Keir Starmer "adult female" niggle or am I nitpicking?

I respect and understand your distinction,and assume good faith as you've never done me otherwise: obviously, this is where it falls down with KS.

When I say “it’s implied”, I mean because the context is that of humans discussing the Equality Act, which only applies to humans.

There are completely separate laws for animal rights, but they aren’t the subject of the SC ruling nor the interview questions KS is answering.

As an example, when we talk about global warming, we don’t need to clarify that we’re all talking about Earth, as we are all on the Earth so there’s no need to say that. In the future if some people move to Mars, then we might need to clarify which globe we’re talking about, but in the current context of everyone living on Earth, it’s implied.

I think the missing word here - as it pertains to the judgement - is "biological" not "human"
Human is implied. Biological needs saying. He won't say it though.

I didn't say otherwise? @HelenaWaiting

I have no wish to be pedantic but, if that is your concern, adding "human" would not make one iota of difference.

He may have fudged words and so on, but I don't care now, the genie is out of the bottle and this issue will gradually recede in the public's view I think.

As long as there are no moves to introduce new laws etc. to row back on this I'm happy enough.

I do think he uses weasel words though and hedges his bets, but does that matter anymore regarding this issue anyway.

Completely untrustworthy, unprincipled, corrupt.

I couldn't give a fuck what he said or how he said it. It's all weasel words

I only saw excerpts on the news and not the whole thing, but I got the distinct impression that he is following the law as now clarified, not that he actually believes it.

I can't get het up about this.

I also assumed because "W=AHF" is a known Posie Parker activism slogan, he is desperately trying to not be associated with that, whilst conceding that actually Posie (and us GC women) are in fact right.

It's still a profound leap forward. I can't imagine how much champagne KJK has consumed 😆

With respect, those saying "it's implied" or op is "nitpicking ":have you not seen who he is the ladt 5 years? Like many caught up in this he has used words and their delicate differences to shaft people fond of reality. He told us we "shouldn't say women have a cervix". He also said THE LAW said this too: so a liar or a bad lawyer. Or potentially both. So I make no apologises with being with Sir Humphrey on this one: get them to nail their trousers to the flagpole. That way they can't climb down.

I do think they considered that a headline of “Starmer acknowledges women are human” wouldn’t be a great look, as it would suggest it took a court ruling to tell him this bit too.

I can't celebrate this: it's a circular definition. "A woman is an adult female" could include trans women, if that's what you believe, and he's indicated that he believes as many as six impossible things before breakfast in previous interviews.

I think we know from experience they (politicians in the red team) are now just repeating words and not believing.

You are definitely not nit picking, as I said yesterday, he's a spineless twat. The missing word human was intentional, I agree he is trying to disassociate himself from KJK's Adult Human Female, and yet, that was the dictionary definition until the TRA's pissed about with it. She didn't make up the term Adult Human Female.

He could have said the more accurate 'adult female human'. But he didn't. He's left off the 'human' the past two times. I'm not happy.

Given the HoC statement yesterday, and how much both sides were claiming to have always pushed for and always desperately wanted this SC judgment, that’s not going to happen now.

Absolutely this.

I do also agree that human is implied in this context - with the question he’s being asked in interviews, he’d look a bit mad saying “well they’re human, obviously” to the majority of voters who likely haven’t heard the slogan.

He already looks foolish for saying some women have penises, so I think he made the right decision not to invite more ridicule for being able to identify that women are human.

I think it’s easy to forget that we over here in our GC spaces are also in a bit of a bubble where this saying makes perfect sense to us and just rolls off the tongue, but which can sound oddly specific to people who haven’t been following the debate that closely.

I think it's more basic than that. I just don't think he wants to acknowledge that women are actually human, I think he sees us as a sub species

Could or would the Government try to change the law to row back on the SC judgement? That is the fear for me. To even contemplate or debate it in Parliament gives me the shivers now.

No, that doesn’t get him off the hook.

He has been weaselling around this for a long time.

He had to say it. He didn’t.

You're nitpicking The debate was always about humans.i don't see the need to add the word.

I agree. He wants to avoid being associated with gender-critical campaigners by using one of our slogans.

We all know when he’s asked this question he’s talking about humans and not cats or guinea pigs.