Has Keir Starmer backtracked?

[Tillsforthrills]

Apologies if this has been posted.

“Sir Keir Starmer has said it is “plain common sense” that biology determines sex for the majority of women but that those who struggle with their gender identity should be respected”

Is this him back tracking due to the backlash?

It doesn't sound like much of a backtrack to me - of course they should be respected. But what does it actually mean at the intersection of their rights with those of women and girls?

What he said is gibberish.

So biology determines sex unless it doesn't?

Nope it's just gibberish and he's going to have to be a lot clearer if he wants to be taken seriously on this

He seems to be trying to paraphrase what Boris said the other day, which generally seemed to go down better than what Labour have come up with so far.

Majority????

Really!

His such an idiot it hurts.

Backtracked on what exactly? He still hasn't said that men can never be a biological woman. Or that biological raping males should not be in womens prisons. Or that men pretending to be women shouldn't be in womens changing rooms.

So what has he actually said?

@Pixiedust1234

Yes I’m trying to figure out if it is or isn’t backtracking.

Although he hasn’t said men can’t be women, his first statement seemed categorically in favour of trans women’s rights over biological women’s rights.

This time he’s saying it’s common sense that biology decides sex in the ‘majority’ of cases. Confusing!

If the “majority” of women are determined by their biology, that implies a “minority” of women whose womanhood isn’t determined by their sex, ie:male women. He still believes there are male women who are women and entitled to our sex based rights. It’s the same position as he’s always held - there should be no place these males can’t go.

He can fuck off.

It's quite simple really. He doesn't understand biology. He doesn't care about women. He thinks the electorate are too stupid to see through his nonsense.

He's given people permission to identify their way into wherever they want and he doesn't give a shit about the consequences.

Lovely.

I think he might think he's backtracked a little but actually he's shown himself to be lacking. Again.

He's saying most women don't have penises but some do...

No it’s still gibberish without clarity

Just trying to dress it up a bit better

He has, sort of. Perhaps enough of us who care about this issue have put it right under the noses of our Labour party candidates and asked wtf. I emailed my female Labour MP and told her I wouldn't be voting Labour at the next GE and linked many Mumsnet threads in the email. Perhaps he finally FINALLY got wind of women's unrest.

It's not enough for me to change my mind though.

It's a pathetic attempt to offer something to women without alienating the trans mob. He wants to say something and nothing at the same time.

He wants to "respect trans people" but when the decision has to be made, give them access to single-sex spaces or tell them to stay out, then he's going to keep his head down and try to stay out of the fight. If that means the woke side drives anyone else out of the party, along with lots of voters, then so be it.

Absolutely. That kind of inability to state your position is not what we need in an opposition leader.

He is trying to have his a cake and eat it. He has lost my vote unless he can make the very simple statement that women are adult female humans. The word woman is defined by biological sex.

One possibility is that he is just trying to have it both ways - appeasing those on both sides of the issue.

It's also possible that he is thinking of those who hold a GRC as being women and so he i saying that for most women it's a biological category and for a few a legal fiction. As a lawyer he may well be disposed to think of that as "real".

But either way what he isn't doing is making it clear what it will mean for women's rights or medical treatment of minors, what the LPs position is on those things.

And those are the real issues. One way or another hes going to have to take a position and not taking one means people will assume it's the TRA position because that's what they've been saying for the past years.

I feel like he is trying to vaguely say something here, after seeing the reaction that Boris got, but even being extra generous towards him, it's way too little, way too late. It's an indication of how lacking he is in a backbone if he can't even say what a women is. The fact that he thinks this is unsayable makes me think he is unelectable. He has #beKinded himself and labour out of my vote.

He's dealing out of both sides of his mouth.

Meaningless tripe.

‘Respected’ how?

Not hard to state positions on things like single sex sports and spaces.

No it’s still gibberish

I think we disagree on some things, Marsha, but I’m with you on this.

@A580Hojas

He has, sort of. Perhaps enough of us who care about this issue have put it right under the noses of our Labour party candidates and asked wtf. I emailed my female Labour MP and told her I wouldn't be voting Labour at the next GE and linked many Mumsnet threads in the email. Perhaps he finally FINALLY got wind of women's unrest.

It's not enough for me to change my mind though.

Hi, I just emailed my female MP, Tulip Siddiq too. I didn't think of sending Mumsnet links. I might email again with some in. I did tell her I need clarity from her about this issue before casting my vote and I asked her to send the email to Keir Starmer's office.

I think everyone should write to their Labour MP. It's easy to do. Google them, get to their website and use their contact email. Unless you have closer links of course.

Labour need to feel anxious about this issue.

@Tillsforthrills

Apologies if this has been posted.

“Sir Keir Starmer has said it is “plain common sense” that biology determines sex for the majority of women but that those who struggle with their gender identity should be respected”

Is this him back tracking due to the backlash?

Sir Keir Starmer has said for him the word woman means (most) females and some males. He supports the idea of reforming (making it better by correcting mistakes) the GRA

it is “plain common sense” that biology determines sex for the majority of women people but that those males who struggle with their gender identity should be respected as identifying into the class women

Once his definition of the word includes males he can say what he pleases.