Keir Starmer on Sophy Ridge

[EdgeOfACoin]

On just now.

Asked about trans rights. Said that they didn't go far enough and the current process to transition is demeaning.

Criticised both sides (ie TRAs and feminists) for 'tearing lumps' out of each other.

Expressed sympathy for women who were victims of domestic violence but refused to say whether refuges should be single-sex or not (fence-sitting).

The denialism around biology, male-pattern violence and safeguarding is a massive red flag and makes me question their ability to develop good policy on anything.

This. Obviously this issue is a big one for me, but it's not just their stance on this issue, it's the their complete lack of judgement, twisting of rhetoric, the refusal to let go of dogma even when it takes them to ridiculous conclusions (eg Alex sobel, Lisa Nandy) It makes me think they are not capable of creating and following through decent policy on any issue, not just this one.

It's like when Owen Jones puts across ridiculous arguments like 'well, why have no transwomen ever qualified for the Olympics then, eh, eh, tell me that?' as if it's some sort of mic drop question (whilst of course having his comments turned off). It just kind of discredits everything else he says because I think if he is that hard of thinking on that question then he is applying the same brain to other things.

I think the 85% statistic is that 85% of people identifying as TW have no surgery. Within the remaining 15% will be people have plastic surgery to create breasts and get facial feminisation and still retain their penises.

Can I just say thanks for answering my questions and not jumping on me 😊
Some really interesting perspectives for me to consider. Thanks

The denialism around biology, male-pattern violence and safeguarding is a massive red flag and makes me question their ability to develop good policy on anything.
This. Obviously this issue is a big one for me, but it's not just their stance on this issue, it's the their complete lack of judgement, twisting of rhetoric, the refusal to let go of dogma even when it takes them to ridiculous conclusions (eg Alex sobel, Lisa Nandy) It makes me think they are not capable of creating and following through decent policy on any issue, not just this one.

absolutely.
And the thing is: yes, people can be strong/right in one area - and completely weak/foolish in another - but not recognising that or thinking you are an absolute know-it-all in everything is pitiful. Some of the Labour party have just delegated their thinking on this and swallowed the TRA's line and that does suggest, worryingly, that they aren't thinkers.

@Tistheseason17

I experienced DV from a man and, yes,he was much stronger and I did not fight back physically. through fear of what he was capable of.

I experienced significant mental abuse and bullying from a woman.

I fought back against both through police/work.

Both pretty damned awful experiences but I have encountered more of the latter in my life, sadly.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I cannot really comment on negative experiences with trans women as I have only had positive experiences.

If I am understanding PPs correctly (hope so) there are males self identifying as females who have no dysmorphia and no genuine trans feelings/plans but just want to infiltrate women's spaces for their own ends. That does not sound safe at all for women and genuine trans women. Or have I misunderstood the issue?
I'm looking to understand and grow knowledge, not to disagree with anyone.

"If I am understanding PPs correctly (hope so) there are males self identifying as females who have no dysmorphia and no genuine trans feelings/plans but just want to infiltrate women's spaces for their own ends. That does not sound safe at all for women and genuine trans women. Or have I misunderstood the issue?"

No, you've understood the problem fine - caused by the sleight-of-hand, Self-ID. In days of old (or so it feels) a transwoman was a male suffering from dysmorphia who had a considerable amount of drug/psych treatment which didn't make them feel any better and so surgery/hormones was considered the last resort. They were few in number, and by and large kept a low profile, seeking to 'fit in'.

Then all the language changes crept in. It changed to dysphoria (profound unhappiness) not dysmorphia. And transgender, not transexual. Trans woman, not transwoman. And a medical diagnosis was no longer necessary, that was demeaning, self-identification was the new mantra, and 'acceptance without exception'. Predators saw an opened door and took advantage of it because hey - predators gotta prey. And there's a hell of a lot more of them than there ever were of transwomen.

Then, with everyone still thinking we were talking about transexuals who'd had a lot of therapy input and hormones/surgery, we're actually being asked to 'be kind' to a very different demographic. At the extreme, fully intact males with no intention of having surgery (well, maybe some silicon bags) who get their kicks from having politicians etc. bow down before them.

So no - not safe at all for women and transwomen.

"I guess what I'm trying to say is I cannot really comment on negative experiences with trans women as I have only had positive experiences."
I'm glad that it has been positive for you. But that shouldn't stop you from seeing that the negative experiences are real. Many old-school transwomen do. There are many things in life that I thankfully have not experienced, but can empathise with.

@Helmetbymidnight

The denialism around biology, male-pattern violence and safeguarding is a massive red flag and makes me question their ability to develop good policy on anything. This. Obviously this issue is a big one for me, but it's not just their stance on this issue, it's the their complete lack of judgement, twisting of rhetoric, the refusal to let go of dogma even when it takes them to ridiculous conclusions (eg Alex sobel, Lisa Nandy) It makes me think they are not capable of creating and following through decent policy on any issue, not just this one.

absolutely.
And the thing is: yes, people can be strong/right in one area - and completely weak/foolish in another - but not recognising that or thinking you are an absolute know-it-all in everything is pitiful. Some of the Labour party have just delegated their thinking on this and swallowed the TRA's line and that does suggest, worryingly, that they aren't thinkers.

Yes! Once I lose trust in them in one aspect, I look suspiciously at all others.

To explain - language. You can't communicate with another person if you each have a different definition of a word, that only leads to confusion and misunderstanding. So if a politician used the word 'women', most of their constituents will think they are talking about - well, women. They won't think to ask what the politician means, because they used a word in common usage with an established meaning.

So once I know they're happy to say something meaning one thing, knowing the constituent will accept it because they're assuming 'established meaning' but also knowing they wouldn't accept it if they knew 'expanded vague new-fangled meaning' - well, all you've got is a politician who's a sly liar. And that you have to pick apart EVERY WORD they use and test what definition is in play. Won't matter what they're talking about, be it taxes, planning, Brexit, road repairs - nothing they say, on anything, can be taken at face value. Everything they say, on anything, must be treated with suspicion to avoid being misled.

It's a fucking sad state of affairs to be in.

Spineless is the adjective that covers it.

If we really wanted to help our cause we'd be out there now tweeting about how great it was to hear Keir "standing up for victims of domestic violence". Show him that taking a line more favourable to our side has a political reward. Because seriously any Labour adviser reading this thread would be saying to Keir now "Don't bother to offer this lot anything Keir. They'll never be happy."

I see where you're coming from. I don't entirely disagree. However:

a) we know that the hardcore TRAs will never be happy either. Would a Labour adviser also say to Keir not to bother trying to offer the trans community anything?

b) I wrote to Keir Starmer after he was elected regarding his stance on women's spaces. I didn't get a reply. (Perhaps an earnest staff member didn't pass along the message). He knows that this is an important issue for women electorally.

If I have a choice between a Labour party that sends out bat signals and a Conservative party who, for all their faults on this issue, at least publicly acknowledges that women have a point, I am going to vote for the Conservatives.

Labour are under no obligation to campaign for my vote and I am under no obligation to give it to them. It's their choice.

It’s so bizarre- trans rights are not a vote winner, self ID is wildly unpopular. Why are so many politicians and political parties willing to back this niche issue ?

Starmer isn't the only one who is fence-sitting.

The other week John McDonnell took part in a discussion event with Selina Todd to promote her new book about social mobility, 'Snakes and Ladders'. This prompted a predictable tantrum from Oxford University Labour Club: twitter.com/OxUniLabour/status/1359089358897373185
In reply McDonnell released this statement:

"Last week I participated in an In Conversation event with Selina Todd to discuss her recent book, which I believe is a major contribution to the discussion about social mobility. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of her views on trans issues or any other issue. It was simply an enjoyable and I hope interesting discussion about a book. With regard to the views expressed by the Oxford Labour Club, which I fully appreciate, my only comment is that throughout my life I have campaigned for equality and respect for human rights. I have found that there comes a tipping point in any movement for human rights, especially when on the edge of an enormous breakthrough, when the better strategy can sometimes be to engage in a dialogue that enables one to comprehend the concerns of others no matter how unfounded and in doing so overcome them."

www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/19092217.john-mcdonnell-criticised-support-anti-trans-oxford-academic/
(Apologies for the ropy Oxford Mail journalism).

He spoke quite clearly about how much value women put on single sex spaces in domestic violence shelters This is what really hacks me off. He doesn't value women's single sex spaces, women value them. What exactly does he mean. He's is using his words in a very measured way. Keir cannot come out on the side of women. All TU's are signed up to TWAW and they don't care because they wont lose membership because of this. They will continue to have their snouts in the trough.

TU's don't even really care about Labour being elected because they have total capture of Education, NHS, Fire, Police, by the back door TWAW. Sir Keir is handcuffed and he knows it

@HermioneWeasley

It’s so bizarre- trans rights are not a vote winner, self ID is wildly unpopular. Why are so many politicians and political parties willing to back this niche issue ?

My guess is because they think the more people learn about the issues, the more they will come round to the TRA viewpoint. The politicians see themselves at the forefront of the next civil rights movement.

I'm not sure they've realised yet that it tends to go the other way. Most people start from a live-and-let-live position and have an attitude of 'well, why shouldn't my lovely trans friend be allowed to use the female loos?'. This was probably a reasonable assessment of the situation up until about the early noughties.

Trouble is, there's so much more to the debate. When people learn more, they usually move away from their original position.

If we really wanted to help our cause we'd be out there now tweeting about how great it was to hear Keir "standing up for victims of domestic violence". Show him that taking a line more favourable to our side has a political reward. Because seriously any Labour adviser reading this thread would be saying to Keir now "Don't bother to offer this lot anything Keir. They'll never be happy."

This feels a bit like being grateful for the crumbs off the table.

'This lot' are over 50% of the population and if labour dont care about the rights women, they dont get my vote.

If we really wanted to help our cause we'd be out there now tweeting about how great it was to hear Keir "standing up for victims of domestic violence". Show him that taking a line more favourable to our side has a political reward. Because seriously any Labour adviser reading this thread would be saying to Keir now "Don't bother to offer this lot anything Keir. They'll never be happy.

I don't agree. The last thing we want Keir to think is that he has bought us off with his lukewarm approval of women's refuges (thanks a fucking lot..). We need to keep reminding Labour that there are a lot of Labour voters who do not support self-ID and see it as a vote-swaying issue. It's not a question of winning our approval 100% but of stopping us defecting to the Tories. They've already lost the Red Wall - can they afford to lose the Pink Wall?

@HermioneWeasley

It’s so bizarre- trans rights are not a vote winner, self ID is wildly unpopular. Why are so many politicians and political parties willing to back this niche issue ?

I keep wondering this as well. Labour will never win whilst they go down this road. I think partly that Labour is 'the caring and compassionate party' and trans rights activists have framed the issue so that Labour has to go with TWAW otherwise they look like they aren't 'caring and compassionate' anymore. The fact that this stance is shit for women seems to have been overlooked.

However, the brilliant work that women are doing to drag this out into the sunlight means that it cannot go on like this without Labour coming off very publicly as the party of misogyny. Julia Long posing the question about male rapist prisoners, and the question posed to Alex Sobel on Twitter (to which he replied a flat 'no' but later deleted) are good examples of this. We need more like that.

@Tistheseason17

85% of people identifying as TW retain their penis

Wow - I did not know this.

It’s possible to get a GRC whilst still having a penis.

How do you define genuine Transwoman?

It’s possible to get a GRC whilst still having a penis.

Criminal convictions also don't prevent a GRC from being granted. Even when the convictions strongly suggest someone is less than honest.

I don't understand why people think it's just the hard left in Labour pushing that TWAW it's people like Lisa Nandy, Angela Rayner, Jess Philips etc

They ( those above) want to align themselves with the Momentum faction - which is full of idealistic, young, new recruits. The old lefties are also aligned with this wing/faction - as it is the only section of the party that they see as being genuinely socialist or left wing enough.

It is a funny alliance; because for many of the traditional, older, male leftists the issue ( & women's rights) is almost irrelevant to them. So you get people like Billy Bragg pulled in - trying to keep up with the youthful elements of the party membership.

I don't understand why people think it's just the hard left in Labour pushing that TWAW it's people like Lisa Nandy, Angela Rayner, Jess Philips etc.

To be fair there have been quite a few gender critical articles in the Morning Star, and John McDonnell spoke to Selina Todd, despite much opposition.

I obviously don't know what Lisa Nandy, Angela Rayner and Jess Philips really think, but you only have to look at how this issue has been used in the SNP to see how ambition and factionalism can influence what people say and do.

I think some individual female MPs don't want to draw attention to the fact that women may need specific accommodations.

Thanks for sharing OP. I've gone from Labour membership to there being a snowball's chance in hell I'd vote for them. I'm glad Starmer said that openly though. I think a lot of women were hoping that he was quietly GC. That makes it clear he has no clue.
Both sides, indeed.

It’s so bizarre- trans rights are not a vote winner, self ID is wildly unpopular. Why are so many politicians and political parties willing to back this niche issue?

As I posted earlier, it's because - until recently - none of them perceived that there was any downside to supporting it because the whole self-ID campaign had happened by stealth, and because the women who were aware were being silenced.

So politicians thought they had a free pass to support it - like supporting same-sex marriage: not everyone agrees with it but it's not likely to to lose you many votes as it doesn't directly affect anyone not gay. The misogyny in this country is so ingrained that it literally did not occur to most politicians, male or female, even to wonder - let alone care - if there would be any impact on women. Maria Miller's inquiry into the GRA was the high-water mark of this. The Tory party is now waking up to the opposition expressed in the Tory press (though the battle is not yet won). We can push back, but we have lost a decade of ground to the TRA's stealth campaign, so it will take time.

If you enjoyed Alan Johnson’s rant earlier, may I recommend his podcast to you? It’s called “How to change the world with Alan Johnson”, and he interviewed Suzanne Moore just after All Of That went down. Very interesting.

And yes, I’m bitterly disappointed with Starmer. He should be making hay with The litany of Tory fuckups that are being scattered his way like confetti, and instead he’s fence sitting while the party self destructs.

How do you define genuine Transwoman

Honestly, having read comments it is a pretty grey area.

I have met trans women who are women. Not trying to fit in,not going through a phase - women whose body does not match them and everything they think/feel.

But, it's clear there is a spectrum of people outside of this and I would not be happy for my DDs to share a changing room with someone who simply SIs as a woman but is not actually living as/transitioning- just using a law for their own gratification.

That podcast sounds interesting, Sophocles.

there is a spectrum of people outside of this

Sure, so, how do you set the boundaries? What criteria do you insist on for males to access female spaces? How can you sort the 'twaw' from the genderfluid nonbinary confused person, from the predator abusing the system?

The only way that makes sense is to have what has worked for quite some time - segregate by sex.