Keir Starmer and misgendering

Just a very quick thought (before I lose it in my meno brain)

Each time we have something happen and we all feel the need to email whichever company has decided to be nuts today, use they
For everything
So with m and s
They for the men in the womens, they for the person you are writing to, they for directors, they for you. It could be amusing as fuck, but start to make the point.

If he's upholding single sex spaces that's great. The Tories have thrown ours away.

If that was labours aim, they could have demonstrated that by stopping izzard waltz into the womens toilets.

He's going to make it easy for transwomen to become legally the female sex.

I know I'm quibbling, but buying into the language helps all this along. No male can become the female sex. Male is by definition not female. It's a ridiculous concept, it's absolutely batshit.

He would like to enable many males to enact a legal fiction on their identity paperwork that they are women - women having been a word now stripped of all meaning (hence the whole fixation on 'and now lets make female so stupid that another word is needed for females, and then cling to and drown that one too' - the ethics of which are many and multiple and have never been discussed or at all mandated.

Should it be possible for people to fictionalise their legal documents to a version of reality they like better than the actual one?

No of course not. That's bloody ridiculous on multiple fronts, the whole point of legal paperwork and documents is accurate information. What's the point in collecting it or bothering with it if it's fictional avatars?

Should it be possible for people to legally identify into a group they objectively are not and then claim access to the resources set aside to meet the equality needs and access needs of the group who actually do have that characteristic and can't identify out of it?

Obviously not. That way sheer madness lies, again on multiple fronts. Not least that those people needed those resources and shouldn't be competing with people not of that group who just like the fiction of being there with them and enacting having that characteristic.

And how exactly once sex is a matter of fictional choice, does Starmer plan to gate keep age or disability? Because those groups are getting steadily bolder and you're a fool if you don't think they'll exploit any opportunity to the last decimal place.

Starmer is out of his mind. Just not far enough to be honest with the electorate about all this, which shows even he knows its insanity and will do massive harm.

He's going to make it easy for transwomen to become legally the female sex.

How could he possibly make it easier? All it takes is a declaration and a couple of quid.🤷‍♀️ But men don't even need that. Just look at the case, a couple of weeks ago, where a male paedophile was reported as a woman and put in a women's prison and he didn't need a GRC.🤯

Can you guess the police response to women who said WTF?

This is why it’s all such a legal nonsense. Currently the legal position is that if you walk down the street and pass a biological man who has just decided in his head to identify as female, and you refer to him as ‘sir’, he can complain to the police that you hurt his feelings and they will record it as a hate incident against transpeople (or, if the police officer is particularly gullible, as hate crime). A lot of this is going on. This means that the statistics show a massive rise in hate crime / hate incidents, which statistics the TRAs then use to argue that they need stronger protections and entitlements to ‘feel safe’ by invading women’s safe spaces such as rape centres and toilets. M

It’s not accidental.

He’s going to make it easy for transwomen to become legally the female sex. Then he can ‘uphold single sex spaces’ and allow transwomen inside. He thinks he’s being clever 🙄 and that women will be too dim to notice all the men. All the rapes and choking etc will be recorded as crimes by women so it’ll be hard to unpick or even discuss once Starmer is through with the GRA.

I genuinely think Labour are throwing away the next general election over this. Sure they’re popular now, after the Johnson and Truss disasters, but Sunak seems competent and Starmer increasingly seems to be an idiot hell bent on alienating 50% of the population.

🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

Nah you had it right the first time!!

I thought you'd done that on purpose. I'm still laughing...Keira Starmer

it's probably just a matter of time.

@Alltheprettyseahorses I understood your brain dump perfectly

I also want to know how it would work with the gender fluids who change every day. Perhaps we could all go to labour hq and get misgendered by labour and the police....and what happens if the police misgender you in the custody suite ? 🤔

It is crazy but it's true.

Gah Keir

Definitely misgendering of Keira would be a worthy protest of this BS.

Oooh, next time I email her I will definitely get some of her pronouns in.
In fact next time I email any MP or well anyone who could help fix this I will happily misgender the lot.
Fun times ahead.

Half the time I think it is Russia destabilising the West stoking the culture wars but then Keir Starmer or Joe Biden speak and I realise that Western democracy really does have significant issues.

Not one political party has the guts or the will to say that no, females are not a resource and should not be forced to be non consenting props and service humans to males or lose access. Because that would obviously sound insane and male supremacist. That's what they're doing, that's what they're supporting, but they will never admit it out loud.

Sorry, totally incoherent from multi tasking.

Not one political party has the guts or the will to say that no, females are not a resource and should not be forced to be non consenting props and service humans to males, or lose access. Because they know they would have to deal with the howls of rage from the TQ+ political lobby and they are afraid.

They don't have the guts either to own it and say, yes we believe that females are a male owned resource and should be forced to be non consenting props and used by males or lose their access - up to and including their health care in crisis apparently - because that would obviously sound insane and male supremacist.

That is what they are tacitly supporting, and indicating that they believe though by their refusal to speak out. They're too scared to admit or to face it.

And yes, I still think they're all bloody cowards.

If he's upholding single sex spaces that's great. The Tories have thrown ours away.

What he means is he will retain single sex female only spaces, which any male can enter at any time and make use of. Which means using both the space and the females in it: it's not possible for a male to enter that space because they wish to and to meet their own needs without this using the females in the space. As Datun so often says, it's the presence of females in vulnerable and intimate situations that is the desired thing and not the space.

Starmer is committed to meeting that male desire.

Not one political party has the guts or the will to say that no, females are not a resource and should not be forced to be non consenting props and service humans to males or lose access. Because that would obviously sound insane and male supremacist. That's what they're doing, that's what they're supporting, but they will never admit it out loud.

Bloody cowards.

Given that those who seem to subscribe to Gender Theory have no definitive explanation of what constitutes feeling like a man or a woman, how is it actually even possible to mis gender someone?

Using biological sex works as its black and white, clearly defined, and medically and scientifically supported. Gender is opinion, subscription to stereotype, and far too fluid to ever be pinned down enough to be measured in law.

I really think he doesn’t want to be elected. He surely cannot be entirely oblivious to the fact that a huge proportion of the electorate find this ridiculous.

If he's unholding single sex spaces that's great. The Tories have thrown ours away.

Barely legible brain dump coming, sorry in advance.

Would that be all pronouns no matter how esoteric or just transpeople? Is it a way to reinforce the status of youngish middle-class people who fancy being enby for a bit? Would everyone have to ask for the pronouns of everyone they meet and waste all their headspace on remembering pronouns of people they'll spend 30 seconds talking to? I barely pay attention to names, never mind pronouns.

If just trans then every transperson would have to present in a way that flags they are trans which wouldn't work anyway because apparently 'passing privilege' is vanishingly rare and generally involves extensive surgery (or really good filters and excellent photoshop skills). How could it be argued in a court of law that someone who a reasonable person would assume to be one sex should be referred to as another? Could women misgendered as they or he because they have short hair have the misgenderer recorded as committing a hate crime?

What about proof if no witnesses eg when 2 women in Cardiff were accused of threatening a male in women's toilets? Or with people who appear to be vexatious litigants from their history?

I've been told Starmer is intelligent and has a keen legal mind having been DPP but I'm finding it very, very hard to believe.

I hope the posters who insisted this didn't happen have now read the links and are satisfied that it did, because what I'm interested in is the op's point:
'I am confused about how that would work'

As I understand it, an offence can be classed a hate crime - and thereby attract a harsher sentence - if it's judged that the motivation for that offence is hostility towards certain (but not all) protected characteristics. If that's correct then what are the implications? For example, I can forsee women being arrested during a protest, charged with a public order offence and then finding it used against them.

But I think the real impact will be felt far beyond this. Just putting the words 'misgendering' and 'crime' into the same sentence will have a silencing effect, deterring us from using clear language when we're talking about men in women's spaces and women's sport.

This, I suspect, is the desired intent and I think it's an absolutely chilling move. Back to 'No debate' just with a new haircut, and why some people are trying to minimise it I have no idea.

If Kier Starmer gets in I will continually misgender her.