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

Labour, and progressive political types generally, have adopted a worldview that sees human dignity as something that comes from validation of internalized identities, and social justice as equality of outcome in terms of these identities

Mangy I come from generations and generations of serious Labour supporters and party members. This is a relatively new thing. This certainly was not an issue at all in the last few decades. Labour has always stood for working men and women, their rights and equality for all - it has strived to break down the structures of classism and elitism, not successfully always, but to broaden opportunities regardless of your family name/money and connections. The identity politics is new.

The pp whom suggested Labour has been targeted and brainwashed into this ideology was correct in my view when you look at the last forty odd years. Labour has always represented ordinary people. That is not to say they can't support other groups, because of course they can and do, but not to the obvious detriment of other equally or more vulnerable groups.

The idea that Labour is welded to this issue needs to be challenged. It is not part of their fabric any more than anything else. It needs to pointed out over and over again the danger they are putting us in, and that we can not vote for this, ever.

Self ID is all very well as long as it does not put women and girls in danger or at a severe disadvantage i.e. sports. How difficult can it be to come to a conclusion that people can call themselves what they want, and be respected, but if you have a penis you can not access women only spaces on a whim. Provisions can be made for them so their rights and privacy to be respected, and this should be understood and respected by everyone, including cis women whom I am assuming are as appalled as anyone else when women are raped in supposedly safe spaces.

I know I have simplified, but really we should see some leadership on this, some plain speaking, some honesty. Anything else is a sell out as far as I am concerned and I am happy to challenge every single Labour MP on it. I will not shut up.

Should read trans not cis!! Obviously!!

I’d like to know when this ‘discussion’ is going to take place. So many politicians keep telling us they’d like an ‘open discussion’, and that they’d like to ‘take the heat out’ of the debate in order to discuss…so when are we going to have this ‘discussion’?

Times article about this, close to 500 comments already:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/92c0d200-aeab-11ec-8b8c-0207c0fd6104?shareToken=475b5f66a09e0df5114cd86a9aad66e0

@Whatthechicken

I’d like to know when this ‘discussion’ is going to take place. So many politicians keep telling us they’d like an ‘open discussion’, and that they’d like to ‘take the heat out’ of the debate in order to discuss…so when are we going to have this ‘discussion’?

They are happy to have any discussion with twitter active TRAs.. Not so much women though. It's ironic, really. Most of the pro Self ID posts come from about a dozen bot accounts... But they make the most noise. So we need to be noisy too #bekind? They mean #bequiet

An open discussion would be very very welcome.

I suspect the advisors' cheat sheet currently looks a bit like:

• We don't know what a woman is (But a TW is definitely one)

• We're denying knowing what a woman is because if we tried to answer we'd have all the female voters yelling at us that we've just disappeared and erased them to please male people and what planet are we on, and we'd also be piled on by a political lobby whose behaviour when displeased can involve more than just yelling

• Shit we've painted ourselves into a total corner. Run away!

• Blame everybody (but don't go into what for, ffs, words are dangerous!) and keep saying that discussion is needed while never, never, never actually having one or facing any issues at all

• Shut eyes, cross fingers, hope desperately that somehow the electorate is stupid enough to decide we're the people to run the country and defend their rights despite all the above evidence.

@Artichokeleaves

I suspect the advisors' cheat sheet currently looks a bit like:

• We don't know what a woman is (But a TW is definitely one)

• We're denying knowing what a woman is because if we tried to answer we'd have all the female voters yelling at us that we've just disappeared and erased them to please male people and what planet are we on, and we'd also be piled on by a political lobby whose behaviour when displeased can involve more than just yelling

• Shit we've painted ourselves into a total corner. Run away!

• Blame everybody (but don't go into what for, ffs, words are dangerous!) and keep saying that discussion is needed while never, never, never actually having one or facing any issues at all

• Shut eyes, cross fingers, hope desperately that somehow the electorate is stupid enough to decide we're the people to run the country and defend their rights despite all the above evidence.

Yes, you’ve just nailed it.

When the phrase ‘we need to have an open, sensible discussion’ is trotted out, I just wish an interviewer would say ‘well, let’s have that discussion now, that’s what we are here for’, or even just ask ‘when?’

@Artichokeleaves

I suspect the advisors' cheat sheet currently looks a bit like:

• We don't know what a woman is (But a TW is definitely one)

• We're denying knowing what a woman is because if we tried to answer we'd have all the female voters yelling at us that we've just disappeared and erased them to please male people and what planet are we on, and we'd also be piled on by a political lobby whose behaviour when displeased can involve more than just yelling

• Shit we've painted ourselves into a total corner. Run away!

• Blame everybody (but don't go into what for, ffs, words are dangerous!) and keep saying that discussion is needed while never, never, never actually having one or facing any issues at all

• Shut eyes, cross fingers, hope desperately that somehow the electorate is stupid enough to decide we're the people to run the country and defend their rights despite all the above evidence.

Ha yes exactly.

They are hopeless

I voted Labour and continued to under Corbyn. Sadly I just can't vote them anymore.

Just watched it.

Genuinely, I don't understand why Keir's answer to 'can women have penises' wasn't "yes, of course!" Especially straight after discussing women in sports.

Is he getting any flak for not affirming this? I thought he believed it whole-heartedly, right? Does he think saying 'penis' might cause gender dysphoria in trans women?

Also amazed at him calling trans men and NB females 'women'.

Annoyed that the interviewer didn't pin him down on his contradictory beliefs.

Annoyed that the interviewer didn't pin him down on his contradictory beliefs.

Few of these interviewers really understand what's going on, only on a superficial level. Also, because it's really only tackled one issue at a time, the contradictions can be missed.

We really need a full open discussion where all of the processes are discussed, from the gra, EqA, sports, SSE, the lot. All politicians have made and are making decisions and aren't held to account.

I'm getting increasingly frustrated with interviewers who miss this open goal too. Or just wander away in the other direction without even noticing it.

The Labour leader said that he was an “advocate of safe spaces for women” while also arguing that the law on gender identification needs reform. (from the Times article.) I wish someone would just say HOW? Exactly HOW are you going to manage the contradictory demands of introducing self ID and upholding safe spaces for women? If there's a way of doing that, let's have it clearly explained. If there isn't, as I suspect, stop fecking saying it.

No one actually wants to venture that far winter and be subjected to the wrath and the mud slinging afterwards. Or they are warned off in advance.
I suspect they ask enough to just about keep on the right side of comfort. A serious enquiring mind would ask the relevant questions, and continue to do so until a full answer was given.

I'm also a lifelong Labour voter and until recently, member @Swayingpalmtrees. I agree with a lot of what you say, but I disagree that Labour have always stood for working women, or any other women for that matter. Labour was formed to protect working men, preferably trade unionists. This is one of the reasons they were to slow to encourage women's trade union membership and rights. Working women were seen to undercut men's wages and undermine the idea that a working man should earn enough to keep his family. Obviously this changed over the 20th century, but residues of this masculine culture persisted and still do. The fact that Labour have not had a female leader or chancellor is a reflection of this. Concessions to women and our rights have been hard won within the Party, and are not a product of some inherent sense of equality and fairness in Labour men.

Male trade unionism dominated the LP until relatively recently and the shift away from this has helped Labour to win more women's votes. But the prioritisation of men and their rights remains paramount.

@Swayingpalmtrees

Labour, and progressive political types generally, have adopted a worldview that sees human dignity as something that comes from validation of internalized identities, and social justice as equality of outcome in terms of these identities

Mangy I come from generations and generations of serious Labour supporters and party members. This is a relatively new thing. This certainly was not an issue at all in the last few decades. Labour has always stood for working men and women, their rights and equality for all - it has strived to break down the structures of classism and elitism, not successfully always, but to broaden opportunities regardless of your family name/money and connections. The identity politics is new.

The pp whom suggested Labour has been targeted and brainwashed into this ideology was correct in my view when you look at the last forty odd years. Labour has always represented ordinary people. That is not to say they can't support other groups, because of course they can and do, but not to the obvious detriment of other equally or more vulnerable groups.

The idea that Labour is welded to this issue needs to be challenged. It is not part of their fabric any more than anything else. It needs to pointed out over and over again the danger they are putting us in, and that we can not vote for this, ever.

Self ID is all very well as long as it does not put women and girls in danger or at a severe disadvantage i.e. sports. How difficult can it be to come to a conclusion that people can call themselves what they want, and be respected, but if you have a penis you can not access women only spaces on a whim. Provisions can be made for them so their rights and privacy to be respected, and this should be understood and respected by everyone, including cis women whom I am assuming are as appalled as anyone else when women are raped in supposedly safe spaces.

I know I have simplified, but really we should see some leadership on this, some plain speaking, some honesty. Anything else is a sell out as far as I am concerned and I am happy to challenge every single Labour MP on it. I will not shut up.

It's only the past 10 years that identity politics have suddenly taken over as the only way to think among progressives. And I'd even say, the last five to seven where all of a sudden, every person who thinks of themselves as a progressive seems to have decided that it is the only way to think.

But you know what is really weird is that I don't think they realize that this approach is in many ways opposed to traditional class analysis. They aren't going to be saying - on now we aren't for workers, we are doing identity politics. Because they don't seem to realize the foundations of these things are different.

I'm not sure I can believe, after Brexit, that Labour is really a party for workers. They'd like to think so, but look at the condensation they treated Euroskepticism among working people - for decades the most common view of Labour MPs and voters. The change was not voters but the party, and reflected the fact that middle class people have always benefited from a more globalist approach. They were completely unable to step outside of that position to even understand or respond appropriately to the people they claim to represent.

It would be great if they would reject identity politics, but I don't see how that can happen. It's a completely circular ideology, if someone challenges it they are complicit in evil systems.

So really mangy the conclusion after Corbyn and the split in the Labour party became obvious to all, was really just the very tip of the iceberg.
If we accept that Labour now no longer support working people, has now come away from its roots of equality and social mobility and instead now gravitates around a middle class identity social justice model, then what we clearly need is a brand new opposition party. The Labour party is dead. It ceases to exist outside of the Islington bubble and is now used as a vehicle for change by fringe groups.

Indeed when we consider how little the party have to say on anything else, no coherent strategy around the economy/healthcare or even education which has always been a bedrock of the party, we can see perhaps more clearly that the party has in fact been taken over wholesale by activists which would explain the low quality puppet shadow ministers that are wheeled out with scripts every once in a while. The lack of content, passion or values is transparent at every turn. The panic sets in when the zombie performances are challenged....which is unusual given many of the media outlets allow them a very free ride.

When we really stop to consider what and who the opposition party actually are in 2022, take a deep dive into their values, policies and promises and what is clear is that the real Labour party has long gone. The ship sailed long ago, and taking advantage of the vacuum are some well funded, well managed coordinated groups with a very clear directive.

We need a new party.

Yes, that's certainly one possibility. The LP after all took over from the Liberal, so a new party could work.

I think there could be room for a very grass roots party that was very traditionally leftist, but not state socialist, very focused on empowering communities, and probably on the socially conservative side, to do very well.

The problem is that some of the policies it might have would be a hard pill to swallow for some. Because chances are in would indeed have some protectionist views, would want less controversial social value teaching in schools, would have lots of people who wanted to affirm the precedence of national sovereignty approaches, would be wary of movement of labour and international trade deals that give a lot of power to corporate entities.

I'm not sure how much of that would be acceptable to many FWR posters. Some, for sure, but for others they would feel it was moving backwards.

I suppose the other possibility is that more and more of those people will move in a real way to the Tories, and it will begin to affect their overall policy approaches. There's always been a lot of cross-over between traditional conservatives and traditional leftists, so I don't think that's unimaginable. In some ways both parties now are split internally between those who uphold the more traditional thinking of the party (by which I mean pre-1980s) and those who are liberals.

At this point that seems more likely to me than a change in Labour. Which isn't to say it's very likely either.

@Datun

I'm also a bit surprised at the suggestion that people are uncomfortable saying the word penis.

Course, that could just be because in the last five or six years, I've personally said it 28,463 times.

And approx how many times did you qualify it with womanly or female or girly or people.

I dont think I've said penis without a qualifier for about 6 years now.
Saying that I've never said penis as much either, never had to, the penis people knew to stay the fuck out of our few spaces.

We should add up our single sex spaces and compare to mens spaces.

We have/had toilets, changing rooms, swim sessions, hospital wards and prisons
Men have literally everywhere.
Yes I'm being silly, no need to @me

@Swayingpalmtrees

So really mangy the conclusion after Corbyn and the split in the Labour party became obvious to all, was really just the very tip of the iceberg. If we accept that Labour now no longer support working people, has now come away from its roots of equality and social mobility and instead now gravitates around a middle class identity social justice model, then what we clearly need is a brand new opposition party. The Labour party is dead. It ceases to exist outside of the Islington bubble and is now used as a vehicle for change by fringe groups.

Indeed when we consider how little the party have to say on anything else, no coherent strategy around the economy/healthcare or even education which has always been a bedrock of the party, we can see perhaps more clearly that the party has in fact been taken over wholesale by activists which would explain the low quality puppet shadow ministers that are wheeled out with scripts every once in a while. The lack of content, passion or values is transparent at every turn. The panic sets in when the zombie performances are challenged....which is unusual given many of the media outlets allow them a very free ride.

When we really stop to consider what and who the opposition party actually are in 2022, take a deep dive into their values, policies and promises and what is clear is that the real Labour party has long gone. The ship sailed long ago, and taking advantage of the vacuum are some well funded, well managed coordinated groups with a very clear directive.

We need a new party.

All of this.

The LP's attitude to the great unwashed and uneducated proles with all their wrong opinions demonstrates everything wrong with professional politicians.

Mandelson was not joking when he said the dream of him and New Labour was the 'post democratic era' where professional politicians in their ivory towers with all their theories would control and direct the country in their superior knowledge and 'right way' and the stupid voters would not have to bother their silly little heads about it. Or have any ability to get in the way of politicians' agendas with things like wanting actual representation, or the power to resist being forcibly Done Good to, willing or not.

The hyperactive legislation for 'message sending' that resulted in bloody awful, badly thought out and stupid law such as the GRA, the absolute lack of integrity and accountability now so fashionable, and the stupid ideas such as 'hate speech' is all part of their legacy. The grandchild of that is alternative facts and selective realities.

Not people you want in charge of a cake stand, never mind a country.

[quote Igneococcus]Times article about this, close to 500 comments already:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/92c0d200-aeab-11ec-8b8c-0207c0fd6104?shareToken=475b5f66a09e0df5114cd86a9aad66e0[/quote]
thanks for the share. quick query, how do you see comments, can't seem to see anything when I look.

@MangyInseam

Yes, that's certainly one possibility. The LP after all took over from the Liberal, so a new party could work.

I think there could be room for a very grass roots party that was very traditionally leftist, but not state socialist, very focused on empowering communities, and probably on the socially conservative side, to do very well.

The problem is that some of the policies it might have would be a hard pill to swallow for some. Because chances are in would indeed have some protectionist views, would want less controversial social value teaching in schools, would have lots of people who wanted to affirm the precedence of national sovereignty approaches, would be wary of movement of labour and international trade deals that give a lot of power to corporate entities.

I'm not sure how much of that would be acceptable to many FWR posters. Some, for sure, but for others they would feel it was moving backwards.

The next generation of politics to inherit and sort out this mess will have to be a generation of grown ups, with boundaries, not reactive to who shouts the loudest and not afraid of tantrums and manipulative behaviour.

It will need to be a central left party of live and let live, and tolerance. Where that tolerance is going to have to include:

• define yourself any way that you like and that is great AND you cannot be homophobic and treat homosexual people badly for being breathing, walking unwanted bits of reality

• define yourself any way that you like, name yourself however you like, that is great AND no one changes sex, here are third spaces so that there are alternatives to sex based spaces if you don't want to use them, AND female spaces are for female people only for their equality and access, and female is not something that can be identified into.

• Define yourself how you like and that is great AND safeguarding exceptions will not be happening under any circumstances.

Essentially the concept reintroduced of 'equality and respect for all' not just 'respect and all the things for my current pet groups and others not like me are scum who can be treated as a subclass', and that the word 'no' and 'this is not for you' is not 'hate speech'.

Keir S - I am open to a discussion on this.
Presenter asks a relevant question to open discussion.
Keir S - no, not THAT discussion, THAT discussion is not helpful. You are all being intolerant and I won't tolerate it.

I don't know, I tend to think "define yourself as you like" is a political and cultural dead end.