Starmer tw don't have the right to use women only toilets

That was a pure puff piece wasn’t it? I heard a bit about five a side matey stuff and had to switch

When I have questioned why toilet door gaps have disappeared from the toilet designs, the Dapartment of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities passed it onto the Health and Safety Executive and they passed it on to the Building Safety Regulator. I said because of issues with medical emergencies, ventilation, hygiene, fire evacuation speeds, sexual assaults (all backed up by statistics and my research) it was really urgent and questioned why these new designs hadn’t been risk assessed for health and safety. The Health and Safety Executive told me it was ‘to give people the option of privacy and dignity…’

Personally, if we had a choice, I prefer the option of health and safety.

Maybe they should change their name? Why will no one actually admit the realities of what’s going on and discuss practical ways of solving it?!?

I find this a difficult topic to explain to people as there are so many strands to go through .. the convoluted legislation, the overlay of case law, the capture of every branch of government, health and education and professional regulators . The bias of the mainstream media. The average person in the street has not got a clue what is going on and it is so unbelievable that we have rapists in women's prisons that you sound like a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist.

Ain't that the truth!

I've said before on here I don't trust the man as far as I can throw him and I still don't.

2 days before the election and he's finally come out with what women have been wanting to hear, nope not buying it. He's had all this time to be clear on the issue. Even Jane who didn't let him off the hook, couldn't get an answer without the "marginalised and traumatised community" line trotted out.

He's hoovering up votes from undecided women, telling them at the 11th hour what they want to hear. I don't know why, it's all but a done deal anyway, but he is. Once he's in power though I think it'll be a different story.

He'll betray those women, just like he's thrown Rosie Duffield to the wolves. Despite that he now seems to agree with her stance (especially when a man said it!) there's still no apology. He won't go that far of course. She's still hung out to dry while he tries to play defender of womens rights.

I cannot see how someone can have integrity in light of their treatment towards Rosie Duffield and their deliberately obfuscating language. This seems like wishful thinking.

And like others have said. If a person states that a woman can have a penis, then the question has to be asked, how can you trust anything else that person says.

Integrity: the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.

He said some women have a penis and it's not right to say only women have a cervix.

I appreciate he is a barrister not a biologist but it's not credible to think he's that ignorant about biology so the only remaining option is that he is a liar.

This.

He's still trying to appease both camps.

Starmer about to be on Times Radio talking to Matt Chorley. It will be interesting to hear if this issue comes up.

I've thought 'bread pudding' was more the mineral I'd associate with Starmer.*

* may not be an actual mineral.

Talc is the softest mineral. "Used to make talcum powder and rubber lubricant", according to reliable sources.

hahahaha no offence taken!

Based on the observable evidence of what he's done to refashion the Labour Party and pull his front bench into something resembling a line, in a very short amount of time? I'd say that makes him a mix of Ronnie Kray, Vito Genovese and Kazuo Taoka. Because the Corbynites basically took control of all the party structures, all of them, and that would've been hard to dismantle.

Remember 2018, when Labour public relations were basically being led by John 'Mao' McDonald, Seamus 'posh boy' Milne and Owen [insert fave epithet here] Jones?? They were on mainstream tv, columns, people took them seriously. Where are those three dudes now? Nothing more than the punchline of a joke no one can even be arsed to tell.

To achieve that turnaround in four years, you've got to be made of something a lot denser and harder than bread pudding. Even the 3,000 calorie Nigella version.

Precisely. Has to be a space with a woman in it .. but that would flush out the true motive

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1dthx8m/starmer_getting_the_law_wrong_to_have_another_pop/

We have 'gammon faced freak' from the trans UK board.

ADAMANTINE is an interesting description. I've thought 'bread pudding' was more the mineral I'd associate with Starmer.*

But you're making it sound like he's some kind of hardcore mob godfather-type, Spanakopita.

Anyway, I don't mean to be rude. Just thinking of metaphorical qualities.

*may not be an actual mineral.

The reason KS's statement is taking a while to provoke outrage is because he said it in the context of a wider newspaper interview which you'd have to read. Trans identified males don't read newspapers. To the extent that they 'read' anything, it's X and their favoured subreddits. It will therefore take a day or two for actual news to filter through their self-created narcissistic bubble.

To those PPs saying that KS is just saying this to win votes and will reverse when he gets in, I think we can be a bit more optimistic, for two reasons:

1. KS is frickin BRUTAL in his desire for power. This is the guy who chucked the FORMER LEADER (Corbyn) and the Far Left's totem of glory (Abott) out of the party. He wrested control of the NEC out of the Corbynistas' hands in a blood soaked coup. He's hobbled Momentum to the extent that they've gone from leading the Labour debate in 2017-19 to a bunch of ignored cranks now. He's done all of this in, like, 4 years. Thatcher took three times as long as that to purge her party and get it to where she wanted it and even then she didn't manage it completely. And people clal her hard. Well if she's hard what does that make KS? fukkin ADAMANTINE.
2. If KS throws women under the bus he'll lose in 2028. And he doesn't want to lose in 2028. He's said numerous times that his agenda is a two term one at least. Plus he knows that Kemi Badenoch is going to be the next Tory leader because the donors love her AND the grassroots love her which is highly unusual for the Tories. And he will struggle against her. Why make it worse.

Absolutely @Datun

This is the problem. ^

It's perfectly legal for men to enter women's spaces. That's why he can say transwomen don't have the automatic right. It's down to the discretion of the provider.

What they need to know is that the law is totally on their side if it's what their customers would like.

And they need to know that it IS what their customers want.

Which means more women need to be emboldened to say so.

Which is why the publicising of this in the papers, interviews etc is so important

EHRC said that the government needed to clarify the rules. Hence the 'clarify the EA' proposition from the current gov. Which Labour have poo-poohed.

This.

RosesUnder I truly hope you are right, because Starmer will be PM on Friday, and his actions will determine our freedoms, not just for the next 5 years, but far longer than that.

The reason people call Starmer slippery is his failure to answer direct questions. Personally, I would love to know exactly what I’m voting for if I give my x to Labour. At the moment Starmer has espoused almost every possible stance on this issue, (intentionally I think) allowing space for a variety of interpretations. If that’s not slippery, I’m not sure what is?

Meanwhile Raynor et al are clear that TWAW, and Starmer has both facilitated Lloyd Russel-Moyle, and failed to support Rosie Duffield. I’m not sure how anyone can see this him being likely to defend women’s rights come Friday?

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/clarifying-definition-sex-equality-act

'On 21 February 2023, the Minister for Women and Equalities asked for our advice on the definition of the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act 2010.
Section 11 of the Equality Act 2006 allows the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to advise the UK Government on the effectiveness of equality law.
The EHRC’s initial response to this request is set out in a letter sent to the Minister on 3 April 2023.
Baroness Falkner, Chairwoman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said:
“A change to the Equality Act 2010, so that the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ means biological sex, could bring clarity in a number of areas, but potential ambiguity in others.
“Our response to the Minister’s request for advice suggests that the UK Government carefully identify and consider the potential implications of this change.
“Should they wish to pursue work in this area, we recommend detailed policy and legal analysis be undertaken, in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty and with due regard to any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.
“There is a clear need to move the public debate on issues of sex and gender to a more informed and constructive basis. This would be welcomed by the many who do not take the polarised positions currently driving public debate.
“We look forward to working with the government and others to find a way forward on these important issues, but recognise that these decisions sit with the UK Government and UK Parliament.”'

EHRC said that the government needed to clarify the rules. Hence the 'clarify the EA' proposition from the current gov. Which Labour have poo-poohed.

The law is that unclear, yes. The test is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. But no one seems to think the privacy and dignity of women is a legitimate aim, or that it's proportionate to keep all men out regardless of claimed identity.

Idk what Starmer is aiming for other than to smooth his path to no 10

The day after nothing has changed and men with a GRC will use women’s toilets

So then what? What is he actually proposing. Nothing I’m guessing

So if he can lie about this so compellingly whilst people think he’s trustworthy I’d say that’s madness

As some trans activists are pointing out, EHRC guidance states already that if a service is separated for men and women, people with a GRC should use according to 'gender' they identify with.

Are we heading in the direction of a test case in the courts on 'GRC-holder demands access to female toilets', does anyone think? Is the law sufficiently unclear that that's a possibility?