Starmer on what a woman is, and GRA reform

[ResisterRex]

In The Times:

Trans women are women, says Keir Starmer in call for legal reform

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/75ddf3d0-a176-11ec-b38e-10b333e9179b?shareToken=2a3aa1b4f35de5d5a23b0166178270f6

"Asked to define a woman, Starmer replied: “A woman is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women, and that is not just my view — that is actually the law. It has been the law through the combined effects of the 2004 [Gender Recognition] Act and the 2010 [Equality] Act. So that’s my view. It also happens to be the law in the United Kingdom.”

The Labour leader called for reforms of the Gender Recognition Act, under which people diagnosed with gender dysphoria who have lived in their acquired gender for at least two years can apply to be legally recognised.

“The process that people have to go through does need to be looked at,” he told The Times. “If you talk to anybody who’s been through the process there’s a real issue about respect and dignity.”"

In addition:

He called for a “more considered, respectful, tolerant debate about these issues”. Starmer added: “I don’t think it furthers the interests of anybody to continue the debate in the way that it’s been going on now for some time.”

I just read that and came straight here!

But he also said that he believes in safe spaces for women and the Equality Act is right. So transwomen are women ... except when they're not.

And what about respect and dignity for women?

Comments turned off.

Finally nailed his colours to the mast then.

Ironic, given that he’s procrastinated so long, that he’s done so at a time when it’s becoming clearer and clearer that the public are not in favour.

He did say that about safe spaces. But if you're supporting "reform" without saying what that is then...what are safe spaces?

I couldn’t bring myself to read it or the feature about a woman living with her husband who decided to live as a trans woman. Too fragile right now.

I don't like the TWAW part but actually nice to see a coherent answer and not a load of old rambling waffle. That's a start at least.

Interesting that he recognises the lack of constructive conversation on the topic, let's hope that's not a one way street. I can't see how it can be; I only see one side not offering that.

@ResisterRex

He did say that about safe spaces. But if you're supporting "reform" without saying what that is then...what are safe spaces?

I presume he understands the EA though, and means that TW can be excluded, though I wouldn't be surprised if there's a "clarification" coming.

I would have thought politicians and other grown ups would be more circumspect with the Cass report just having come out, but maybe they haven't caught up yet.

Ffs how can he still not get this!!!

If women are adult human females but TW are also women then men are also women. Does he really not see how ridiculous thar is??

How can Labour possibly defend single sex spaces when they believe men are also women

As long as Labour keep trotting this out because they’re too stupid to see the contradiction staring them in the face or too scared of upsetting TRA then I’ll not be voting for them & nor will a lot of women

Knobhead. Soooo disappointed with Labour

When demanding a more more "considered, respectful, tolerant debate" presumably he means "women shut up"?

I haven't read it. But it appears Keir Starmer QC doesn't understand that the law also differentiates between those who have acquired female status and those who have it because their sex is observed at birth. For example, in the For Women Scotland case, where it makes it clear that the definition of 'adult human female' in the Equality Act does NOT mean transwomen, who, by acquiring a GRA, acquire the legal status of 'female', but this is distinguishable in law from biological female.

Let's say I was wrong about this. It would mean that our laws have placed biological females in a situation where we are indistinguishable from biological males. I would say that's a legal position that needs to change because it's against natural justice.

But I'm not wrong.

And in addition, this is exactly why women don't support the reform of the GRA. It's not because we think it affects safe spaces. It is because it vastly expands the category of people who - as Starmer argues, although I think he's wrong - can't be legally distinguished from us, but are in fact different to us. That touches upon our dignity.

Does he still think "Inly women have a cervix " is something that should never be said?

And when Starmer says 'safe spaces for women', what he means is 'safe spaces for women and anyone who says they're a woman'. He's not a friend to women.

• only women

I'm unconvinced they've changed or that they have the moral courage to extricate themselves from this and say no means no to the more extreme wing of the party.

I have to wonder if he only dealt with this - from a military base(!) - because the Tories forced the issue on IWD. And they called for a legal definition of "woman", said what they thought, and who should not be in it.

Asked about the Scottish government’s plans, Starmer replied: “The Gender Recognition Act needs to be reformed. And I believe in safe spaces for women — I’m very clear about those too. I think the 2004 act needs to be reformed, I think the 2010 act, the Equality Act, which does provide for safe spaces for women is right. And therefore I’m very straightforward about this.”

What the fuck does that actually mean?

The article about the woman who seems to be describing living in an abusive relationship is sad.

How is what he said not utterly confused?

It doesn't affect him so he couldn't give a shit about women.

The contrast with Yvette Cooper, Analise Dodds that they didn't actually say the same. They know deep down that men aren't women, they know the implications but they can't go against the party line.

Telling its never about trans men

Keir Starmer isn't scared, this is what he really believes. He can't be elected PM because this is idiotic.

Trans women are women according to Kier starker and it's so so disappointing because now there is no option for me to vote Labour. I cannot. This issue is too important for the future of my dd and the future of all women really for me to vote for him now.

It doesn't say where or when he gave this 'clarification'. Does anyone know?

Sarah Ditum's written a blistering article about this:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4502884-Sarah-Ditum-Whats-a-woman-Dont-ask-Labour

The Tories will use this at the next election and, despite being a bunch of criminally incompetent shites, they will win it. It is their last chance. And the fall out for LGB people, for gender non-conforming people and people uncomfortable with their birth sex , will be terrible.

The contrast with Yvette Cooper, Analise Dodds that they didn't actually say the same. They know deep down that men aren't women, they know the implications but they can't go against the party line.

I keep thinking about Anneliese saying in Parliament "I am a woman, obviously". Where does she think that gets her, these days?

Somebody who is obviously not a woman has all the same rights, can enter all the same places.

Annalise Dodds uses the word 'obviously' - what is it about her that is distinguishable from a male person that leads her to say 'obviously'?

Women can and should have 'safe spaces', with male people having free access to them at will. Which is what male people who wish to access female spaces want: for those spaces to exist and to have uncontested access to them.

Starmer isn't mentioning the whole this ending them being safe, that they're no longer single sex, and this excludes a whole lot of female humans from women's spaces in favour of male people having all the choices and their feelings and wishes respected. It passes the point of sexism and heads straight into male supremacism.

And this is why Labour is unelectable. I am no fan of the current government, but I'm not voting in a party that sees the female half as the human race as male owned resources with no rights or autonomy, and lies their liberal little heads off about it. I'll take corrupt and screamingly incompetent over bloody dangerous.