Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Starmer may make the Labour Party electable

155 replies

oviraptor21 · 16/01/2023 13:10

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4a822cec-9577-11ed-a130-baced48eb788?shareToken=a70de80a5b17f9807a092d10dae5bcfe

The Labour leader said: “Sex based rights matter, and we must preserve all those wins that we’ve had for women over many years and including safe spaces for women.”

OP posts:
OvaHere · 18/01/2023 13:54

but why the fuck weren't women making this argument and demand of all politicians when the GRC was drafted and immediately beyond?

It's a boiling frog analogy. Good arguments were made against it at the time by a few dissenting politicians and very prophetic ones as it turns out. The landscape looked very different in 2004 to how it does now. The Tories were out of favour and not far out from the years they battled against gay people. The Blair government was still in its golden period and anyone vaguely liberal or to the left wasn't minded to listen to Ann Widecombe or Norman Tebbit.

Most people had never met what was known then as a transsexual. Cross dressing men (transvestites) unless they went the whole 9 yards with surgery etc. to become transsexual still did it behind closed doors in secret. The media hadn't yet rehabilitated and revered men who erotic cross to some kind of sainthood/ most marginalised status.

Social media didn't exist and pornography not as yet widely available. When the debates about the GRA occurred in 2003 the internet was still very much in its infancy, smart phones didn't exist and people still used dial up modems. The amount of time your average person spent on time was minimal compared to now.

Rolling news was still in its infancy too. Analysis and opinions on political issues, if you wanted them, still had to be sought mostly through the print media.

In 2004 I was in my 20's with two young children, a newborn and a job. I can barely remember the Act being passed. Like other women life kept me very busy and I wasn't paying attention.

Had I paid attention perhaps I would have thought it odd but not knowing this tiny cohort of people (mostly men)I might have assumed it was reasonable - based on how it was sold to the public at the time. In the aforementioned context of how society was at the time there wasn't a lot of reasons for the average, under informed person to imagine things would end up where they have.

Back to the boiling frog analogy it was only really about a decade ago that the water started getting uncomfortably warm for many women. A full 10 years after the GRA.

However I'm certain within that 10 years individual women will have felt the heat faster than others, for example, many lesbian women will have experienced problems long before I began to take notice. Transwidows are another group who will have felt ramifications earlier on than most.

It's possible that had society not changed very much from how it was in 2004 the GRA might not have become such a serious and widespread problem for women and girls. But society did change in those years, hugely and mostly down to big leaps in technology.

The notion of transgender/gender identity was invented, spread and taken mainstream via that technology with the help of lobby groups who grew stronger and more influential post GRA 2004. A massive and lucrative industry grew alongside it as well as the beginning of a new strand of politics that serves a number of agendas. That is where we find ourselves today.

MorvenOfMalvern · 18/01/2023 13:52

MenopausalMe · 18/01/2023 11:43

Labour MPs like Lloyd Russell-Moyes and all the other MRAs activists in the Labour Party will continue to make them unelectable. Starmer and all his ‘bloky’ football chat makes my skin crawl

LRM and Ben Bradshaw's behaviour and subsequent tweets doubling down are disgraceful. I honestly don't understand at what point someone steps in re consequences for being abusive in the HoC? No workplace should see.men subjecting women to abuse.

Labour MPs like Charlotte Nichols and Sarah Sultana just show themselves as a bit thick/unable to work with the facts as they just talk in Twitter drama terms,.ignoring the carefully put to them arguments.

As someone who has voted Labour in all GE, I am absolutely ashamed to have not realised what a party of idiots, cowards and dimwits they are. There is almost nothing they could do or say now to make me consider voting Labour in the future.

ScrollingLeaves · 18/01/2023 13:49

“to make clear that sex is biological sex, but sex as modified by a gender recognition certificate” =

“to make clear that sex is biological sex, not sex as modified by a gender recognition certificate”

scratchedbymycat · 18/01/2023 13:47

Thelnebriati · 18/01/2023 13:42

A GRC and new birth certificate does not change a persons legal gender for all situations. The GRC lists situations in which having a GRC does not change a persons legal gender; they include sports, parenthood, peerages, and some types of crime.

We never thought we needed clarifications, they are already written into the legislation. We're angry now because the law is being misrepresented and the clarifications ignored.

Thank you for that. Again, I didn't know that. That does make things a bit clearer. I need to read both Acts for myself, with a highlighter pen!

ScrollingLeaves · 18/01/2023 13:44

If anyone here has not already done so, they may wish to sign this petition started by Sex Matters to Update the Equality Act
to make clear that sex is biological sex, but sex as modified by a gender recognition certificate.
⬇️
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

Given that it would also help if the adults of the future are not taught in their schools ,from primary age, to believe the confused idea that gender can be changed and gender and sex are the same thing, you may be interested to sign this other petition against teaching ‘gender identity’ ideology to children in their RSE lessons on schools (which are often outsourced)
⬇️
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/618970

Thelnebriati · 18/01/2023 13:42

A GRC and new birth certificate does not change a persons legal gender for all situations. The GRC lists situations in which having a GRC does not change a persons legal gender; they include sports, parenthood, peerages, and some types of crime.

We never thought we needed clarifications, they are already written into the legislation. We're angry now because the law is being misrepresented and the clarifications ignored.

scratchedbymycat · 18/01/2023 13:21

Thelnebriati · 18/01/2023 12:41

but why the fuck weren't women making this argument and demand of all politicians when the GRC was drafted and immediately beyond?

There are sex based exemptions written into both the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act.
The fact that these are now being misrepresented by organisations with an agenda is not the fault of women.

In my comments, I was referring to the GRC, not the Equality Act. It's the GRC that gives males with a certificate a legal right to be 'women'. My point was, why has there not been visceral anger and demands for clarification dating back to 2004 and through all the years in between?

I agree with you totally about the EA though.

oviraptor21 · 18/01/2023 13:02

StalkedByASpider · 18/01/2023 07:34

I really like Keir Starmer. I think he's an incredibly intelligent man, as proven by the fact he's a KC. I think he has principles and is keen to do the right thing - his track record prior to entering politics demonstrates that with him taking up causes for the underdog.

Starmer is fantastic in pulling apart Tory arguments - nothing gets past him. It would be so refreshing to have a PM who is genuinely intelligent and on the ball. I also like the fact that he doesn't go in for the snidey point-scoring as much as other politicians.

But having said all of that....

I don't trust his views on trans rights, self-ID and women. He's shown in the past that he doesn't know what a woman is, and he's let Rosie Duffield be exposed and vulnerable without voicing support for her and her beliefs.

If Keir comes out clearly about his views, and rejects self-ID and supports single sex spaces for biological women, not trans women then I'll vote for him.

But I suspect this is all still smoke and mirrors - Keir is trying too hard to keep everyone happy. He's trying to keep the Corbynites and the left of the party happy, which contains a lot of TWAW believers. Because of that I don't think he'll ever adopt the approach we want - he'll always try to keep them happy and that means retaining the TWAW nonsense.

Sadly I think you have this spot on.
Although I have my doubts that he actually believes that TWAW - he is merely bowing to the activists in his party because he needed them to elect him!
But if he makes enough statements with woolly enough wording, he may manage to fudge the issue enough that women who are not familiar with the obfuscation will believe he supports their right to genuinely single sex spaces.

OP posts:
StalkedByASpider · 18/01/2023 12:52

scratchedbymycat · 18/01/2023 11:48

@StalkedByASpider Yay. 🤝 I'm on it too. I'm going to craft it very carefully though, so will take days to write it.

I got my father to listen to that podcast and he very grudgingly conceded that maybe there was more to Kier Starmer than he initially thought. My overall impression was of a man who cares very very deeply about public service - from a position of integrity and honesty and self-sacrifice. I think he's terrible at marketing himself and hasn't fully appreciated how critical it is. He talks about how he focuses on getting a job done. I often wonder if, in the process of filtering out noise and focussing on detail, he might miss things ... like the nuance of this issue. I also believe he is deeply committed to addressing violence against women.

A friend of mine who has never voted anything other than Tory, and whose politics often enrage me (think pro-Brexit, stupidity on immigrants etc total Daily Mail reader), says she thinks Starmer is a "righteous man". She said she thought he was the first truly righteous person she'd ever known in her lifetime in politics.

That word, from HER, totally TOTALLY blew my mind.

At the risk of sounding like I'm playing the world's tiniest violin 😅 I have very little free time at the moment, but I'll try and get it written at the weekend. It does need careful thought to succinctly highlight what the issues are.

I think Keir is quite a modest man and doesn't engage in the usual back slapping and point-scoring bollocks and people misunderstand that. I think he tried to support the Tories during COVID without trying to score easy jibes because he thought it was important that we were cohesive at such a dire time. And I think that's been misinterpreted as weak whereas I think it's actually the opposite. His razor-sharp takedowns of the Tories in the Commons is something to behold - but most people won't see that. You can see his QC background, he doesn't miss a thing.

I strongly believe that he's a principled, intelligent, genuine man who really does want to do the right thing. He's the first leader of either party in a long time who has really and truly deserved the role of PM by virtue of being a decent person.

I was honestly gutted that Labour was supporting self-ID because I thought his background and personal qualities made him one of the best-qualified people we could ever have as PM. I'll listen to that interview. I've never given up hope that he might see the light - but that was more about optimism than belief.

SamphirethePogoingStickerist · 18/01/2023 12:42

scratchedbymycat · 18/01/2023 09:23

his apparent belief that some men are women in fact and in law.

I don't agree with this either - especially given a lot of what I've learned on this thread wrt EA etc.

The statement TWAW - which he has said - is a legal fact wrt the GRC and has been so for 20 years (I'm still boggling over how long this has been in place without any apparent massive issues until fairly recently). He's never ever going to say that TW are NOT women. I honestly think expecting him to make this statement as proof of something is just never ever going to happen. Not because he's a sexist, but because he's a barrister. The law is the law.

However, on LBC earlier this week he was very clearly talking about two groups of people: trans women and biological women. He very clearly acknowledged that for biological women - 99.9% - this was about biology and sex.

I do think it would be fairer to listen to him knowing his language is within the legal context of the GRC and EA, and then frame that too with his track record. Telling him to 'fuck off' until he states that TW are NOT women doesn't really get us anywhere.

He stated it as an absolute. The law does not.

He may now choose to discuss the two cohorts as though they are indeed different but if his belief is that the law is unequivocal then he is a large part of the problem.

THAT is the point being made.

It really isn't difficult to clearly state that the law does not change biological reality and is, as it was set up to be, a legal fiction intended to make some aspects of being trans easier. It was never intended to, and does not, mean that some men actually are women in law or otherwise. It is a legal protection against discrimination, not a magical key to all things female.

And the sooner he and all other politicians say that our loud the better.

Until then they can all fuck off

Thelnebriati · 18/01/2023 12:41

but why the fuck weren't women making this argument and demand of all politicians when the GRC was drafted and immediately beyond?

There are sex based exemptions written into both the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act.
The fact that these are now being misrepresented by organisations with an agenda is not the fault of women.

scratchedbymycat · 18/01/2023 11:48

@StalkedByASpider Yay. 🤝 I'm on it too. I'm going to craft it very carefully though, so will take days to write it.

I got my father to listen to that podcast and he very grudgingly conceded that maybe there was more to Kier Starmer than he initially thought. My overall impression was of a man who cares very very deeply about public service - from a position of integrity and honesty and self-sacrifice. I think he's terrible at marketing himself and hasn't fully appreciated how critical it is. He talks about how he focuses on getting a job done. I often wonder if, in the process of filtering out noise and focussing on detail, he might miss things ... like the nuance of this issue. I also believe he is deeply committed to addressing violence against women.

A friend of mine who has never voted anything other than Tory, and whose politics often enrage me (think pro-Brexit, stupidity on immigrants etc total Daily Mail reader), says she thinks Starmer is a "righteous man". She said she thought he was the first truly righteous person she'd ever known in her lifetime in politics.

That word, from HER, totally TOTALLY blew my mind.

MenopausalMe · 18/01/2023 11:43

Labour MPs like Lloyd Russell-Moyes and all the other MRAs activists in the Labour Party will continue to make them unelectable. Starmer and all his ‘bloky’ football chat makes my skin crawl

QueenSmartypants · 18/01/2023 11:33

The Tories have made Labour electable. Sounds like Starmer is waking up to the fact that this issue could lose him the election - which will be unbelievable.

StalkedByASpider · 18/01/2023 11:29

scratchedbymycat · 18/01/2023 11:21

Why don't we all write to him as well? Which address do you think would be the one he'd most likely actually set eyes on a letter..

members.parliament.uk/member/4514/contact

I'd be up for writing to him.

I think it would be most effective if lots of women wrote to him about their concerns, and about how they currently feel politically lost due to all the left of centre parties supporting self-ID. Maybe needs a new post here to try and get some of us to write to him?

Re your other post, I don't like JOB so I avoided it, but I will hold my nose and listen to it when I get the chance.

scratchedbymycat · 18/01/2023 11:21

DontAskIDontKnow · 18/01/2023 11:03

Starmer is not going to regain Labour losses whilst listening to people in his bubble. That’s not the votes that he’s lost. He’s also not going to win using the youth vote.

We need to lock him in a room for an hour with Helen Joyce.

Why don't we all write to him as well? Which address do you think would be the one he'd most likely actually set eyes on a letter..

members.parliament.uk/member/4514/contact

scratchedbymycat · 18/01/2023 11:17

What I would say is that more recent comments from Keir have started to allude to biological women - the comments I mentioned above were from early last year. So it's possible he's seeing the tide turning within our culture - and I think it is - and moderating his language to align with that. Because as you said, it's about the votes and being seen to say the right thing.

I don't think it's a politically expedient choice though. I recommend listening to the Full Disclosures podcast where James O Brien interviews Keir Starmer.

DontAskIDontKnow · 18/01/2023 11:03

Starmer is not going to regain Labour losses whilst listening to people in his bubble. That’s not the votes that he’s lost. He’s also not going to win using the youth vote.

We need to lock him in a room for an hour with Helen Joyce.

StalkedByASpider · 18/01/2023 10:19

scratchedbymycat · 18/01/2023 09:43

For example, he described the trans community as "most marginalised and abused communities".

He may sincerely believe this to be true. Honestly - this statement, in and of itself, is not threatening to women unless it is used to justify / defend the removal of rights from women. Has he done that?

He also contradicted Rosie Duffield when she said only women have cervixes and said that "it's not right. It shouldn't be said".

For 20 long years people without cervixes have been legally recognised as women if they have a GRC. So he is correct - as inconvenient as it might be - that the term 'women' legally encompasses those with cervixes. And really - 20 years - maybe he has a point that this shouldn't be said?

He also said re trans rights "wherever we've got to on the law, we need to go further."

Now this ... I don't know what he means by 'further'. I am not opposed to making the lives of trans people happier or easier. I don't want anyone to not live their best happiest lives. However, I am opposed to women's rights being eroded and I don't think anything he has said is evidence he's willing to do that.

Those comments were made together in the same interview re self-ID, and needing to take changes further, trans communities being the most marginalised and Rosie Duffield being wrong. I think that as they were given at the same time, it's a fair assumption that it was talking about self-ID and removing single sex spaces etc.

Rosie Duffield is only wrong if you're referring to gender though - so he could have clearly made reference to the GRC while acknowledging biological sex as separate and distinct. But he didn't. Which effectively threw Rosie back under the TRA bus.

I think it's possible to pick apart each piece of evidence re Keir's views individually but sometimes it's a case of the sum being greater than the parts. When you put everything together, he seems to have been a vocal supporter of ushering self-ID along and implementing more changes to support trans rights.

I agree with you re I don't wish anyone any harm. And I know there are plenty of trans identifying folks out there who just want a quiet and peaceful life. And I genuinely wish them all the happiness they can find. But this mustn't be at the expense of women, or by eroding our unique identity. And that seems to be what most politicians are happy to sign us up to. I think Keir is in the middle and could swing either way.

What I would say is that more recent comments from Keir have started to allude to biological women - the comments I mentioned above were from early last year. So it's possible he's seeing the tide turning within our culture - and I think it is - and moderating his language to align with that. Because as you said, it's about the votes and being seen to say the right thing.

Cherry60 · 18/01/2023 10:12

Also, the length of time that legislation has been in place doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticised (or scrapped) - quite the opposite.

Cherry60 · 18/01/2023 10:08

He may know that the legislation has been around for nearly 20 years but it should have been obvious to him, when the question started being repeatedly fired at him, that the vast majority of people had no idea what had happened and are generally aghast when they find out.

If he meant it wasn't right legally then he should have said that and he certainly should not have added that it 'shouldn't be said' - it sounds very authoritarian and sinister to my ears.

scratchedbymycat · 18/01/2023 09:44

Ugh.

  • that the term 'women' legally encompasses those WITHOUT cervixes.
scratchedbymycat · 18/01/2023 09:43

For example, he described the trans community as "most marginalised and abused communities".

He may sincerely believe this to be true. Honestly - this statement, in and of itself, is not threatening to women unless it is used to justify / defend the removal of rights from women. Has he done that?

He also contradicted Rosie Duffield when she said only women have cervixes and said that "it's not right. It shouldn't be said".

For 20 long years people without cervixes have been legally recognised as women if they have a GRC. So he is correct - as inconvenient as it might be - that the term 'women' legally encompasses those with cervixes. And really - 20 years - maybe he has a point that this shouldn't be said?

He also said re trans rights "wherever we've got to on the law, we need to go further."

Now this ... I don't know what he means by 'further'. I am not opposed to making the lives of trans people happier or easier. I don't want anyone to not live their best happiest lives. However, I am opposed to women's rights being eroded and I don't think anything he has said is evidence he's willing to do that.

scratchedbymycat · 18/01/2023 09:34

His track record in acknowledging what a woman is has been poor.

It feels to me that this sticking point centres on us fighting a fight that should have been fought 20 years ago.

I am genuinely terrified by the backsliding of woman's rights right now, but why the fuck weren't women making this argument and demand of all politicians when the GRC was drafted and immediately beyond? Why haven't we been demanding that every time anyone talks about woman's rights in the last 20 years that they make it damn clear which group they're talking about? Why haven't we been judging them through the last 20 years, the way we are now, if they don't state they stand by females specifically?

20 years is a long time. A whole generation.

StalkedByASpider · 18/01/2023 09:29

scratchedbymycat · 18/01/2023 09:23

his apparent belief that some men are women in fact and in law.

I don't agree with this either - especially given a lot of what I've learned on this thread wrt EA etc.

The statement TWAW - which he has said - is a legal fact wrt the GRC and has been so for 20 years (I'm still boggling over how long this has been in place without any apparent massive issues until fairly recently). He's never ever going to say that TW are NOT women. I honestly think expecting him to make this statement as proof of something is just never ever going to happen. Not because he's a sexist, but because he's a barrister. The law is the law.

However, on LBC earlier this week he was very clearly talking about two groups of people: trans women and biological women. He very clearly acknowledged that for biological women - 99.9% - this was about biology and sex.

I do think it would be fairer to listen to him knowing his language is within the legal context of the GRC and EA, and then frame that too with his track record. Telling him to 'fuck off' until he states that TW are NOT women doesn't really get us anywhere.

Hmmm. Interesting.

I would be willing to consider that but some of his rhetoric elsewhere suggests that it's more than just being legally factual.

For example, he described the trans community as "most marginalised and abused communities". He also contradicted Rosie Duffield when she said only women have cervixes and said that "it's not right. It shouldn't be said". He also said re trans rights "wherever we've got to on the law, we need to go further."

I would say that goes further than just be legally careful and makes me a little more cautious about what he really means, and would do. I think perhaps you're overly optimistic but I sincerely hope you're right.