Starmer asked about women's rights & EI

So we are completely clear. The leader of the Labour Party does not believe women are women and no doubt wants to take away women’s rights under pressure from the looney left of his party. He prefers this cultish ideology to the facts of science.

OldCrone · Today 08:24
^Mollyollydolly · Yesterday 13:23
This was the Mail article re the Kinnocks
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11344003/Grandson-former-Labour-leader-Neil-Kinnock-happier-gender-transition-surgery.html
I think it's relevant because it shows the degree of capture in so many of these families.^

I agree that this is relevant. Stephen Kinnock is Shadow Minister for immigration, so Starmer has the father of a trans child in his Shadow cabinet. This must make it difficult for him to speak out about this ideology without it looking like a personal attack on a vulnerable young adult who he may know personally.

I think you are right. That will be that.

I think Starmer knows that the GRA together with the protected characteristic of Gender Identity means that self id is already in place. He just doesnt want to admit it.

The protected characteristic is actually worded as Gender Reassignment not Gender ID.

AFAIK it is Stonewall law that as broadened the meaning that is applied to Gender Reassignment. When the Equality Act came into law it was clear that the meaning was not the one it has now been given .

I agree that this is relevant. Stephen Kinnock is Shadow Minister for immigration, so Starmer has the father of a trans child in his Shadow cabinet. This must make it difficult for him to speak out about this ideology without it looking like a personal attack on a vulnerable young adult who he may know personally.

Starmer has been crystal clear where he stands on this issue:

Marr: Is it transphobic to say only women have a cervix? Keir Starmer: “It is something that shouldn’t be said, it is not right.”

He often tries to avoid the topic, but when pressed, he sides with the people who believe that being a 'woman' is a thought or feeling rather than biological reality.

I find him cowardly and disappointing.

The less acronyms used the more accessible what’s written is.

Labour need EI because the conservatives have given us 3 female and 1 ethnic minority prime minister. The Labour Party has to be seen to be TWAW because they need to have a stick to beat the conservatives with, that lots of naive voters will fall for.

The tories have got there first with a trans MP as well - Jamie Wallis. Although he didn't even request opposite sex pronouns and nobody thinks he's a woman. A bit like EI.

Yeh. By choosing EI labour get to tick a diversity box whilst still giving a white male a job.

@Fucket but look at those that EI is standing against too - am Asian woman for starters!

cynical me thinks the Labour Party has been promoting itself as the nice party of equal rights and minorities. Relying on these votes by sheer laziness and saying the right thing, and then not actually having to act on them. still the same old jobs for the (white) boys.

To have someone like EI as an MP would tick a box, and be inclusive. However If EI was EI of 20 years ago, then EI would have been a white, privileged male capitalising on his celebrity standing for election. Todays EI ticks a box with a unique selling point. We shall see if the public are willing to buy it.

Labour need EI because the conservatives have given us 3 female and 1 ethnic minority prime minister. The Labour Party has to be seen to be TWAW because they need to have a stick to beat the conservatives with, that lots of naive voters will fall for. That way they don’t have to change their status quo or put in any hard work into forming a credible opposition to hold the government to account.

I’m pretty sure he has said TWAW before, didn’t he say something like that’s not just my opinion that’s what the law says, I think he was speaking to some troops somewhere right after the Ukraine invasion.

And by the way the one labour member who stands for women’s rights might be kicked out by them

Dear old Starmer wouldn’t tell us whether Eddie Izzard would be able to stand for labour as a woman even though he is obviously biologically a man. He was unable to define what a woman was. This is the nonsense we are getting from the leader of the Labour Party on fundamental women’s rights. You might be fed up with the Tories but this is what labour offer us. Total misogyny

Because most of them have got about as much nous as a wet welly abs wouldn’t know sanity and common sense if it bit them

This stick out to me as well for 99.9% women it is a matter of biology.

Is he talking about the number of women who identify as men. I'm not interested in them in terms of single sex spaces. I'm interested in the men where biology does not matter.

Starmer is such a wet blanket on this matter, does he really think he can pretend to sit on the fence? Does he really not understand the issues? Or does he think not all transwomen are like that (NATWALT) and it would only be a few women who girls who might get raped and sexually abused by predators using the loopholes to gain access to said women and girls whether they are transwomen or not.
This really matters to me. The rights of women and girls are not some toxic side show. I can't give my vote to labour at present. If the conservatives show some actions like getting men out of women's prisons, strong guidance to schools, strong guidance to reinforce sex based facilities then I will vote for them.
There doesn't need to be too many steps for the rights of women and girls to be lost altogether.

wouldn't it be nice if the TRAs in Labour were tying themselves in knots saying...

well, I really do believe TWAW but I can see this issue is dangerous to Labour unity and if we keep pushing this then Labour might lose votes....and we need to get rid of the Tories ASAP and by any means necessary, because it would be disastrous for the economy, the NHS, the environment if we don't get rid of them...so...I guess we'll just have to keep our mouths shut and just HOPE that we can win this argument after we win the next election

has anyone any evidence of them thinking like this? and if not why not?

What exactly were his words?
For 99.9% women it is a matter of biology?

So does he mean that for 0.1% [of ‘women’] it is not a matter of biology?
(Is thus figure correct anyway?)

The distressed trans teenager and their parents ? Eddie Izzard?

The Baroness on Rishi:

twitter.com/baroness_nichol/status/1584643081634447360?s=46&t=fB5y99Ro6fLfmv95fbDohQ

Will be voting conservative while holding my nose
so disappointing to see Labour are just not getting it

But he has set his opinion because apparently not all women are biologically female ? And Eddie Izzard is relevant as she / he is standing as a Labour candidate. Starmer is going to make misgendering a hate crime and make changes to the GR act ( although we don’t know what ? ) so I think he has made his opinion clear he is just avoiding the detail. And I hope every woman gets to hear about this just so they can take it into account in an overall informed decision.

The left has never been female friendly. I really don't know why so many women thought they were. We were always a side show to them.

This, exactly. I despair of ever being able to vote Labour again at this rate.

Well I'm put out then because I can't seem to find mine!

Posted too soon. Per LBC KS thinks vast majority of women don't have a penis.
Vote for them and suck it up!

In April Shadow Attorney General Emily Thornberry told LBC some women "will have penises".

This view was backed by Stella Creasy MP, who commented: "Do I think women were born with penises? Yes³."