To think that Kier Starmer is spineless?

[LittleWhingingWoman]

I'm a long time Labour supporter.
Not anymore.
Kier Starmer was asked if women have penises.
He couldn't answer.

I've had enough of this gaslighting.
How can I vote for a party that is led by this man?
How, in 2022, can a candidate who hopes to be pm not be able to say what a woman is?

AIBU to think he knows FULL WELL what a woman is but is too much of a coward to say. The men threatening and bullying Rosie Duffield certainly know what a woman is.

And I know a penis when I see one.

mobile.twitter.com/keir_starmer

I used to feel sorry for what I saw as 'just a bloke in a dress', but the more I find out about the unreasonable demands and the effects on actual women, I am actually becoming 'transphobic'.

I'll own it.

@watcherintherye

I’m beginning to wonder if Starmer’s apparent fudging of what appears to be a pretty straightforward question has more to do with his legal background than anything else? As a Lawyer, he is obviously going to be particularly tuned in to legal definitions. From the Spectator article - This has been the case since (at least) 2004 and the passage of the Gender Recognition Act. That law allows a person who meets certain criteria to change their legal gender and be treated, to all intents and purposes, as being of the opposite sex. So a person who was born male and is later issued with a Gender Recognition Certificate is legally female. I have to admit I wasn’t even aware of the Gender Recognition Act.

It was always a terrible statute, badly written and cynically missold.

We were reassured it would only ever apply to a few thousand people maximum in the whole of the UK; and there was an understanding that these would be full transitioners in the mode of transsexuals a la April Ashley.

YANBU, I feel politically homeless for exactly this reason.

Somebody mentioned the Social Democrats are clear on this issue - I hadn't heard of them until then - does anyone have a view on them? Are they a genuine party? Never seen a candidate on a ballot paper that I know of.

"It was always a terrible statute, badly written and cynically missold.

We were reassured it would only ever apply to a few thousand people maximum in the whole of the UK; and there was an understanding that these would be full transitioners in the mode of transsexuals a la April Ashley."

Spot on

@Somanysocks Googling AGP after seeing it on a Twitter bio did for me on the sympathy thing

[quote WouldBeGood]@Somanysocks Googling AGP after seeing it on a Twitter bio did for me on the sympathy thing[/quote]
Why was it on a twitter bio?! That's a bit odd.

I've seen it on a Twitter bio too. I suppose some of them get bolder with their announcements and also they are trying to make AGP into a sexual orientation that gets protected under the Q part of the rainbow people.

Googling AGP will be an eye opener for most women. Once they do there's no unseeing it.

@Mytholmroyd , I think the social democrats don't have a completely ok position on a number of social issues. Genuinely can't remember what those are but recall reading some of their bumph and thinking "Nope, not comfy with that".

Is part of the solution some sort of cross party womens group?

Its depressing beyond words. Spineless is the polite word for it.

They will lose votes, and a lot, over this. The Tories will see an opening and exploit it.

@LittleWhingingWoman

Is part of the solution some sort of cross party womens group?

I'll try to make that more coherent.

We need a cross party womens group headed up by the strongest members of each party (Jo Cherry, Rosie Duffield, Baroness Nicholson, Emma Bateman etc)

We need to be able to organise and have meetings and allow women to talk freely.

If we need a secret room to do it in I'm sure JKR can magic some up 😂

"The World Health Organisation regional office for Europe describes sex as characteristics that are biologically defined, whereas gender is based on socially constructed features. They recognise that there are variations in how people experience gender based upon self-perception and expression, and how they behave."

So a trans-woman's sex will always be male, and a trans-man's sex will always be female. But can their 'gender' not be a 'transwoman' or a 'transman' nevertheless?

@Lamerexo

"The World Health Organisation regional office for Europe describes sex as characteristics that are biologically defined, whereas gender is based on socially constructed features. They recognise that there are variations in how people experience gender based upon self-perception and expression, and how they behave."

So a trans-woman's sex will always be male, and a trans-man's sex will always be female. But can their 'gender' not be a 'transwoman' or a 'transman' nevertheless?

Yes but the question is so what? in what context is gender actually that relevant?

We all have multiple aspects of our identity and it is not sensible to try and legislate for all of those. It's also abusive to children to push the idea that gender identity is somehow ubiquitous, understandable without ever being defined and something you need to declare when you are very young.

Female-segregated spaces are all based on sex not gender.

[quote bellinisurge]@Mytholmroyd , I think the social democrats don't have a completely ok position on a number of social issues. Genuinely can't remember what those are but recall reading some of their bumph and thinking "Nope, not comfy with that".[/quote]
But isn't that going to be the case with every political party? Unless you are a strict follower of a party doctrine it's always a best-fit, acceptable compromise.

YANBU op. Starmer is worse than spineless - he is dangerous to women. He can't define a woman accurately and wants to give away our single sex spaces as a result.
A man, graciously and benevolently allowing men to adopt an 'inner feeling of womanhood' and therefore access to women's spaces/ prizes/ prisons/ rape counselling centres etc.
Keir Starmer will never feel the ill-effects of his own words.
Creep.

@YouSetTheTone

YANBU op. Starmer is worse than spineless - he is dangerous to women. He can't define a woman accurately and wants to give away our single sex spaces as a result. A man, graciously and benevolently allowing men to adopt an 'inner feeling of womanhood' and therefore access to women's spaces/ prizes/ prisons/ rape counselling centres etc. Keir Starmer will never feel the ill-effects of his own words. Creep.

the only person dangerous to women is Boris Johnson, with a proven track record to match.

Starmer stated in the LBC interview he wants to protect women only spaces, Bojo is closing them down and forcing women who have been raped to wait 3 years before any trial (if at all)

Domestic abuse reports UP, prosecutions DOWN under his watch.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

in what context is gender actually that relevant?
I think it is relevant in that it allows people to express themselves how they choose, form communities based on likeness, etc - your gender can be transwoman or transman but you will always remain your biological 'sex'.

Female-segregated spaces are all based on sex not gender.
I agree with this. Female is a biological 'woman' as per se, so it is only right to have segregated spaces away from the male sex. But then how is that enforced when trans people want to enter female segregated spaces?

@Ionsion

They will give the election away to the Tory’s if they don’t get their act together over this

I doubt the Tories will take GC votes from Labour, given that Rishi Sunak has given an equally unclear, nonsensical answer to "what is a woman?". And a Conservative MP has just come out as the first Trans MP in the UK.

If gender identity is undefinable, fluid and changeable, it's a useless metric.

I think it is relevant in that it allows people to express themselves how they choose, form communities based on likeness

I think that's all totally fine, but I'm not sure why any legal frameworks would be needed to facilitate it.

But then how is that enforced when trans people want to enter female segregated spaces?

They shouldn't have a right to do that. So good use of the word no.

He doesn't appear to have an opinion or an idea about anything other than this, and he's even got this one wrong.

I get that there are ways of behaving that are stereotypically more 'male' or 'female'. But why can't the message be its okay to present however you like regardless of your biological sex?

While ultimately sex is the only important element to enshrine in law?

"Starmer stated in the LBC interview he wants to protect women only spaces"

Under starmer people with penises are women, so they won't be women only spaces

He can't protect women only spaces if he's unable to define what's a woman. Isn't that obvious?