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

"Be kind " got us to this point. Now it's time to be honest

Well yes quite. Being kind has got us absolutely nowhere apart from a loss of more rights.

It would be good to start from a position of fact at least, and work from there.

I am truly wondering why Starmer and Labour ARE so deeply invested in the first place. Why? Donors maybe?

Why is there such an entrenched position that is so alienating to 51% of the population? Not to mention themselves, family members etc or do they imagine the coal face of consequences will not be experienced by them?

One lobby group makes up at best 1% of the population
The other group is 51%

Anyone would tell you it is a no brainer. I just don't understand it.

'I am truly wondering why Starmer and Labour ARE so deeply invested in the first place. Why? Donors maybe?'

Because politicians are a self-selecting group. They enter politics with agendas, in this case 'social justice', rather than 'justice'.

He's a muppet. And a bigot. And we need a leader who can lead an effective opposition not someone who does not have the balls to share an actual opinion.

can Kier, with extensive knowledge of equal rights and the law, see that he must separate ideology from equal rights advocacy in the Labour Party?

Keir must see that he is breaching the human rights of women by continuing with this stance, he must know and can not care.
Are women not entitled to 'social justice' tabby?
Unless you are part of the 1% your rights, safety and identity is irrelevant unless you are a man of course and then it is guaranteed?

Well the Lib Dems got “ donations” for a big pharmaceutical company so that explains their ridiculous stance, so maybe a decent journalist should have a wee look at the Labour party’s donations. Following the money is often a fruitful path.

Yes I suspect it is linked to agreements/donations too.

There is no reason why any party would actively work against 51% of the electorate in plain sight, social justice or not, it does not ring true.

Biden it was discovered had made agreements prior to the election, it was covered extensively by American journalists. We might yet discover why Labour are so welded to their philosophy which comes at a (high) cost to their chances of actually ever being in government again.

I do wonder whether we appreciate just how much the impact of all the teenage girls caught up in this are having? Outside of the two transwomen I know, my main contact is with vulnerable teenage girls self IDing out of their sex - all with significant mental health problems etc and all so vulnerable. When you centre these children in this debate, it takes on a very different tone. Of course, the issues are about social contagion, co morbidities and everything the Cass Review identifies. But I suspect if you're not familiar with the grim reality of trans sex offenders / Wi Spa / Lia Thomas, NHS policies then objecting to this massive social change might feel "wrong".
Just musing really, but it seems, yet again, as played out in the Denton's Playbook, the #nodebate that enabled this to happen behind closed doors with children captured / weaponised at the earliest opportunity has been very successful in framing women's warning voices as "unkind".

I don't feel sorry for him. It's his job.

And I don't believe it doesn't come up at LP meetings and that it's somehow new. I say this because it has been coming here for years and I know women who left as far back as 2017 over it, having been told to stop being bigots by males who were happy to let the women do all the donkey work like setting up stalls, so long as they didn't step out of line.

If Starmer lacks the courage to say what we all know to be the Truth, then what other cobblers would he say once in charge with Commons majority? How much worse things could be, doesn't bear thinking about.

Nothing he says males sense.

He says of course hes going to keep women safe.

Women deserve safe spaces etc. But until he actually defines who he is talking about it doesnt mean anything

'Are women not entitled to 'social justice' tabby?'

Justice is justice.

Social justice isn't justice, it's a distortion of the concept that presents people according to a hierarchy of oppression.

It is just for women to have single-sex spaces, which we need in order to mitigate against the proven dangers presented by males, and in order to meet our needs for privacy and dignity in a grossly sexist society.

In the 'social justice' model, those considerations are inverted. Pointing out that males are a threat to females becomes unsayable unless you pretend that some males are females. 'Women' become 'cis women', a privileged group trying to exclude 'other' women from their legitimate rights.

So no, we just deserve justice.

@Rhannion

Well the Lib Dems got “ donations” for a big pharmaceutical company so that explains their ridiculous stance, so maybe a decent journalist should have a wee look at the Labour party’s donations. Following the money is often a fruitful path.

I’ve wondered how much is donations now or promised.

Where did Blair’s government get money from and his has that changed?

The Labour party have become a lost cause to so money women.

@Swayingpalmtrees

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

Yes, he thinks it's best if we just keep quiet.

I mean its possible he has a plan, get in power, sort this out to advantage women(cunty type) and rest on his laurels, but I doubt it. What will actually happen is the menz shout louder and swing their dicks, and the women yet again are told, after the revolution sweetheart now go make the tea dear.

His - how

'I don't feel sorry for him. It's his job.'

Nor do I. I don't buy any of the 'poor baby MP Keir Starmer, only sixty years old and been an MP for six years and leads the Labour Party and wants the nuclear codes' talk.

He can't have it both ways. He's either a big boy who can have the big conversations, or he's not PM material.

So no, we just deserve justice

Justice designed by and defined by men, of all kinds.

@Swayingpalmtrees

So no, we just deserve justice

Justice designed by and defined by men, of all kinds.

Justice is justice. Nobody 'designed' it. I'm as happy with a fair decision made by a man as I am by a woman. Half the politicians calling me a 'terf' are female.

In the meantime the women fighting the Russian men in Ukraine are fighting for this 'freedom'? Our model of democracy? Where they can't even identify themselves as women.

We owe it to them at least to do better.
My teen dd is finally on side, it has taken three years of Saturday night conversations but there was a final straw for her. When a friend turned into a guy overnight and she was 'expected' to now fancy 'him'. All of her friends challenged her as to why she did not find 'him' attractive. It was an enlightening moment for her.

The lived reality of our teens is seriously messed up.

Why can’t he just answer the question , he used a refuge as an example . If a transwoman is a woman how could you legally exclude them from a refuge? He is supposed to be a legal expert but he won’t answer .

I'm glad she's seen the light. IMO young people have been left blindsided by the internet, a new and aggressive psychological landscape they should have been better protected from.

'If a transwoman is a woman how could you legally exclude them from a refuge? He is supposed to be a legal expert but he won’t answer.'

You can, using the single sex provisions in the Equality Act. Those allow services to be provided for biological females, not males, whether or not they possess a GRC and are legally female.

He is fudging that deliberately.

'I am truly wondering why Starmer and Labour ARE so deeply invested in the first place. Why? Donors maybe?

Yes I expect that’s it.
Apparently Labour’s finances aren’t in a good way so they have to take what they’re offered.

Wankers, never vote for them again