To let you all know :Jane the mntter held keir to acct, brilliantly on radio today and it's viral.

[JaneVapeman]

Unfortunately I can't link to her clip, but she's a star and a hero. She pinned him down and cut through the "twaddle". I am a swing voter and would have been proud of a mntter holding any mp to account on an important issue like Jane did. Jane is/was even trending on twitter.

💥

If anyone has heard him answer this before, why oh why would you feel comfortable with him literally starting to say exactly the same rote response?

It wasn’t a conversation. It was a phone in to a talk programme with a finite window of time for their question to be answered by someone hoping to run the country within a week on a topic that has been the subject of a major multiyear national medical review and several high profile employment tribunals.

When asked about the dignity and privacy of 51% of the population, all he could do was mutter pre rehearsed bollocks about the dignity of people who felt they were born in the wrong body.

A finite window for the question. And rather than take a view on the man who wants to run the country in a week waffling and giving a rambling answer with no concrete points or clarity, you take to the internet to say it’s a shame the ordinary citizen (female) got a bit cross with the professional politician (male).

I know exactly where I got that idea from.

I am very aware of the point and the tricks - but sadly - this radio "chat" was worse, the only voice we heard was Jaynes.

@Sparticusoctopus

Because... Jane wanted to hear the truth. The solution, a promise. Not the rehearsed and oft repeated answer.

I am very aware of the point and the tricks - but sadly - this radio "chat" was worse, the only voice we heard was Jaynes

Literally untrue.

But it backfired -

Gosh if only we'd suggested that earlier. So many feminists will be feeling quite stupid about now.

Listen up ladiesSparti has the solution to all our concerns.

Tell me you only took an interest in this issue 5 minutes ago with saying you only took an interest in this issue 5 minutes ago.

Ummm well yes because every time he responds it was the same old same old!. And if you watch prior clips and subsequent ones it's all the same shite.

At janes promoting he could at any point have dropped the bull shit and been real.
. He, chose not too.

He doesn't reveal his hand.

TRAs do not want to debate or get around tables. They do not want anything but for everyone to recognise them as women and relegate us to being called cis women and get access to spaces that are meant to be single sex to protect women.

They do not want a third space, a different category at sporting events (regardless of their physical advantage) or not to be treated as women in any respect whatsoever.

Please read up on how they operate. It's astounding.

Even the presenter cut in and told him to stop talking about past glories the question to be answered was about the future.

It's black and white. It's very simple.

Can men become women?

Yes or no?

Here's JK:

'Do biological males with gender recognition certificates have the right to enter women-only spaces? It's a simple yes/no question,
@UKLabour
. Given that you intend to make it easier for men to gain said piece of paper, women have the right to an answer.'

I disagree there are simple answers to this one. It's mentioned many many times.

The funding would be better placed in mental health services considering the comormid mental health issues that appear to go ahead of a dysphoria taking hold (autism, sexual assault history, disassociation disorders in looked after children, those coming to terms with their sexuality, history of abuse and being bullied) than in to funding affirming treatment through blockers hormones and surgery - eg the Chelsea and Westminster NHS service that is being stood up to provide phalloplasty including nurses with expertise in managing necrosis due to the high level of failures in this type of pretty experimental surgery.

@Thinkbiglittleone

I don't think it did.
He could have been honest and he chose not to be.

He's been asked this question a few times and each time he has rolled the same response out.. Jane pushed him, pleaded with him... The raw desperation in her voice contrasted with his hard immovable response. She kept pleading, drop this twaddle this repetitive crap.. Talk to me /us.. Will, you, protect us?

He's shown himself up to be shifty.

Imagine if Jane was Jewish pleading, will you protect us, or a Muslim...Will you protect us.
I think his response would have been far kinder and reassuring.

It beggars belief.

Starmer can't give a straight answer to whether your rights to women only spaces are protected in an era where a man 'becomes a women' via a piece of paper. But it's the woman holding him to account that's 'rude'?

You couldn't make this sh*t up

It is good that he has to say it more than once - we should keep making him answer the question - the more he says it the more people hear it

There are simple and straightforward answers to this particular topic.

Funny how despite women's groups asking repeatedly to meet with him, despite one of his own MPs asking to speak to him, despite announcing a policy on the GRC and putting it in his manifesto now KS has seen the light and wants a meeting to plan policy? What relevant expertise?

The vitriolic and toxic debate has all come from one side, KS has never condemned them, not once. Collaborate and work on solutions when he has already decided on the Policy? Do pull the other one.

🙄🙄🙄

And given that, do you really think if Jane had politely let him finish he was going to say something new?

What she achieved was him saying the two mutually incompatible things close enough together that the contradiction / open question is blatantly obvious, and she called that out.

But as I said, never fear. If Starmer really was just about to share not the same old twaddle but a new key insight that tells us how he thinks this can all be resolved, he has plenty more chances to do so. Amazingly it doesn't require a rude woman to ask him before he's allowed to say anything, he's allowed to just say it anyway. If he thinks it's important.

I for one am on tenterhooks!

I've listened to many interviews with Starmer over the last few weeks and he has had loads of opportunity to provide clarity over this issue but he's constantly been vague and slippery, coming out with the same old stuff. Its been frustrating trying to find out what women's rights mean to Starmer and I can totally understand why Jane may have felt exasperated by him because I've felt that way too. I'm grateful that Jane persisted and got through his waffle because it gave me a clearer understanding of how little regard Starmer seems to have for women. Starmer had a chance to be honest but he chose not to be, that's on his shoulders not Jane's.

I don't think it did
I know, that's why we have a difference of opinion.

He could have been honest and he chose not to be
He kept getting cut off -

He's been asked this question a few times and each time he has rolled the same response out.. Jane pushed him, pleaded with him... The raw desperation in her voice contrasted with his hard immovable response. She kept pleading, drop this twaddle this repetitive crap.. Talk to me /us.. Will, you, protect us?

He said yes he will protect biological women in women's spaces.

He's shown himself up to be shifty

In your opinion. I thought it shown him patient.

Imagine if Jane was Jewish pleading, will you protect us, or a Muslim...Will you protect us

I think his response would have been far kinder and reassuring

He probably would have said yes, I will protect them.

Look what happens when he's not pushed. Meandering, meaningless, drivel.

x.com/ilovepreserves/status/1807145073743687876?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

😂😂
Can he also walk on water?

I know I have said previously that the wonks have told Labour that they need to capture the youth vote and that genderism is popular with that cohort.

But look at what the Grauniad says about who Labour need to get onside to win this election. (The Graun, mind.)

"Constituencies with relatively higher numbers of over-50s, homeowners and people of white ethnicity are key to Labour’s hopes of winning a majority at the election, Guardian analysis suggests.
Experts have told the Guardian that, in order to appeal not just to its core voters but also to these middle-England swing seats, Labour is trying to make a broad pitch to the country."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/jun/11/labours-path-to-a-majority-the-seats-starmer-needs-to-win-mapped

Mind you, if Labour are aware of this, it would explain why Starmer really, really doesn't want to answer questions on genderism and its effects on women honestly.

Can he also walk on water?

I don't think so, although they didn't get around to talking about that, so who knows

He said yes he will protect biological women in women's spaces.

But if men can legally be 'biological women' where does that get anyone?