Did Keir Starmer just say

Don't forget the 'undergoing gender reassignment' bit which legally already exist though.

Will single sex facilitates still be lawful after Labour change the laws?

Thank you that worked.

Labour has talked about how there is no need to update the Equality Act to make it clear that sex in the act means biological sex [even with a GRC] because it is already clear; and Labour believes in the exemptions for women’s sex based provision - worryingly sometimes called women’s safe spaces.

That worry was well founded wasn’t it? What kind of women did he mean?

Now it is clear Labour are saying that having a GRC does entitle a man to go to a women’s supposedly sex based space such as a toilet.

Bridget Phillipson says it’s only right as they’ll have gone through a ‘formal process of recognition’, said by her in a tone suggesting the process really is magically transformative.

It is clear that very process, which they have said they will make easier, is what gives men this magic ticket.

In seems, when it comes down to it, that the only sex based spaces they are willing to uphold as being sex based exemptions in the Equality Act, are women’s refuges and rape crisis centres, and possibly hospital wards, though KS the lawyer never mentioned Annex B which has precluded that in the past. They do not say how they would actually protect these spaces or reinstate them though.

So Kier Starmer was suppressing the truth and fiddling with words all along just as everyone thought.

Brigid Phillipson, to her credit, gives honest answers when pressed.

Her answers reveal that Labour,
will most likely teach the concept of gender identity in schools; and that GRCs, which they plan to make easier get, do licence men to go into women’s spaces as though they really have changed sex.

Will a GRC then also give men these rights?

1. to give supposedly sex based care?
2. to search a woman if the searcher is a GRC policewoman but really a man?
3. to be housed in women’s prison’s?
4. to be recorded as a woman in police statistics when they commit a crime even rape and murder?)
5. to be a girl guide leader?
6. to change in the female changing room in a gym, swimming pool, NHS staff training where they will be allowed to tell women there how hot and sweaty they are feeling?

NB For anyone new reading here, there is absolutely no requirement for a person applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate to undergo body modifications through hormones or surgery. Most transwomen (born male) have not had surgery. Swedish research shows that even males who have been physically transformed retain male patterns of criminal behaviour.

Sorry but this was obvious that this was their view. That is why they never talk about biological sex, they just use safe spaces.

When Labour say 'woman' everyone needs to get it in their heads that they mean anyone who says they are a woman. WE unfortunately are going to have to use very specific language ie putting 'biological' in front of 'sex' and 'woman'

It's also important to shoot down this 'they go through an extensive process' - no they don't they just say how they feel and are magically a woman, no need to change anything.

Since we don't have the right to know if an individual man has a grc or not it will be open season and no man can be kept out. This is going to cause a lot of harm and will be hard to reverse

Labour seem to be attempting to tell women that two years somehow makes a big difference to us. Whether it's two years or two days the outcome is the same for us - we end up with male people in our female spaces that we didn't consent to.

They also seem to be implying that patient men = safe men. Hence the safe spaces nonsense. If a man can wait a whole two years to gain access to female spaces he wasn't allowed in before then he must be a good un. This seems to be their ridiculous thinking.

The process she claims is 'extensive', that Labour are proposing, is waiting for two years. Took me much, much longer to become a woman and I don't need a piece of paper to tell the world that's what I am. Of course, I was observed to be female from birth.

So there we have it. Labour will consider any man who has a lady certificate, not just a woman but female and would expect them to use female spaces.

They are hiding behind weasel words like 'gone through a process' as if that means fuck all. There is no process that turns male to female. Fancy certificate or not.

Also worth remembering that Labour want to make the GRC application easier and nicer for the men because reasons.

Oh FFS. They're lying liars.

Suzanne Moore in the Telegraph

www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2024/06/25/sir-keir-labour-womens-rights-general-election-2024/

https://archive.ph/GtVlv jump the paywall to see MN get a mention!

Does this link work ScrollingLeaves? If not I’ll transcribe it later it’s only short.

https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1805352140275147000

I thought Dodds had actually said 'we will protect single-sex spaces for biological women'. Did I dream it? Was she thinking 'only in special circumstances' (which is law already)? Or does she think 'legal' women are biological women?

I will try give me a mo.

I was not able to open that. Please would you copy it?

She really didn't want to say it, did she? Labour will allow and encourage the erosion of single sex spaces. Long, drawn out process, my arse.

And here we have it. When Labour say “safe spaces” for women they mean spaces that are inclusive of men who “have gone through a process” of transition. This is why they refuse to use the term single-sex spaces.

https://x.com/TimesRadio/status/1805352140275147000/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1805352140275147000&currentTweetUser=TimesRadio

'It’s just the kind of semantic chicanery that a particularly slippery lawyer might do. Funny, that'

Yes. Maybe that's why we've all been poring over his words so carefully to try and work out what he really means. Because it's not honest or clear, it's all calculated very carefully.

To win an argument, not to get to the truth of the matter and oh my word that takes me back instantly to arguing with a narcissist.

I suppose that is his metier. It may work well in court, where nimble linguistic one-upmanship scores points. It really does not work well outside of court, where we are not all on trial or defending. It ends up looking like petty, dishonest semantics, or manipulative. Sly, underhand, and infuriating.

I agree that it seems there must be some personal animus towards Rosie, it's hard to avoid that conclusion. Whether it's because she's a woman (certainly the most likely explanation), or for some other reason, it's not a good look for Labour, and voters will draw their own conclusions.

Cake, I do so much interesting reading thanks to you 💐

He is so strangely resistant when it comes to giving Rosie any credit or grace on this issue of women's rights that I'm beginning to think he dislikes her for being an uppity woman who refuses to know her place - he might very well resent her challenge to his authority.

I mean if he has no problem accepting a very garbled version of roughly the same thing Rosie has been saying for years then perhaps it's because the very male Tony Blair has status in the male hierarchy and Rosie, being a woman, does not. I would hate to think Kier Starmer is one of those men who can't bear to be corrected by a woman but he's being insanely stubborn and unhelpful towards Rosie to the point that it seems personal for him in some way.

I've just read this in the Spectator by Gareth Roberts. It might be the best article I've ever read about Starmer. Tbf, it's likely the only article I've ever read about Starmer

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-boring-truth-about-keir-starmer/

He is so proud of the Equality Act, but basically he discriminated against Rosie Duffield because she was not a man in power and of the same political group as his own.

It really is. I didn’t think my opinion of that man could get lower, but it now has.

Effectively, when asked if he agrees with RD, he replies he agrees with TB ( who has the same view as RD).

Gosh he sure knows what a woman is when he’s deciding whose views to copy or not, doesn’t he?

That is a scorching article. I wholeheartedly agree with everything he says and his portrayal of women.

I too have heard our Labour Party candidate talk of how the party has evolved its understanding ( though from comments of a colleague at a hustings, it barely seems to have evolved at all).

But as Brandon says, why did you need to ‘evolve’? I didn’t need to ‘evolve’ to immediately grasp the obvious dangers of allowing any man in women’s spaces because the mere act of them entering that space meant they were unquestioningly a woman. Believing this is an infantile level of thinking. Utterly unworthy of respect.

All those who have, or still do, go along with this are cowardly opportunitists or cretins. There is no third explanation

Yes he did say this. He could see it.

Perhaps not because of concern for women, no idea of his position on that, but perhaps because he has previously said he regretted introducing the ban on fox hunting due to all the political time snd energy it consumed. The women’s rights/ gender ideology is even bigger than that.