Starmer on Marr now

[Jaysmith71]

We must have a tolerent debate.... Trans community are the most marginalised community of all

....and 'Only women have a cervix' is, "Something that should not be said."

I was a member of the Labour Party for decades.

I rowed back on my volunteering for them when the direction of travel on this became clear, but continued as a member.

I resigned my membership when it became clearer, but continued to give them my vote.

In the last GE, I spoiled my ballot because I couldn’t bring myself to give them support.

My constituency was one of the Red Wall seats which turned blue for the first time in decade.

In the next GE, I will actively vote Tory, if Labour don’t made a hard turn on this.

Financial self interest never made me a Conservative voter, but this will even though I despise our current government.

I am incandescent with rage about this, and horrified at such a wilful rejection of reality.

Not surprised Starmer was in charge of the CPS who decided not to prosecute Saville he’s a total misogynistic apologist idiot

Starmer has a wife and a daughter. He thinks the truth about female bodies ''shouldn't be said''.

That attitude is why women and girls are being referred to as ''bodies with vaginas'' and ''menstruators'', not even 'people'. What kind of man gets on his hands and knees for an ideology that defines his wife and daughter as nothing more than pieces of meat, by their body parts 🤮

It's out there:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10029979/Keir-Starmer-Not-right-say-women-cervix.html

www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19605774.labour-leader-sir-keir-starmer-not-right-say-women-cervix/

One reply on the Herald site:

"...two inches below the cervix is the anus and that Starmer and the snp easily fit into that identification..."

Mmm. I've seen elsewhere that what he was saying "shouldn't be said was that *it's transphobic to say..."

He was trying to say that the "he said she said" wasn't the way to conduct a debate so I wonder if he was actually just not very clearly saying "it's transphobic" shouldn't be said?

Any thoughts?

I would like to clarify something here, that many seem unaware of. What Keir Starmer is saying here:

"and wherever we've got to in the law, we need to go further. And we want to go further on that."

Is not a commitment they take lightly, and it is not limited to bringing in self-id.

I engaged with my TWAW Labour MP on this issue before she lost her seat, and she made it very clear that Labour is not satisfied with merely reforming the GRA. They know that self-id without changing the Equality Act 2010 will not bring the desired result.

"Going further with the law" is a commitment, however much they currently hide it, to change the Equality Act 2010 to enshrine gender identity in law as a protected characteristic. There was no clarity exactly how they wanted to do this, whether by joining gender identity to the protected characteristic of sex, or by replacing sex altogether, or by removing gender reassignment and replacing it with gender identity, but the desired result was to make it impossible to use sex-based exceptions in a way that lawfully excludes all males from female-only provisions.

And it's worth pointing out here that Labour created the Gender Recognition Act and during the law writing and all the debates suppressed the voices raising concerns about women's rights.

They even wrote it in such a way that the Genuine Occupational Requirement from the Sex Discrimination Act was disapplied from male GRC-holders.

Before Covid hit, I was in the National Archives in Scotland reading all of the documents, meeting minutes, correspondence between ministers, politicians, trans rights organisations, constituents, faith leaders. They did not ignore the potential impact of the GRA on women's rights accidentally. That was deliberate and the GRA undermining the rights women had in 2004 was at the very least an accepted if not necessarily intended consequence.

Then the Equality Act 2010 put sex as a protected characteristic back onto an equal footing with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. That's why trans rights organisations have been campaigning to change and undermine it since then.

The Labour commitment to trans rights has not changed. They will fudge as much as they can about this, but I go by what my MP told me a few months before the election: Labour would seek to change the Equality Act 2010 to better protect trans people. Any detrimental effects on the sex-based rights of women are incidental to their primary motivation to improve the lives of trans people.

I have seen nothing at all in what Labour has said in the last two years that leads me to conclude they have given up on those plans.

I have seen nothing at all in what Labour has said in the last two years that leads me to conclude they have given up on those plans.

No, quite.

That’s really interesting, thank you charlie

@CharlieParley

I would like to clarify something here, that many seem unaware of. What Keir Starmer is saying here:

"and wherever we've got to in the law, we need to go further. And we want to go further on that."

Is not a commitment they take lightly, and it is not limited to bringing in self-id.

I engaged with my TWAW Labour MP on this issue before she lost her seat, and she made it very clear that Labour is not satisfied with merely reforming the GRA. They know that self-id without changing the Equality Act 2010 will not bring the desired result.

"Going further with the law" is a commitment, however much they currently hide it, to change the Equality Act 2010 to enshrine gender identity in law as a protected characteristic. There was no clarity exactly how they wanted to do this, whether by joining gender identity to the protected characteristic of sex, or by replacing sex altogether, or by removing gender reassignment and replacing it with gender identity, but the desired result was to make it impossible to use sex-based exceptions in a way that lawfully excludes all males from female-only provisions.

And it's worth pointing out here that Labour created the Gender Recognition Act and during the law writing and all the debates suppressed the voices raising concerns about women's rights.

They even wrote it in such a way that the Genuine Occupational Requirement from the Sex Discrimination Act was disapplied from male GRC-holders.

Before Covid hit, I was in the National Archives in Scotland reading all of the documents, meeting minutes, correspondence between ministers, politicians, trans rights organisations, constituents, faith leaders. They did not ignore the potential impact of the GRA on women's rights accidentally. That was deliberate and the GRA undermining the rights women had in 2004 was at the very least an accepted if not necessarily intended consequence.

Then the Equality Act 2010 put sex as a protected characteristic back onto an equal footing with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. That's why trans rights organisations have been campaigning to change and undermine it since then.

The Labour commitment to trans rights has not changed. They will fudge as much as they can about this, but I go by what my MP told me a few months before the election: Labour would seek to change the Equality Act 2010 to better protect trans people. Any detrimental effects on the sex-based rights of women are incidental to their primary motivation to improve the lives of trans people.

I have seen nothing at all in what Labour has said in the last two years that leads me to conclude they have given up on those plans.

Great post. Of course those who did speak up in political debate about the grave consequences of the GRA now look incredibly prescient.

"The trans community, as I say, are the most marginalised and abused of many, many communities and we need to make progress on the Gender Recognition Act."

I see no "among" here.

@Imnobody4

Here's a transcript from Mirror journalist. I can't believe he can be so stupid.

From the transcript, it could be that he is (attempting to) say that it should not be said that it is transphobic to say that only women have a cervix.

Or maybe he's saying what we all thought he said; that it should not be said that only women have a cervix.

Or maybe he's playing the Blair Game of constructive ambiguity?

(There was the masterly, "...if the police say they want extra powers, and I agree, then they should have them...")

We await any clarification with interest.

twitter.com/sajidjavid/status/1442082718402154498

Total denial of scientific fact.

And he wants to run the NHS.

Sajid saying what we are all thinking.

@Jaysmith71

To be fair, he did say "among the most marginalised...."

The Most Most Marginalised would be groups such as flat-earthers, exclusive bretheren and pavement-fuckers.

Trans are not necessarily as marginalised as these, but they are "among" them.

What the bloody hell is a pavement fucker? Please don't tell me it's someone who fucks pavements.

@PickAChew

"The trans community, as I say, are the most marginalised and abused of many, many communities and we need to make progress on the Gender Recognition Act."

I see no "among" here.

First reference, they are 'amongst' the most marginalised.

Second reference, in the space of two paragraphs, they have become "the most marginalised..."

Your vote is dependent on someone's opinion on Trans issues?

No, it's not that.

Politicians pretending to believe something that they know is not true, and demanding others pretend to believe it too, is the issue.

That is totalitarianism.

Who will the students vote for though, @Judashascomeintosomemoney? Or will Rosie Duffield be deselected by then and they'll get a shiny new non-heretical, biologically illiterate Labour candidate?

If they do this, Rosie should stand as an independent in Canterbury. I’d chip in for her deposit.

From the transcript, it could be that he is (attempting to) say that it should not be said that it is transphobic to say that only women have a cervix.

After my earlier chortling I am now prepared to think he was saying that Rosie shouldn't be called transphobic.

Mmm.

"What the bloody hell is a pavement fucker? Please don't tell me it's someone who fucks pavements."

Well, yes and no.

If you really want to know, you can click:

bit.ly/3ueKvId

Completely agree with Charlie Parley's post.

Stephen Whittle was claiming last year that although it could be a long wait they know Labour will do exactly what they want when they next get into government.

Well, one thing is for sure, enough people think he said you can't say only women have a cervix.

And that's two party leaders, now, who have been asked a question which makes them look ridiculous.

This is not going away.

@Fitt

From the transcript, it could be that he is (attempting to) say that it should not be said that it is transphobic to say that only women have a cervix.

After my earlier chortling I am now prepared to think he was saying that Rosie shouldn't be called transphobic.

Mmm.

Well, maybe he will clarify exactly what he meant..!

@Fitt

From the transcript, it could be that he is (attempting to) say that it should not be said that it is transphobic to say that only women have a cervix.

After my earlier chortling I am now prepared to think he was saying that Rosie shouldn't be called transphobic.

Mmm.

You have more faith in Labour than I do. He could have explicitly called out the abuse Rosie is subjected to, he didn't.

@TooWicked

I truly am politically homeless.

If Shahrar Ali isn’t voted in as leader of the Greens, my next ballot paper will be stickered until there’s no paper showing.

Ooh i like this idea.

Who is left? Can it really be the Tories? The Tories who are overseeing the placement of males in women's prisons. Who oversee a system where women get locked in prison with males who are therefore given a free opportunity to sexually assault and intimidate them. Who oversee this dystopia for women and girls.

This is so frustrating. The Tories are currently in a position to put clear blue water between themselves and the other parties by unequivocally supporting women’s right to have certain spaces that remain male free. But they won’t even use the exceptions in the Equality Act for the most obvious and necessary situation where they would apply (women’s prisons). This would be such a great example as to how service users can implement the exceptions in practice and show that the Tories are actually serious in their support of women’s single sex services and the EA.

Well, maybe he will clarify exactly what he meant..!

He desperately wants not to have to have a view. You have two views which are incompatible. You either have a Carthaginian solution, where one view wipes out the other, or you have an accommodation. His own left wing won't let him accommodate.