Sir Keir Starmer on women's rights, sport, and penises, in LBC interview

[IsitM]

Not an original description, but 'car crash' is appropriate. From 9.30 this morning; if you want to listen to the whole thing.

www.lbc.co.uk/radio/special-shows/call-keir/sir-keir-live-march-28/

www.lbc.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-lashes-out-intolerance-transgender-issues/

twitter.com/LBC/status/1508363760834129921?s=20&t=k2pIF3WY0Y3dlwWEkwlz7w

twitter.com/LBC/status/1508364365367492615?s=20&t=k2pIF3WY0Y3dlwWEkwlz7w

twitter.com/LBC/status/1508365179708485634?s=20&t=k2pIF3WY0Y3dlwWEkwlz7w

That went well! Good on Nick Ferrari for making him squirm.

Yes Keir wasn’t exactly articulate.

That was about as clear as mud, wasn't it?

'Safe spaces for women'.

He says all adult females are women, but in that definition, does he exclude, or include, people who have acquired LEGAL female status through the process of gender reassignment, and does he exclude, or include, people who claim to be 'women' through self-ID?

Obviously if self-ID goes through and the answer is that he wants to INCLUDE people who have acquired legal female status through the process of gender reassignment in women's safe spaces, then it means there are no safe spaces for biological females.

He is so disingenuous.

I’ve searched on Labour’s site - perhaps I’m missing it.

What are the actual changes Labour want to make to the GRA/GRC & knock ons’ for the Eq Act?

I would like to see interviewers ask these questions. It’s all well and good to ask the sharp, sound bite type questions and laugh at the word salad squirm but I’d like to see them pinned down by their own manifesto.

Or are Labour too weasely to write them down, just reliant on general themes and non committal words?

Starmer wants to reform the GRA to bring in gender self-ID so that anyone who wants the legal status of being 'female' can have it with minimal medical gatekeeping or reflection time.

The result of that shouldn't affect the provisions in the Equality Act, but will, if the interpretation that succeeds is that the single-sex exceptions mean legal sex, not biological sex.

the interpretation that succeeds is that the single-sex exceptions mean legal sex, not biological sex.

The more males that are "legally" women, the sex category of woman as a protected characteristic for equality aims will be less based on biological sex and women's health and safety.

Apologies I should have put the quotes around "women".

'The more males that are "legally" women, the sex category of woman as a protected characteristic for equality aims will be less based on biological sex and women's health and safety.'

True. He knows this very well.

Still not voting Labour anytime soon. Until Corbyn, I voted Labour since 1987.

All cats are cats and should have safe spaces just for cats and under Labour a dog will be able to quickly and easily get legal recognition as a cat.

Ferrari said that Starmer has been referred to the EHRC, which was in the Mail:

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10656127/ANNA-MIKHAILOVA-Sir-Keir-Starmers-trans-drivel-reported-equalities-watchdog.html?fr=operanews

Article ends:

"All this raises another question: 'What is an effective Leader of the Opposition?'"

Indeed.

Did he say that he didn’t think that women shouldn’t separate changing rooms? He could barely get the words out could he. Clearly he is shit scared of getting it “wrong”.

What are the actual changes Labour want to make to the GRA/GRC & knock ons’ for the Eq Act?

We won't know details until the manifeto and I strongly suspect not even then but from what I can gather from recent statements:

1. They want to allow anyone to obtain a GRC with a simple statutory declaration- much like the scottish proposal.

1. Starmer says this makes someone a woman in a legal sense. That would probably mean (at least) changing the guidance around the EA2020 to make it very hard to aply single sex exemptions of any kind. In practice that means total self ID, without needing to pass a new law.

1. I very much doubt they will amend the EA or any of the legislation which referrences sex instead of gender.

*Sorry, that should be EA2010.

I get Labour want self ID. I just can’t find it on their website.

I want to see if there’s been any analysis of proposed changes and their effects.

I want to see/hear from Labour (or the other parties) what this would mean in law. Consequences of the changes to the GRA/GRC and how this would affect the Eq Act - either intended or unintended. Because it will.

& not just Eq Act. It will bleed into other areas. SEND, Children’s Act, Education Act, Health, Employment etc…. Change one thing and you will need to change other dependent sections of legislation.

This is why I want to see the politicians pinned down on what they want to change & then the journo follow the thread. This has always gone beyond women’s and children’s rights. It’s just we’re the ones are the sharp end.

I want to hear more than the pithy sound bites and tired tropes.

@donquixotedelamancha

What are the actual changes Labour want to make to the GRA/GRC & knock ons’ for the Eq Act?

We won't know details until the manifeto and I strongly suspect not even then but from what I can gather from recent statements:

1. They want to allow anyone to obtain a GRC with a simple statutory declaration- much like the scottish proposal.

1. Starmer says this makes someone a woman in a legal sense. That would probably mean (at least) changing the guidance around the EA2020 to make it very hard to aply single sex exemptions of any kind. In practice that means total self ID, without needing to pass a new law.

1. I very much doubt they will amend the EA or any of the legislation which referrences sex instead of gender.

Yes. If you remember Dawn Butler let the cat out of the bag re their 2019 manifesto.

They don't plan to make any legislation changes to the EQA or wording about single sex spaces. What they intend to do is change the meaning of the word 'sex' so it no longer means human female.

Keir has managed to make 50% of the party politically homeless.
I don't understand why the female power brokers within the party are not making any kind of stand on this....the silence is deafening and kind of terrifying.

You can't erase women and expect no one to notice.

He's going to have to trot out that pained disapproving expression quite regularly. If you're promoting inconsistent unscientific beliefs as facts then people quite rightly ask "what does that mean?" "explain that"

So - can a woman have a penis Sir Keir? We have a right to know. And will keep asking.

I listened to the whole interview live and felt he'd shifted a bit towards neutral ground. there's still a way to go for the politically homeless but at least the door opened a crack by saying a) he wanted to talk and b)he understood the need for spaces for women in line with EQa 2010

I don't see any meaningful shift at all. I see plenty of shuffling words around and avoidance.

Until this is addressed Labour are never ever going to win an election, how can any woman seriously vote for them?! It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

:So - can a woman have a penis Sir Keir? We have a right to know. And will keep asking.'

And it's a perfectly simple question. A barking mad question but that's where we are at the moment. I could hear him physically squirming at the question. Mortified for him. Absolutely pathetic

'I listened to the whole interview live and felt he'd shifted a bit towards neutral ground. there's still a way to go for the politically homeless but at least the door opened a crack by saying a) he wanted to talk and b)he understood the need for spaces for women in line with EQa 2010'

He's shifted his rhetoric, not his position. He doesn't really want to talk or he would have talked to Labour women who disagree with him already. And he can say he understands the need for spaces for women but if he defines women as people who may or may not have a penis, he is distorting the law.

He actually wants us all to shut up talking about it.

@Swayingpalmtrees

He actually wants us all to shut up talking about it.

Yes. And he can't say penis, because he's a melt.

He's shifted his rhetoric, not his position

yep