Keir Starmer interview responds to transphobia in the Labour Party

[GreenUp]

Not sure if this has already been discussed but saw on twitter, Keir Starmer gave an interview to BBC South East and was asked about what can be done about transphobia.

Q: Transphobia What needs to be done?

A: "I think we've got to improve the situation here. The Gender Recognition Act is a step in the right direction. It doesn't go far enough. But what we've got to do is detoxify this discussion. We've got people having a very bitter argument. If we're really going to make progress, and I think we can, we need to have a much better debate about it so we can actually make that progress."

Question starts at 01:33.

twitter.com/bbcsoutheast/status/1316778516222930944

All the quote tweets on this are from TRAs who are furious saying there is no debate and angry that he is "both siding" a civil rights issue .

Let's face it, no politician in this country will ever stand up and say exactly what they think. People become frustrated with this and I genuinely think it's why people like Trump are voted in, because they see him as a person who will say exactly what he thinks, regardless of 'offence' caused, no pandering to any woke brigade and calls a spade a spade. Not that I'm saying I'm a fan of his, because really, American politics is nothing to do with me so I don't get overly invested in it. But really, people are becoming completely sick of politicans being weak and dancing around important issues.

KS No. I think we've got to improve the situation here. The Gender Recognition Act is a step in the right direction. It doesn't go far enough. But what we've got to do is detoxify this discussion. We've got people having a very bitter argument. If we're really going to make progress, and I think we can, we need to have a much better debate about it so we can actually make that progress

So in other words, a total politician answer of saying a lot of words but actually saying nothing at all.

Next!

He is doing exactly what Corbyn did, only the presentation is slightly smarter but not a lot.

I don't know why people say he is not "TWAW". He signed the self ID pledge (same as the other pledge minus the off the chart batshit stuff about purging women's groups). Here he had yet another opportunity to distance himself from it but no, the GRA needs to go further

Nothing about the appalling treatment of Rosie Duffield. Oh, the discussion is "toxic".

I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what rights trans people currently don’t have that everyone else does. Every attempt I see to do so just seems to be a demand for extra, special rights and screw everybody else. It’s a shit-show, one major reason for that is that you have too many subgroups under the trans umbrella, the young children currently swamping GIDS clinics, the fashionable non-binaries, the sparkly baseball-bat people on social media who you would not want to come across down a dark alley, the middle aged late transitioners who all seem to be male. Unsurprisingly, any proposed changes seem to weigh heavily in favour if the latter group because they dominate the discourse. Then you have all the lickers of the glittery boot who either just naively want to ‘be kind’, or use it as a righteous shield to be an arsehole, or to publicly polish their halo.
This is why neither main party will actually make any changes, they both know it’s electoral poison one way or the other so will continue to kick it into the long grass, it’s a massive turnoff to their core votes. Labour are doubly stymied as they’re now reliant on the urban woke vote, but are rapidly losing their more socially conservative core in the traditional ‘red wall’ constituencies, the ones that actually give them any real power.
I honestly hope that we continue with the long grass, I don’t think such a disparate grouping will actually hold together in the longer term, especially considering that the medicalisation of children is already looking so ethically dodgy that claims lawyers have smelled blood in the water. I know we’ve got problems with institutional capture, but that won’t last either, it’s mostly superficial woke-washing and the first sniff of legal scandal will result in quick policy reversals.

He's a lawyer, so he's reflective and not going to be drawn on a position until he's made up his mind.

What is he reflecting on exactly? Whether or not Rosie Duffield deserves the abuse?

I don't know why people say he is not "TWAW".

My reasoning is as follows:

1. Only morons think TWAW.
2. Starmer is not a moron.
3. Therefore Starmer doesn't think TWAW, but is pretending to believe it for reasons of political expediency.

But I feel less confident by the day.

@Vermeil

I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what rights trans people currently don’t have that everyone else does. Every attempt I see to do so just seems to be a demand for extra, special rights and screw everybody else. It’s a shit-show, one major reason for that is that you have too many subgroups under the trans umbrella, the young children currently swamping GIDS clinics, the fashionable non-binaries, the sparkly baseball-bat people on social media who you would not want to come across down a dark alley, the middle aged late transitioners who all seem to be male. Unsurprisingly, any proposed changes seem to weigh heavily in favour if the latter group because they dominate the discourse. Then you have all the lickers of the glittery boot who either just naively want to ‘be kind’, or use it as a righteous shield to be an arsehole, or to publicly polish their halo. This is why neither main party will actually make any changes, they both know it’s electoral poison one way or the other so will continue to kick it into the long grass, it’s a massive turnoff to their core votes. Labour are doubly stymied as they’re now reliant on the urban woke vote, but are rapidly losing their more socially conservative core in the traditional ‘red wall’ constituencies, the ones that actually give them any real power. I honestly hope that we continue with the long grass, I don’t think such a disparate grouping will actually hold together in the longer term, especially considering that the medicalisation of children is already looking so ethically dodgy that claims lawyers have smelled blood in the water. I know we’ve got problems with institutional capture, but that won’t last either, it’s mostly superficial woke-washing and the first sniff of legal scandal will result in quick policy reversals.

The lickers of the glittery boot.

Brilliantly put. I hope to god you're right about institutional capture though.

I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what rights trans people currently don’t have that everyone else does

It's privileges they're demanding, that only males will benefit from.

It's not a human right for men to steamroll a female rugby player and cheat women out of sports medals that they've trained for and dedicated their lives to.

It's not a human right for a man (who may not even have dysphoria) to get changed next to naked women and girls.

Not a human right for a rapist to get placed in a women's prison to rape inmates there too.

Not a human right to bully everyone into accepting that males who present as feminine are exactly the same as women.

They should honestly research what being deprived human rights really looks like, and get a fucking grip afterwards. I'm sick of these deranged, infantile brats, and all the morons pandering to it like it's completely sane.

How on earth can there be a debate when one side is true (women = adult human female, female is XX, you cannot change sex) and the other is deranged?

And for those who think the GRA does not go far enough in England - pop over to the Irish feminist board on here and see when the GRA goes far enough to keep the TRAs happy - what happens to real women. What happens to women prisoners and male rapists?

Oh, the discussion is "toxic".

This is all anyone ever says when asked. "The debate has become very toxic". Why not grow a spine and say exactly where the toxicity is coming from.

The side that gets women sacked for believing in biology.

The side that sees no problem sending women thousands of death and rape threats (and are encouraged by celebrities and some media outlets), but melt into a hysterical puddle themselves if anyone mentions chromosomes.

The side that posted a woman's home address on the internet and encouraged others to turn up and sort her out whilst she was alone with her children.

The side that tweeted porn directly to children that were having their art judged by their favourite author.

The side that turned up to a women's meeting and violently disrupted it.

The side where some members have made bombs and bragged it's for the 'terfs'.

The side that picture themselves with a hard on in a women's shelter, and got a pat on the fucking back for harassing the vulnerable women in there. And on, and on and on.

I'm sick of them implying that it's coming from both sides, when we're just asking for our spaces away from those kinds of monsters.

@yourhairiswinterfire

One of my big worries is that we’ll see a backlash, but it’ll be caused by a string of violent offences too awful to be successfully swept under the carpet, and/or horrific medical malpractice cases. 😞

There's always a sort of arrogance about a man saying there's a solution if people just sit and talk. I believe many women were willing to talk but they were shouted down.

The solution is GRA withdrawal. KS can have an opinion but he cannot expect women to be kiiiiiiiiiiiind and think that is any sort of way through this.

KS wants self-id, he has said this, if Labour get into power, self i-d will happen. Why are we discussing this. Self i-d would have happened already had the conservatives not suddenly realised what a minefield they were walking into.

There are so many complications coming down the road with the sheer numbers of young people in the 'non-binary' category who will demand protection (for what I'm still trying to work out), so that any legal remedies become impossible. Wow, can't wait

KS wants self-id, he has said this, if Labour get into power, self i-d will happen.
Self-ID for what though? You can support peoples desire to have their gender identity recognised but still agree that biology is important. E.g. at work, treat a transgender colleague as their preferred gender, refer to them that way, but provide third spaces where needed so biology is also respected. I think that's where most people stand.
Let's not forget Keir Starmer was the only leadership candidate not to sign that stupid pledge. It could be a lot worse.
www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/15/trans-rights-labour-leadership-candidates

The conservatives are no friends of women, despite their stance on this issue. I'd sooner not vote at all than vote for them. But I trust Starmer to do the best for everyone on this. He has no need to at the moment as the legislation isn't currently up for debate.

Self-ID for what though? You can support peoples desire to have their gender identity recognised but still agree that biology is important.

Self-ID normally means self-ID to get a GRC.

People are free to 'self-ID' into the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' already, because there are no requirements to have made any changes to themselves, they just have to be 'proposing to undergo' gender reassignment.

People are also free to 'self-ID' as any of the millions of genders they please at present, because these have no legal standing.

When someone says they 'support self-ID', I assume they mean self-ID to get a GRC and hence a new birth certificate and all the legal consequences of changing their legally recognised sex.

The conservatives are no friends of women, despite their stance on this issue.

Yes - they’ve allowed all this on their watch. Although they’ve ditched Self ID - and confirmed single sex spaces, Self ID and erosion of single sex spaces (and harassment of women) is happening in practice, if not law, and I see scant evidence of them changing this.

But I trust Starmer to do the best for everyone on this. He has no need to at the moment as the legislation isn't currently up for debate.

Seriously...?!! I dont and never will. AND if he doesn’t do so when women MPs get death threats - when will he??

This is horrific, they just ignore all of the misogynistic hate directed at female MP's, and its like they've already forgotten Jo Cox.

Oh, wake up. Just because we've managed to bring legislative 'self ID' to a screeching halt, doesn't mean we are better off.

De factor self ID already exists because of years of TRA lobbying, and it's all grounded in the GRA, which is what Starmer decided to focus on in response to a question about misogyny and intimidation of women.

And not just focus on, but claim it needs to go further.

No. It doesn't. It needs to be repealed. You cannot change your sex, and we are utter fools to have a mechanism to suggest that you can do so 'legally'.

@Kantastic

Honestly if he just up and said the trans right movement has been taken over by a bunch of aggressive psychos, and that males shouldn't be playing rugby against women, we shouldn't be putting sex offenders with penises in women's prisons, and ten-year olds should not be embarking on experimental medical treatment plans that aren't evidence based and will ultimately sterilise them... I think it would be a vote winner. The Emperor already looks suspiciously threadbare, someone prominent (and male) just needs to outright say what's happening.

I know Starmer can't do that because of the fallout, and the light that the fallout would show Labour Party in... but maybe he just needs to purge the bastards at this point.

I absolutely agree with this. Saying all these things takes nothing away from actual transpeople. He could still support those with gender dysphoria, but put the wokebros back in their box and stop the war on women.

It's about the only thing that would get me back to Labour.

"So he's got to find the balance that will work" that's like finding the balance between abusers and their victims. Yes the victim has rights, but what about the feelings of those abusing them?

As for Rosie Duffield . Starmer should either support her against her attackers or expel her from the party if that's how he wants it. This is not a situation where he can act like it's nothing to do with him. Running the party is his job.

If it's all too much effort then he could just resign and Labour could look for a leader.

@LastTrainEast

"So he's got to find the balance that will work" that's like finding the balance between abusers and their victims. Yes the victim has rights, but what about the feelings of those abusing them?

As for Rosie Duffield . Starmer should either support her against her attackers or expel her from the party if that's how he wants it. This is not a situation where he can act like it's nothing to do with him. Running the party is his job.

If it's all too much effort then he could just resign and Labour could look for a leader.

Yes - I know I said this upthread, but it's looking uncomfortably like a repeat of the treatment of Luciana Berger, Margaret Hodge and others - only this time it's misogyny rather than antisemitism.

We're once more watching elected female MPs being absolutely monstered by party trolls and activists, while the leader claps the telescope to his blind eye and says "I see no shits."

that's like finding the balance between abusers and their victims.
Well no. Because trans people and women are both discriminated against and both victims of this crazy ideology.

De factor self ID already exists because of years of TRA lobbying, and it's all grounded in the GRA, which is what Starmer decided to focus on in response to a question about misogyny and intimidation of women.

Yup, in a nutshell.
But sure, let's believe in "more but better" with Keir.

Yes he's trying to fence sit but I think that's okay actually?

The middle ground is our territory. As soon as people sit down and talk and think they're going to start seeing reasonable compromises like ... ooh, say, single sex spaces for refuges and hospitals and prisons. The extremes are TRAs with their baseball bats on the one hand, on the other louts who call any cross-dresser homophobic names and threaten them with violence (and also my naice Christian ex friend who thinks any cross dressing or transgenderism or homosexuality is a sin). We are the reasonable middle.

And when his reasonable, middle of the road, let's talk, fence sitting comments get him called a transphobe, that's nudging him another step towards seeing these activists for the extremist loons they are.

Yes, pragmatism says that the more he tries to occupy the 'middle ground', the more it becomes blatantly obvious it doesn't really exist for TRAs.

But in the meantime, he slapped the wrist of that wanker MP for accusing Jo Rowling of leveraging her abuse, and at least one of his female MPs is wondering if things will get so bad she might be killed.

Comes a point when you have to call craven cowardice what it is. And it's not after the worst has happened.