Kier shows his colours

[averylongtimeago]

From Facebook, I guess he has picked a side.
51% of the population just don't count.

cross dressers are not trans women, they are people under the trans umbrella

It's like watching Winston Smith at work. In real time.

Put the crossdresser looking for a thrill and the transwoman wanting to pee right next to each other at the door asking to come in. How do I know which one is which? Who would you turn away jj and how would you decide?

Oh and the reason we reference Stonewall on here is because they are a very powerful lobby group with the stated aim of removing the single sex exemptions from the Equality Act, and are actively pushing for self-id on the basis I quoted above.

Stonewall are authoritative. Until they're not, and then all of their numbers and definitions and goals can fade away like the morning mist.

Jj you need to learn to read

All the people are males who identify as women or cross dress
Of the convictions based on crimes against adults we have One rape, one sexual assault penetration

Oh.. you are saying that if they are convicted it's proof that they were not trans after all?

If, as can be seen from this thread and another one discussing similar issues, that the small number of transwomen who do get murdered, which is terrible, tend to have medically transitioned and are involved with sex work and drugs, and that the much larger group of trans people who haven't medically transitioned are a very safe demographic, then surely it would be very helpful to get this message out into the trans community to reassure worried people and to focus attention on where the most productive interventions can be made.

I mean, it's what you'd want to do if you were trying to make the situation better for trans people, surely?

I want to make like the much missed late Nicholas Parsons and try and get this thread back on track after all of the hesitation, repetition and deviation.

60 seconds on whether Kier Starmer actually wants to lure women back to Labour by taking our concerns seriously, or if he’d rather just mouth platitudes, starting...now!

Oh.. you are saying that if they are convicted it's proof that they were not trans after all?

No I'm saying if they have never claimed to be trans women, and were not tried as trans women, then they are not trans women.

and how do we tell those violent cross dressers/TW from the ones who are not jj? I mean after all if they are dressed as women according to you they have a perfect right to be in female sex segregated spaces.

And even according to Stonewall, cross dressers are not trans women, they are people under the trans umbrella. Occassional cross dressers and are very unlikely to use women's toilets or changing rooms. They are men, and they are happy being men. They are not trans women. So feign disingenuous confusion all you like about how on earth can you possibly tell the difference between a man who occassionally puts on his wife's knickers and a trans women, who lives and presents in a female role all the time, but I think for most practical purposes the vast majority of people are easily able to make the distinction.

RedDogsBeg has already mentioned Philip/Pips Bunce who won a women in business award and apparently also uses women's toilets on his 'woman' days. So no, the distinction isn't as clear cut as you say.

Let's say I see someone like 'Pips' Bunce in the women's toilets. How do I know whether that's a crossdresser or a 'transwoman'? To be honest, 'Pips' looks more like a 'transwoman' than Alex Drummond, for example. But it's bearded Alex who identifies as a 'transwoman', while Philip/'Pips' is a crossdresser.

And according to Debbie Hayton in this article, there's 'an old joke in the community about transitioners who start out as occasional cross-dressers: “What’s the difference between a transvestite and a transsexual? About five years.”'

(I'd heard that joke before, of course, but I've made that a direct quote from the Debbie Hayton article as I think if I wrote it as my own words my post would get deleted.)

So the line between crossdressers and transwomen/transsexuals is blurry to say the least.

60 seconds on whether Kier Starmer actually wants to lure women back to Labour by taking our concerns seriously, or if he’d rather just mouth platitudes, starting...now!

Imo, no, Kier does not want to lure women back to the Labour Party nor does he take our concerns seriously, in fact I think Kier just takes us for granted and believes we will vote for him because he is a nice guy and not Tory. Platitudes will definitely be mouthed, all double speak legalese.

thecritic.co.uk/amnesty-and-political-prisoners-in-ireland/?fbclid=IwAR28QJ1BeRKEMdunUsk_otjd6K4qHP4sDVZXXA2iHPz9EiBDQ19klW_UORA#

Last Friday, to mark “Transgender Day of Remembrance” (TDoR) a number of Ireland’s leading non-governmental organisations signed an open letter calling on the “media, and politicians to no longer provide legitimate representation for those that share bigoted beliefs”.

These women sound angry, but not like they're giving up on Keir:

labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/news/open-letter-to-sir-keir-starmer-mp/

Morningtoncresent great minds think alike!
I think this letter says it all:

labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/news/open-letter-to-sir-keir-starmer-mp/?fbclid=IwAR3TOgekwTJC0KJR2qqrIO6HrHqEYFYau8_pquP5fP9XS7LnW4mULzIX0xc

That's an excellent letter from Labour Women

@RedDogsBeg

and how do we tell those violent cross dressers/TW from the ones who are not jj? I mean after all if they are dressed as women according to you they have a perfect right to be in female sex segregated spaces.

For the purposes of women's refuges. women's sports, women's prisons and women's hospital wards then there is no real problem in telling the difference between an occassional cross dresser and a trans women.

For the purposes of toilets you possibly can't in some cases. Just like you can't tell whether a woman in there is a murderer or not, or plotting to mug you. Or you can't tell whether some random bloke who doesn't care about women's spaces will walk in and assault someone. Or whether a woman will drag her off his face mouthy boyfriend in there to snort coke in the cubicle. We do not live in a society that can completely eliminate risk. But thankfully sexual assaults in toilets are very very rare and trans inclusion has not been shown to increase the risk of them happening.

@RedDogsBeg

60 seconds on whether Kier Starmer actually wants to lure women back to Labour by taking our concerns seriously, or if he’d rather just mouth platitudes, starting...now!

Imo, no, Kier does not want to lure women back to the Labour Party nor does he take our concerns seriously, in fact I think Kier just takes us for granted and believes we will vote for him because he is a nice guy and not Tory. Platitudes will definitely be mouthed, all double speak legalese.

Yes i agree with this

That's a fabulous letter from Labour Women.

The dynamic, though, does remind me of living with my alcoholic ex...so much time expended on clearly (and righteously) explaining the flaws in his thinking and behaviour around alcohol, often some soothing noises of understanding from him, and then right back to his commitment to the bottle. Leaving was the better decision.

I don't think that Starmer is going to read that letter and change. I think he will read it (or his staff will), make a serious face and noises for a moment - and then carry right on as is.

Is Starmer going to put his neck on the line for what he'll see as older, white, 'conservative' women? He will not.

[quote Floisme]Open letter to Keir Starmer here from the Labour Women's Declaration. It refers specifically to the video that KS and Labour Party tweeted on Trans Remembrance Day (featuring Angela Rayner) and picks up a lot of the points raised in this thread. Apologies if it's already been linked and I've missed it:

[[https://labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/news/open-letter-to-sir-keir-starmer-mp/]][/quote]
Thanks for posting Floisme, this is a clear and powerful letter.

Like other lurkers I follow certain threads without jumping in, often because I don't feel I am able to add anything of value. I wanted to post earlier when another lurker was posting however the thread suffered from the wearisome and depressingly familiar derailing.

KS's Facebook message may have appeared on the surface as a non-event in which he parroted the oft-repeated phrase 'trans rights are human rights'. Well, of course they are - I don't think anyone would argue with that at all. It was the link to Angela Rayner's video that raised the concern. As detailed in the above letter, a belief that transgender people are by far the most oppressed and vulnerable group was put forward along with the argument that self ID should be in place.

As a life-long Labour supporter this is so difficult to accept. They have reflected my values on so many issues over the years - education, health, employment, the environment - to hear women's views and rights being completely disregarded is difficult to stomach.

In the past I've written to my (Labour) MP but never got a response. Maybe it's time to try again. Whatever their position is, the very least they should do is be open and honest about it. If they want to push for self ID, it should be on their campaign materials: yes we support self ID, yes we think prisons should be mixed sex, no women shouldn't have the right to single sex spaces...

That's a great letter.

Don't those dead women deserve love and respect?

For me it's the sugary language that's always used and 'special treatment.'

There's something unique in how this specific style of language gets applied for this small group of people that others don't get.

And I find it especially ironic when a higher number of U.K. trans people killed and raped others than were themselves harmed. Is the language intentional? To distract?

Obviously those who harmed are not the same individuals as those who were harmed. NATALT.

But again, the inclusivity and elevation the ideology demands, excludes and ignores so many others.

It's weird and I can't believe how many fall for it. Barracker's seminal work on pronouns springs to mind.

Is Starmer going to put his neck on the line for what he'll see as older, white, 'conservative' women? He will not.

That's it isn't it? The young and queer have decided we're okay to descriminate against as we are all old, white and heteronormative. The reality is they have been told this mostly by older white men 😂

It's okay to be bigot. The old men told you it's ok, just direct your bigotry at women. That's certainly what happened in WEP.

The red wall will be blue forever more.

So feign disingenuous confusion all you like about how on earth can you possibly tell the difference between a man who occassionally puts on his wife's knickers

Oldcrone, I can't believe how transphobic jj is being. Gender expression IS trans , and gender fluid IS trans. How can jj be such a huge BIGOT to dismiss this as putting on his (jjs mrgendering) wife's knickers and get away with it? Everyone knows what gender expression and gender fluid is. It's in the roolz.
Shocked

older white

straight, affluent, educated, able bodied....