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.”

So “A car is a motor vehicle, and in addition to that broccoli are cars" and therefore broccoli are motor vehicles and if you believe in spaces for cars then you must be very clear that broccoli belong on the roads

He thinks this is a vote winner. He has forgotten that women also have a vote.

The next general election should technically be a walk in the park for Labour, given the current cabinet. However, all the Tories need to do is spend their campaigning budget on a few leaflets clearly explaining the consequences of this imbecility (flagging hospital wards is always a good one) and nobody in their right minds would vote Labour.

I can’t bring myself to vote Labour, despite my views on the economy and disgust and the current government.

The Labour Party need to get off Twitter, stop giving campaigning groups too much credit and listen to actual voters.

I need my blood pressure meds now.

Do they seriously think that "TWAW in law" will stand even the lightest scrutiny. He's a fucking lawyer. With a GRA and the intention to get a TRA, they have a protected characteristic (define "intending to get one" and remember that TRAs want it to be a 5 minute process not a 2 year one). With a GRA, they are legally the acquired sex but rules on single sex places

I can only assume it's the nice red dress she's wearing when she says it

At other times, who knows?

He says, '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.'

How would he like to have the debate? I'd like to hear him debate this issue in the House of Commons, with full reference to the laws he believes support his position, and why they are the right laws to have. You know, like this is a democracy rather than an enclave of lobby groups.

@beastlyslumber

He thinks this is a vote winner. He has forgotten that women also have a vote.

At the moment.

Any woman who has not seen the speed at which legal protections and rights for women are being ditched by all parties, and what this means in terms of the appalling reality of the prejudice against women that this has exposed, has not realised how very easily her right to vote could be just as easily ditched should that become a desired outcome and women having votes begins to be inconvenient. And it will probably be framed as 'hate' to wish to retain your vote, and not something anything but saggy titted old white middle class harridan dinosaurs would wish to do.

I wish interviewers would follow up now with “what is a trans woman?”

Stop trying to get the TWAW crowd to differentiate between TW and women, and get them to explain how they differentiate between TW and men.

I agree it's better that he says what he thinks rather than obfusticating and sidestepping the questions. At least it's possible to know where he stands.

The first part is reasonably coherent. It is true that women are adult human females and that transwomen with a GRC are also women legally speaking. Up to that point he's just stating facts not opinions.

Where the coherence of his position starts to get wobbly is when saying that the GRA should be reformed to make getting a GRC easier, with solely the requirement to live in the acquired gender for 2 years without a diagnosis or panel approval. How can that be workable without either a sexist and regressive written definition of what an originally male person has to show that they do in order to be "living as a woman" (and if there's no diagnosis who is going to judge whether such a list of criteria has been met. And the existence of such a list would be hideously insulting to all the actual women who don't meet its criteria, so that's clearly unworkable). And in the absence of such a list there is only self-declartion and therefore no gatekeeping at all. ef there is an individual I know of who is very involved with lesbian groups on facebook. Because they dress and present similarly to q "butch lesbian" and are in a relationship with a female woman and have no dysphoria abouut their biologically male body and they are in fact totally indistinguishable from a heterosexual man for all objectively observable criteria. What makes them a lesbian woman is solely their own say-so. If such a person can in their own opinion be "living in their acquired gender" then a self-declaration is also utterly meaningless.

I suspect that in the unlikely event that labour came to power while Starmer is still in charge, he would find it impossible to find an intellectually and morally coherent way to resolve this. I suspect therefore that he would end up kicking it into the long grass abd going back to avoiding and obfusticating until such time as he loses power with a sigh of relief and allows these questions to be resolved unsatisfactorily by people of lesser intellectual and moral integrity.

I suspect therefore that he would end up kicking it into the long grass abd going back to avoiding and obfusticating until such time as he loses power with a sigh of relief and allows these questions to be resolved unsatisfactorily by people of lesser intellectual and moral integrity.

I thought the same about how he would just delay this. That's if the extremists let him. They wouldn't.

@tabbycatstripy

He says, '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.'

How would he like to have the debate? I'd like to hear him debate this issue in the House of Commons, with full reference to the laws he believes support his position, and why they are the right laws to have. You know, like this is a democracy rather than an enclave of lobby groups.

Yes, it's the next move if the ad hominem attacks don't work.

Blame 'the way the debate is happening' so as to avoid the question.

I genuinely wonder how he thinks he is helping trans people at this point. Given the Cass report which spells out the woeful state of medical care in the country, why does he think giving out GRCs more readily than swimming certificates is the way to go?

What I don’t get is that he is a smart lawyer, so he can’t not know that what he says is inaccurate. As well as confusing and contradictory. How the hell does he believe this pile of wank will work?

We need a fucking opposition party we can vote for. Is he perhaps a Tory stooge, paid to ensure the Tories stay in for evermore?

"And therefore I’m very straightforward about this.”

Starmer identifies as being straightforward about this. Whether he is widely considered as being 'straightforward' and others believe he when he says he is being straightforward will be shown in the next general election...when the Tories are elected...gain.

I agree with @bellinisurge on this.

I have MS. This is a lifelong biological condition that can, at times, be disabling but it varies. Luckily it tends not to be too severe and I can "pass" as a person without disabilities most of the time. I can't identify out if it.
I can get things like bladder urgency and need the loo but I prefer to stay out of disabled toilets because I don't have a blue badge. I'm not entitled to one because I don't meet the criteria. I always feel a person more disabled than I am needs that loo.
I can get horribly tired and can't stand for a long time but I don't take a disabled seat unless I have no option in case a more disabled person needs it.
The blue badge application process is long, difficult and expensive. Fortunately, I can work part time and don't need to go through the humiliating and uncertain benefit application process yet. People right now with MS - an incurable chronic condition- have to do this.
MS is particularly prevalent in Scotland for reasons not fully understood. JK Rowling's mum died of severe version of MS and, unsurprisingly, she set up the Ann Rowling foundation in Scotland.
And yet someone with a dick in Scotland can put on lippy and a dress and call me a hateful bigot if I don't call them a woman.

'I genuinely wonder how he thinks he is helping trans people at this point.'

Because he really, really isn't. He is driving resentment. I don't resent transwomen, but people will transfer their resentment of mealy-mouthed politicians and their failure to protect women's rights to them. And that will be unfair and unpleasant.

I read a Harriet Harman interview this week and she said the same think so I knew this was going to be their new 'clear' stance ie let's tell them that we know women are adult human females and then tell them that men are also women. We're not stupid Mr Starner - you're basically saying anyone can be a woman.

The problem here is that, in many areas affected eg safe spaces, sport etc, the question hasn't been why would we let men into these spaces but rather they're blanket allowed and now you have to have good reason to exclude. Labour know that women's group, refuges etc are petrified of being sued etc so they believe everyone will just suck it up and shut up. Except we bloody well won't.

I would like to see a full on debate on what is a woman and a man. If KS is so confident I want to see him answer direct questions e.g what defines 'living as a woman'.

“A woman is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women”

This means that trans men are women. They are female adults.
He’s also using the word “woman” in two different ways in the same sentence. He tells us a “woman” is an adult female, and in addition trans women are “women”. But trans women are adult males. Adult males cannot be adult females. So trans women must be “women” in a different sense. And he hasn’t told us in what sense trans women are “women”, such that they can be differentiated from other adult males.

Also if trans women are women then why does starmer support the female only spaces in the equality act which exclude trans women?

What pisses me off about this is it’s glaringly illogical, and yet no one but gender critical feminists seems to notice.

Well mumsnetters, I think this will forever answer the question 'Why do people still vote Tory?'

😂😂😂

Transwomen are transwomen. Transmen are transmen.

@Narutocrazyfox

Well mumsnetters, I think this will forever answer the question 'Why do people still vote Tory?'

😂😂😂

I think KS might have tipped me over the precipice of doing so. I've been spoiling my ballot for years, but I'm now going to vote to keep Labour and the Lib Dems OUT.

Sarah Ditum nailed it in the Times: "It matters because the law depends on language, and people who pretend to strategic idiocy about the natural and ordinary meanings of words really have no business being lawmakers."

so women are female adults

but also some male adults are women

yep, that's nice and clear

not voting for labour until starmer fucks off then

no men are women, come on people. stop trying to make me believe bollocks

@Narutocrazyfox

Well mumsnetters, I think this will forever answer the question 'Why do people still vote Tory?'

😂😂😂

yep. I voted tory in the last GE, for the first time in my life (I'm a labour party member)

I'm still pretty ambivalent about it. but I simply don't see how I can vote labour as they currently present themselves

He is actually saying males can become females. He is relying on the GRA to say that the definition of 'woman' in the EA includes natal males. They aren't just 'women' to him; they're female in every way.

He is an utter shyster.

As Starmer supports 'safe spaces for women' I expect he'll be supporting Women Talk Back who are taking Bristol student union to court for banning them from being female only?