Keir Starmer on on R4 today. What he DIDN'T say

[bellinisurge]

Just heard Keir Starmer on R4. Lots of blah blah about taking the heat out of this and being respectful of the range of views within the Labour Party on this.
A very good exercise in not talking about it or getting drawn into anything.

Thanks, bellini, I'd like to listen to it later when I've time to find it. Did you have the approx time?

Meanwhile, I suppose I'd like to ask Keir Starmer, how exactly do you 'take the heat out of' children and young people being unnecessarily sterilised?

It was about 8.20 (bit after) . Heard it just after I dropped dd at school.
I think he doesn't want to alienate woke voters just yet and is hedging his bets. Election opens today. It'll be interesting to see how long he can stay on the fence despite, sadly , having trotted out the TWAW line. I think saying TWAW but not much more is the weird version of neutral in the Labour Party at the moment.

KS said that he agreed with LN and RLB about reform and extension to the GRA though; talking about how TW rights need to be extended and protected.

The best part came after KS when they had Toby Young and Trevor Phillips on about the new free speech initiative Free Speech Union TY and TP talked about non-hate crime police investigations and specifically referenced mis-gendering cases. Also talked about feminists like Julie Bindel and Germaine Greer being no-platformed. And about people losing their jobs/reputations and being vilified for saying that they believe in biological sex. Coming directly after KS's woke bollocks it was was lovely to hear some common sense even if it came from TY!

Slight derail but does anyone have the best and most authoritative paper on puberty blockers and sterilisation? My kids’ school has asked...

DolphinNoises - There are some links on this thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3829304-Janice-Turner-The-Times-21-2-20-Giving-puberty-blocker-to-trans-children-is-a-leap-into-the-unknown which may be useful to you - I've not read them myself, they might be more around impact on cognitive development. At any rate that may be a more apt thread to ask?

Interview with Benjamin Boyce
The Hormone Health Crisis | with Endocrinologist William Malone, MD

Slight derail but does anyone have the best and most authoritative paper on puberty blockers and sterilisation? My kids’ school has asked...

Professor Carl Heneghan as a consequence of his analysis concluded that 'informed consent is not possible'
Carl Heneghan is lead at Oxford's Evidence Based Medicine.

BMJ EBM Spotlight paper:
'Gender-affirming hormone in children and adolescents – Evidence review'
Posted on 25th February 2019

(extract)
"Gender dysphoria occurs when a person experiences discomfort or distress because of a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity. Gender dysphoria can arise in childhood and adolescent which raises many questions about how best to handle the condition. This post sets out the current evidence for gender-affirming hormones in adolescents and children to aid decision making. (continues)

"Conclusions

There are significant problems with how the evidence for Gender-affirming cross-sex hormone has been collected and analysed that prevents definitive conclusions to be drawn. Similar to puberty blockers, the evidence is limited by small sample sizes; retrospective methods, loss of considerable numbers of patients in follow-up. The majority of studies also lack a control group (only two studies used controls). Interventions have heterogeneous treatment regimes complicating comparisons between studies. Also adherence to the interventions are either not reported or at best inconsistent. Subjective outcomes, which are highly prevalent in the studies, are also prone to bias due to lack of blinding, and many effects can be explained by regression to the mean.

The development of these interventions should, therefore, occur in the context of research. Treatments for under 18 gender dysphoric children and adolescents remain largely experimental. There are a large number of unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility; adverse events, long term effects on mental health, quality of life, bone mineral density, osteoporosis in later life and cognition. We wonder whether off label use is appropriate and justified for drugs such as spironolactone which can cause substantial harms, including death. We are also ignorant of the long-term safety profiles of the different GAH regimens. The current evidence base does not support informed decision making and safe practice."
blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2019/02/25/gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-evidence-review/

thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3518188-BMJ-Prof-Carl-Heneghan-Evidence-Based-Medicine-Oxford-Panorama-Trans-Kids-Gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-Evidence-review-concludes-There-are-significant-problems

Dolphinnoises
Easy read for those not up to speed
digest.bps.org.uk/2018/07/23/systematic-review-puberty-suppressing-drugs-do-not-alleviate-gender-dysphoria/

Also note some of the 'favourable' trials were sponsored by drug companies with a vested interest.

He’s no friend to women. He’s just good at hiding it.

KS's record on prosecuting violence against women stands up.

As a lawyer, he can say he 'believes' something in the same way that a defence council 'believes' their client is innocent.

He wants to unite the party. He doesn't want to pick fights.

He's smart and he reads documents before he signs them.
It's a pretty low bar for a leader of the opposition but this is where we are.

As a former member (I quit after a something happened which is irrelevant presently) I would have voted for KS if I hadn't have quit, except actually I wouldn't be able to beause I'd be expelled for supporting Women's rights and LGB rights!

What a shit show.

He wants to unite the party. He doesn't want to pick fights

Any uniting of Labour under Kier Starmer will be purely superficial. Nice surfaces.

And to challenge the TrA agenda he is going to have to be prepared to fight - and he's just not up to it.

I know people want to believe in the Labour party - but i seriously think you're bound for a big fall if you think any of the current lot are going to do anything other than propose reform to the GRA. They're too far gone......and have already established their positions regarding TWAW.

Forget it - for at least a decade.

Thanks all x

This narrative of how heated the debate is, as though it’s like two sets of unruly children losing their temper, both as bad as the other, INFURIATES me. It’s also hugely patronising to women and all those on the GC side of the debate, as though we just need to calm down and see sense.
Keir Starmer talked about how important extending trans rights is, of how marginalised trans people are but NO mention of the importance of women’s rights, nor increased need to protect them. And how it’s important to “take everyone with you”, or some such cliche in extending rights. Well you can’t. Self id. Just no. You’re NOT taking everyone with you there Keir, and hopefully it’ll be clear just how lonely that place is going to be.

I'm considering sending Starmer printouts of some of the threats on eg terfisaslur, and suggested he search for any equivalent made by us. Because in the real world, suggesting that women are human beings, who should not have rapists alongside them in jail, or males alongside them in communal changing areas or hospital wards or dorms, or competing against them in sport, is not regarded as morally equivalent to threats to cut our heads off with swords, slice our spines down with knives, or choke us with "girl dicks". Yet the internet is awash.

Shame the former Director of Public Prosecutions finds this distinction so knotty and difficult to calibrate.

It’s also hugely patronising to women and all those on the GC side of the debate, as though we just need to calm down and see sense.

Oh yes, the vacuous 'both sides' argument. Anyone who says that hasn't been paying attention.

If Starmer is in the TWAW camp and thinks that some form of self ID is needed, I would almost prefer someone like Nandy who is openly hostile and willing to dismantle safeguarding and women's protections. The problem is that there are plenty of TWAW types among Conservatives, e.g. Penny Mordaunt, and although they are making noises about binning the GRA reform, they are all a bit clueless about what is going on in the real world. When politicians like Mordaunt talk about transwomen, what exactly do they mean? I'm not counting on the government to get this right.

Dolphin, search through William Malone, MDs twitter too.

Also, there's a lot of documentation around the long term effects of the drugs when used on children with precious puberty.

You make a good point, @ThePurported . Starmer's "all things to all people " approach is not a guarantee that TRA stuff will be marginalised.
I only see bad behaviour from the TRAs.

Well I emailed ks saying he should consider becoming a woman for the election period (or longer) then he could become the first female leader of the lp.
Got a generic reply, really hoping he goes for it though. Put the noses of the others out of joint. Plus proving the whole thing is nonsense. And rlb and nandy could see in full multicoloured fabulousness what self id will in fact mean.
Plus kier could be stunning AND brave at the same time.

To be clear, I'm no longer a Labour party member and the kindest thing I can say about Starmer is that I think he's the sharpest in a depressingly feeble pool. He would still get my vote if I had one.
I understand the argument that Nandy / Long Bailey might expose the TWAW bonkerishness more quickly but I'm not convinced by it. I think there's every chance they would push the overton window even further into madness.

He's another Blair. Will make the right nice noises to whoever is in his interests to do so, and won't show his hand until he's in power and it's too late for people to realise what they're voting for.

I'd rather take Nandy or Wrong-Daily any day: they're insane but at least they have the personal integrity to tell voters honestly and openly what they would be voting for.

This narrative of how heated the debate is, as though it’s like two sets of unruly children losing their temper, both as bad as the other, INFURIATES me

Me too!

There has been no debate so far....not in public. He is referring to twitter, clearly.......which by its nature generates a lot of heat and outrage.

For most people, those not involved with twitter and not cognisant of the full range of issues....him, and others, saying " Let's have less heat, and more light" means absolutely nothing! What we need is an informed and educated public...which requires full, open, honest debate that everyone can be party to.

...but, of course, that is the absolute last thing that TRA activists want......because that is the point at which it all comes apart. Hence - the 'no debate' stance and the idea that debating is " denying the existence of trans people".

I'm keen to get the 'third spaces' argument out there.....because it is inherently reasonable.......and also it would reveal the extent to which the TRA ideology is actually seeking validation more so than safety or comfort.

I want to see people explain why third spaces are a bad idea.