptcies?

The only conceptual approach I can see that would work in terms of legislation is to approach each individual as "an unsubscribed unit" that then acquires "subscriptions" as they journey through life, and that these subscriptions can change as and when: name, gender/sex, disability, maternity, age, race, religion, marital status etc. So no-one is ever perceived to be a constant member of a specific class, iyswim; everything is in flux.

But something will need to be static for identity purposes. What will that be, aside from birth date?

It's really odd that Labour, with their background in class consciousness and their obsession with identity politics, do not see this.

It's also, obviously, supportive of performance as "reality". This, I find, even more alarming.

He is spineless and weasely.
Frankly I am now feeling I will vote for anyone with a spine. Whatever party they represent .

If Starmer can't stand up and speak the truth about this, he's too weak to be PM. And I know the current sack of horse shit isn't fit either.
I know Labour is a broad church and all that but it shouldn't be so broad that it puts AGP apologists before women like Rosie Duffield.

'His answer was it's not my area of expertise...'

So he literally admitted he couldn't represent you but asked for your vote anyway?

"All adult females are women, of course they are."

I understood he meant that all adult females that 'identify' as women are female of course they are.

Therefore able to comfort the biological women listening that he still 'sees' us, and of course keeping the other groups happy as they know what he really means. I am sure he thought long and hard about his genius line.

Are you popping over for a cervix haver lunch later?

Don’t forget not all cervix havers have given birth so it would have to be birthing parents day. God knows what fathers day will become. Maybe sperm donors day.

Once again the Labour leadership have no sense of conviction in a sensible debate. Just as Corybn sat on the fence over Brexit Kier sits on the fence over the status of women in society.
Dithering on the fence to assess which way public opinion falls seems to be the Labour way and makes the party and Leadership feeble and unelectable.

I had a Labour party candidate on the doorstep the other day canvassing. I told him why I wouldn't be voting for him. His answer was it's not my area of expertise, my response was women are 51% of the population it flaming well should be

Marsha De Cordova is also being told off for liking a tweet by Milli Hill, I think.

'I know that the TRA lobby has co-opted 'female' for redefinition, but surely when Starmer says 'female' he still actually means 'female'? In which case, he's admitted that he can see the Emperor is naked; he just didn't mean to declare it.'

No. He doesn't.

He said

"All adult females are women, of course they are."

Wouldn't that be considered an incredibly 'transphobic' statement by transmen and non binary, female sexed people? Doesn't it follow then that

All adult males are men, of course they are and therefore they have no business in women's spaces and sports?

I know that the TRA lobby has co-opted 'female' for redefinition, but surely when Starmer says 'female' he still actually means 'female'? In which case, he's admitted that he can see the Emperor is naked; he just didn't mean to declare it.

Yes Rosie was sadly an example to all, this is what happens if you sway from the party line.

The screwed up, pained face when asked if women can have penises. As though it's all just too crass for words. The problem is that when 1 in 5 women have been raped (I think that's the stat) with a penis, it is highly relevant. And given women are still impregnated by penises, again, it's pretty relevant.
And when the people with penises have been oppressing the people with vaginas for millenia, it's relevant.
They take away the language we use to describe ourselves, and then pretend to be wearily disgusted when we're forced into actually referencing anatomy - because female and women no longer have a meaning.

"I can not understand where the women in the party are on this, why is no one at all speaking out?"
Look at what has happened to Rosie Duffield. That's why they don't speak out. They are cowards.

How can anyone call a woman progressive if she is choosing to erase herself exactly?

It is self immolation.

So the Labour party are an echo chamber with no one at all that truly represents us and our girls? Can understand our concerns for safety, for sports for identity?
Is that what you are saying?

I always assumed there were plenty of dissenters that were keeping quiet, but may in time find the confidence to assert themselves. If you are saying that every single female more or less is signed up, then we really do not have a party in opposition do we? Not a serious one, because it only speaks for one half of the population. The Men. With the 'non women' cheerleaders/birthers/cervix havers that have swallowed the propaganda and either knowingly or not knowingly are and have been ignoring the consequences to millions of women.

That is one hell of a situation we find ourselves in today.
The seismic impact of Labour actually winning would be huge. Unthinkable.

As crazy as it might seem, progressive women are as likely, I think even more likely, than men to not only enforce this stuff, but to be True Believers.

And a lot of the women who really have a problem with it have left in disgust or been pushed out.

I can not understand where the women in the party are on this, why is no one at all speaking out?

Starmer can't spell out his policy or position clearly, and he will never will be able to, he knows he will lose half the electorate over night, so he continues to fudge and avoid the hard questions perhaps hoping he can keep Labour's true intentions and policies under the collective radar and out of the headlines.

It is deceitful and insulting.

You either run with policies you can justify to the electorate or you change them so that you are able to talk fluently and honestly about the party's position, you can't sit under a rock hoping the hard questions can be avoided if you sit it out for long enough.

And anyone who has been thinking KS might be able to be brought round, or that he doesn't really know what he means, think about this: he just said on national radio that all women are adult females.

And outcry from the TRAs there is none.

Why?

Because his language is careful, deliberate, and only benefits them. He is saying female is a purely legal state. Not a biological state. They know this.

They also know he will be able to fool some people with this pretence at a concession to reality.

No mattere how difficult he finds it to answer questions about what a woman is - and it's a little pathetic that it's such a struggle - he should be able to explain clearly what they intend to do with policy.

That's his bloody job.