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

@Swayingpalmtrees

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

Exactly this. But we won't. His handling of this issue is completely woeful. Cowardly, actually.

He wouldn't say whether males should be in female sports. That spoke volumes.

I would sincerely love to know what his wife/daughter/relatives think of his position - what does he consider them to be exactly? A mirage?

Sounds to me he very much wants the legal definition to trump the biological reality-based definition, and make it easier for anyone who wishes so to get their legal status updated.
Then anyone covered by the legal status will be entitled exclusive access to "single-(legal)-sex" spaces.

It's about as anti-woman as it gets.

'He wouldn't say whether males should be in female sports. That spoke volumes.'

He basically said there are ways to manage it.

What's the the it? It's males in female sports, isn't it?

Do you suppose he said to his family Happy Cervix Haver day

Are you popping over for a cervix haver lunch later?

Or perhaps the whole concept will be scrapped with Labour after all there are no such thing as mothers anymore.

What's the the it?

I am supposing he is talking about us tabby we are no longer women but an 'it'

It is deeply deeply offensive.

We need to press him on how it can be managed, I am sure we would all love to know the answer to that.

Usual crowd on Twitter moaning about 'gotcha' questions.

What is a 'gotcha' question? Is it a question asked because the asker knows the true answer is going to make the speaker look mad?

If yes, it works.

He's shifted his rhetoric, not his position

So now he annoys both sides? And confuses those people who aren't aware of the debate?

@ResisterRex

He wouldn't say whether males should be in female sports. That spoke volumes.

The misrepresentation of the actual law (which appears to have been the Stonewall/TRA strategy) is not something I can easily forgive from an actual Lawyer. So even if he completely changes Labour's policy, it won't be enough for me. I don't believe a word any of them say. Ditto LibDem, SNP, Greens etc. So the only vote left is......

No mattere how difficult he finds it to answer questions about what a woman is - and it's a little pathetic that it's such a struggle - he should be able to explain clearly what they intend to do with policy.

That's his bloody job.

And anyone who has been thinking KS might be able to be brought round, or that he doesn't really know what he means, think about this: he just said on national radio that all women are adult females.

And outcry from the TRAs there is none.

Why?

Because his language is careful, deliberate, and only benefits them. He is saying female is a purely legal state. Not a biological state. They know this.

They also know he will be able to fool some people with this pretence at a concession to reality.

Starmer can't spell out his policy or position clearly, and he will never will be able to, he knows he will lose half the electorate over night, so he continues to fudge and avoid the hard questions perhaps hoping he can keep Labour's true intentions and policies under the collective radar and out of the headlines.

It is deceitful and insulting.

You either run with policies you can justify to the electorate or you change them so that you are able to talk fluently and honestly about the party's position, you can't sit under a rock hoping the hard questions can be avoided if you sit it out for long enough.

I can not understand where the women in the party are on this, why is no one at all speaking out?

@Swayingpalmtrees

I can not understand where the women in the party are on this, why is no one at all speaking out?

They agree with him (mostly). All the leadership candidates (all but one female) in the last contest have a long record of agreement with him on this subject.

@Swayingpalmtrees

I can not understand where the women in the party are on this, why is no one at all speaking out?

Because by and large they agree.

As crazy as it might seem, progressive women are as likely, I think even more likely, than men to not only enforce this stuff, but to be True Believers.

And a lot of the women who really have a problem with it have left in disgust or been pushed out.

So the Labour party are an echo chamber with no one at all that truly represents us and our girls? Can understand our concerns for safety, for sports for identity?
Is that what you are saying?

I always assumed there were plenty of dissenters that were keeping quiet, but may in time find the confidence to assert themselves. If you are saying that every single female more or less is signed up, then we really do not have a party in opposition do we? Not a serious one, because it only speaks for one half of the population. The Men. With the 'non women' cheerleaders/birthers/cervix havers that have swallowed the propaganda and either knowingly or not knowingly are and have been ignoring the consequences to millions of women.

That is one hell of a situation we find ourselves in today.
The seismic impact of Labour actually winning would be huge. Unthinkable.

How can anyone call a woman progressive if she is choosing to erase herself exactly?

It is self immolation.

"I can not understand where the women in the party are on this, why is no one at all speaking out?"
Look at what has happened to Rosie Duffield. That's why they don't speak out. They are cowards.

The screwed up, pained face when asked if women can have penises. As though it's all just too crass for words. The problem is that when 1 in 5 women have been raped (I think that's the stat) with a penis, it is highly relevant. And given women are still impregnated by penises, again, it's pretty relevant.
And when the people with penises have been oppressing the people with vaginas for millenia, it's relevant.
They take away the language we use to describe ourselves, and then pretend to be wearily disgusted when we're forced into actually referencing anatomy - because female and women no longer have a meaning.

Yes Rosie was sadly an example to all, this is what happens if you sway from the party line.

He said

"All adult females are women, of course they are."

Wouldn't that be considered an incredibly 'transphobic' statement by transmen and non binary, female sexed people? Doesn't it follow then that

All adult males are men, of course they are and therefore they have no business in women's spaces and sports?

I know that the TRA lobby has co-opted 'female' for redefinition, but surely when Starmer says 'female' he still actually means 'female'? In which case, he's admitted that he can see the Emperor is naked; he just didn't mean to declare it.

'I know that the TRA lobby has co-opted 'female' for redefinition, but surely when Starmer says 'female' he still actually means 'female'? In which case, he's admitted that he can see the Emperor is naked; he just didn't mean to declare it.'

No. He doesn't.

Marsha De Cordova is also being told off for liking a tweet by Milli Hill, I think.

@bellinisurge

"I can not understand where the women in the party are on this, why is no one at all speaking out?" Look at what has happened to Rosie Duffield. That's why they don't speak out. They are cowards.

A number of women have faced disciplinary procedures or expulsion for speaking out. You get the few that do, like Rosie Duffield. The rest have either left or aren't willing to put their head above the parapet once they've seen how the others are treated.