Starmer asked about women's rights & EI

His fucking arse must be sore from all the splinters!

A GRC is totally meaningless. EI may, or may not, have one. He's still a man and always will be.

The man's a complete weasel.

Absolutely, and a weasel that thinks our heads button up the back. Does he really think he, and the rest of the Labour front bench, are going to be able to avoid answering questions like this during a General Election campaign? It just seems slippery if not downright dishonest to fudge the issues raised. I do hope he gets put on the spot far more about, for example, what the implications of making 'misgendering' an aggravated hate crime will be and what on earth he means when he talks about keeping single-sex spaces.

I agree that if Starmer thought that TWAW he would just say so

No one knows what the hell that man thinks. In the Labour candidate race at least the women he stood against had the guts to say what they believed and what they would do.

The man's a complete weasel.

If hes scared of owen jones he shouldnt be an MP, let alone a contender for Prime Minister.

I dont think he is scared of Momentum - he speaks quiet clearly about other issues they want to ignore. I think he is assuming child safeguarding and women rights are secondary to other issues snd wont win any votes.

I agree that if Starmer thought that TWAW he would just say so. He clearly doesn't believe it, but he knows that if he came down on the side of Rosie Duffield the Owen Jones/Momentum part of Labour would go nuts and he probably doesn't want that grief right now, especially at a time when they need to look united in the face of the Tory shambles.

So he will carry on trying to appease both sides, speaking at Prick News awards to keep that lot sweet, but also trying to keep women on side as well, by 'allowing' RD to air her views on it.

As a woman I think I can distinguish between the male and female of the species. I can also recognize that a very small group of individuals feel trapped physically, mentally and emotionally by their sex and wish to alter their appearance so as to become more like their preferred sex. I regard these people as being transsexuals.

Most of us can recognise someone sex most of the time, thats not the issue. The issue is that legally we cannot recognised some peoples true sex because they have a GRC.

The problem is, because the GRC is confidential, we cant ask to see a GRC so we dont know which clearly male person has one or not. Driving licences and passorts are changed to support someone intending to change gender, but theres no medical requirement or diagnosis needed and no need for a GRC.

Therefore a man can have strong female id and no GRC but because we cant ask to see a GRC, we cant differentiate between him and a person with a GRC. So the first guy has self id into the AWS.

If I invited some male friends around and forced DD to strip in front of them, social services would take away my children. So why is it ok for schools to do it?

Put that way, Unseelie, no one could disagree.

So why isn’t there more of an outcry? Is it just not being publicised enough? Or do too many people still selfishly think it’s only a small number, so their children may never encounter this? — whereas it’s now widespread and increasing fast.

This is my hope too.

Lord Kinnock, who was Labour leader for nine years before becoming a European Commissioner, added: 'We're a very close family who cherish him and wish him all the best.'

Yeah, we'd say that about our young family member too. Of course we cherish and wish him/her all the best. None of us except maybe her little brother actually think she's changed sex though.

There must be so many families measuring their words in order not to cause mental distress to a youngster like this one, while hoping they aren't actively encouraging others to follow the same physically destructive route.

Izzard hasnt got a GRC. Why cant Starmer say the simple statement that izzard cannot get on an all women shortlist because he isnt a woman?

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.

I want to know what he means when he says he wants to "modernise" the GRA? When the act was introduced it was stated that only around 5000 people would apply on total. We've already exceeded this number, so why does it need modernisation? To give more people a GRC, or to give them more rights?

Has he any idea of the number of men he wants to give a female birth certificate to?

Daily Mail already covering this:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11348315/Keir-Starmer-REFUSES-say-comedian-Eddie-Izzard-qualify-women-shortlist.html

So the debate goes on - which is what we need. Especially as it will push the Tories to do something while they have power. It is going to be one of the few issues they will be able to hammer Labour on, but to do that they need to be consistent themselves.

Yes. Once our single-sex rights are abolished by law, as they will be under a Labour government, I don’t know how we will regain them.

And Starmer is throwing away the chance to regain thousands of votes from feminists and free-speech campaigners who long to be able to vote Labour again.

Yeah, I tend to think EI is just exhibiting male arrogance and privilege rather than being unwell.

I'm sure I saw somewhere that they will keep the sex based exemptions in the GRA - thats the important thing.

It might have been twitter though so not sure in veracity. But he knows its not something that can be fudged fir ever with how important this is to alot of left leaning women.

What's the unwellness that EI has?

Starmer must know the full implications of self ID though. He’s a very clever lawyer whose training and career will have exposed him to numerous examples of how some people exploit any available legal or social loopholes or ambiguities.

And sometimes doing nothing is an option.
Right now I'd settle for doing nothing, as in Labour pledging to uphold my current legal rights as a woman just as they are. It would still leave things a mess and it won't satisfy everyone but it would do for me. But, if Starmer's speech last week is anything to go by, that's not their intention.

Because it's going swimmingly under the Tories isn't it

Slippery and mealy mouthed.
Women's rights are under real threat.
A Labour government will be a nightmare for women.

I suspect that Starmer wishes the whole issue would just go away. I don’t think he truly believes TWAW but also doesn’t appreciate the full implications of self-ID. His modus operandi is to say as little as possible and commit to as little as possible (on any policy) between now and the next election.

He believes (rightly) that Labour’s best chance of winning is simply to not be the Tories. And sometimes doing nothing is an option.

I’m not sure that KS ever said TWAW - he thinks he can get round the question by saying “Trans rights are human rights”. Just a glib phrase which he hopes will be taken to mean that it’s a human rights issue whilst not actually saying what human rights trans people don’t already have, and a way of not actually saying TWAW.

Politics is so strange at the moment. On a personal level I like and admire Starmer and Raynor, and absolutely hate the Tories. But for policies I want a lot of what the Conservatives plan to do, and hate Labour’s plans to destroy children’s safeguarding and private education. I have no idea how I would vote if an election came soon. I’m really hoping Labour come to their senses and actually read the Cass review.

Truth is, public services like NHS are probably fucked either way.

Sigh.

This is an important point. Dignity.

Female children are being forced to change for PE in front of biological males who identify as female, and when the girls complain to the teacher that they do not feel safe or comfortable, the girls are told to put up and shut up.

This cannot continue. We cannot stay a society that forces female children to strip in front of males, particularly within educational establishments which are supposed to have safeguarding.

If I invited some male friends around and forced DD to strip in front of them, social services would take away my children. So why is it ok for schools to do it?

I have never voted conservative, but tbh, I really want the Cass review, the Casey review and the current significant court cases to continue and conclude before any chance of Labour getting in. All of that evidence has to make a difference surely.