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.”

One simple solution to avoid confusion would be to get rid entirely of the words "man / men and woman/ women" and replace them with "male / males and female/ females ".

If the definition of woman and man can be changed, so can male and female. It's already happening - people are starting to say 'biological female', as a response to males becoming female through surgery and drugs.

I can’t be bothered playing that game.

I find this so depressing. How many voters is labour going to lose from this? Does anyone know?

I will not be voting labour. Even if he doesn't care about women, surely he cares that he will be losing valuable votes. JKR of course very good on this of course.

I find it bemusing that a man of his intelligence would try and spend so much time pursuing a lie. Trying to convince people that men can be women. It's absurd.

I always thought he was a tory trojan horse to make sure labour are unelectable, every time he opens his mouth he just cements my view further.

I will never vote labour again, not in a general election, not in a local election or the mayoral election, until that man is gone.

I agree with AlsoNotAGirl, I'm at that same point. I'm a lifelong Labour supporter & voter & note the number of posters saying they'll spoil their vote rather than vote tory. I don't intend to waste my previous vote but will lend it to the tories & make it clear that women's rights matter & they must put their money where their mouth is. Abstaining my vote is not the answer.

@Narutocrazyfox

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

😂😂😂

I'm glad hes come off that fence at least. Now we know for certain he really really dislikes women, even those in his own family. And of course we wont vote him in. Who will be the next labour leader and will they be any wiser?

I emailed him pre pandemic and told him to self identify as a woman then finally labour could have a woman leader.

Email:[email protected]

Email:[email protected]

Email:[email protected]

Knock yourselves out if you want to say anything to him.

He wont see them but he cannot ever whine that no one told him what was happening in the real world and how angry women are.

I'm really shocked at this. Why are Labour piling into this debate?
There's other much bigger issues they should be focussing on.
Just let women be women (and protect their hard won rights) and let Trans women be trans women

Do you remember the Pink News tweet where they posted the hostage-style vid of Starmer saying TWAW?

Here are the tweet engagement stats:

What a disgrace to both the Labour Party and also their inept PR machine

@ZuttZeVootEeeVo

I can only assume he doesn't want to actually win an election. I can see why - Covid still hanging around, fall out from Brexit, a war being waged by Russia and an energy crisis.

Or he wants to make it easier for all men to follow women and girls into changing rooms and toilets. How many men are voyeurs? It could probably swing an election.

You raise an interesting point. What happens in schools? So could a teenage boy wake up one day and self identify as a girl and walk into the girls changing rooms and then a week later go back to identifying as a boy again?

The same in an adult situation...

Because that is very scary!

Surely the only way it makes any sense is: A woman is a female adult, and (we must all pretend) transwomen are women.

But they don't want to say the part in brackets.

@MidCenturyClegs

Do you remember the Pink News tweet where they posted the hostage-style vid of Starmer saying TWAW?

Here are the tweet engagement stats:

What a disgrace to both the Labour Party and also their inept PR machine

As ever my posting skills are also inept too...

www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1402586773499244549

Starmer you silly billy.

Tories rule us for evermore, then.

[quote ScreamingMeMe]@ripx4nutmeg on twitter has put together this handy thread:

Here's a thread of just some of the statements Labour Party politicians have made recently when asked about women's rights and spaces against the backdrop of an increasing number of males who identify as women. First up, Sir Keir Starmer

twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1442783035389325313?s=20&t=8A8p4wIKIOd_6-trQAsnrg[/quote]
This one is the most chilling, he isn't even saying men who identify as women. He is saying all males! WTAF

@WeeBisom

“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.

Exactly! Adult human females are women. So transmen are women. And he says transwomen are also women.

So . . . all trans people are women? And women are women? It's getting crowded in here.

" Starmer replied: “A woman is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women"

If you follow his definition though, isn't he saying transmen are female therefore women?

Its a terrible definition that does absolutely nothing to clarify

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

Aye. That makes no logical sense, at all.

'A woman is a female adult, and in addition a male is a female adult.'

Because a man, of course, is the best person to define what is and is not a woman.

Yes @miri1985 that’s what I thought. His definition is transphobic to trans men.

I'm in despair

I'm actually shocked he came out and said that. What planet are these people living on?

It isnt his family that will be affected by the changes.

Also: 'trans women are women, and that is not just my view — that is actually the law.'

What fucking law? You actual fanny. Point it out to me, Mr Starmer. Sir Lord Starmer, whatever your name is.

legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/07/17/does-the-law-say-that-trans-women-are-women/?fbclid=IwAR3CaQsYKazdvxgLThUBa8Wfq81kLOcLkiGeR7TyfpBeHdRb0O8L80GAlLI

' “the law states that transwomen are women.” Does the law actually say this?

The short answer is no: the law doesn’t define the terms “transwoman” or “trans woman” at all. '

@DelurkingLawyer

Starmer’s view on this was a big topic of discussion at the party conference last year. Lots of activists muttering in corners about how they were GC but afraid of saying so openly in branch or constituency meetings because there was always one TWAW person who would try to get them expelled if they did.

Anyway, the consensus seemed to be (and it’s a small world where a lot of people are pretty well-informed about what’s going on) that the real problem is that Starmer has no strong opinion of his own on this. He therefore looks to his advisors to tell him what line to adopt, and they do not speak with one voice (some older women who know the score, and some TRAs, mostly gay males in their 30s).

I don’t think that’s changed. Hence we get a smorgasbord of “adult human female” and “TWAW”, combined with what I felt was a pretty underpowered response. Someone who cares passionately on either side would have more to say about it than this and more appreciation of what arguments the other side might raise. I sense that he wants to shut down the discussion, not just because it’s difficult, but because he is not interested, doesn’t think it’s a big deal and consequently hasn’t thought about it much.

Anyway just my two pen’oth. I joined in the hope that he was GC but not willing to rock the boat until the time was right. I increasingly doubt that, and if I’m right that he thinks it’s a fringe issue, that’s a piss poor approach. Can’t see I’ll last another year as a member TBH.

That's really helpful background, thank you delurking

“Male supremacy is fused into the language, so that every sentence both heralds and affirms it. Thought, experienced primarily as language, is permeated by the linguistic and perceptual values developed expressly to subordinate women. Men have defined the parameters of every subject. All feminist arguments, however radical in intent or consequence, are with or against assertions or premises implicit in the male system, which is made credible or authentic by the power of men to name. No transcendence of the male system is possible as long as men have the power of naming... As Prometheus stole fire from the gods, so feminists will have to steal the power of naming from men, hopefully to better effect.”
Andrea Dworkin

This isn't a petty side-issue. It's bloody central to everything - to our rights and our humanity. How fucking dare Starmer pronounce on this and then tell us to have a 'more considered' debate. He's already ended the debate by his patronising, patriarchal, misogynist, sexist, meaningless, one-eyed, pompous, anti-truth, bloody stupid redefinition of terms. I'm incandescent.

I think there are two issues here - the first is what the law says, I normally agree with Kier Starmer but on this case I don't agree with him. He is stating what the law says. In my view the passing of the law is the problem as once it was the legal it is problematic - I think the law should be repealed and that it was a grave mistake that this law was passed.

I think many of those who supported the law when it was originally passed did not think about the consequences and whilst I understand they viewed it as "equality" the impact has been the reverse. Perhaps there should be a campaign to repeal the legislation so that this is not a protected characteristic.