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

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

The ones Stephen Whittle et al have been clear they've been promised in cosy back room meetings over a cup of tea and know is in the bag the second Labour get in power?

But the ones Labour don't have the guts to tell the electorate openly and so sound like a bunch of erming ahhing twits about?

• Self ID. Any male can identify as whatever they want at any time
• Removal of exceptions for single sex protections for females from the EqAct2010 (Stonewall have desperately wanted them gone for years for all they keep yelling that they don't exist, they really don't, they don't work at all)
• full male access at will to all female only spaces, fuck the impact upon females and the exclusion of females, yay progressiveness.
• normalisation that females with inconvenient protected characteristics can just be denied services, shunned and punished for their lack of support for male people while still expected to pay taxes
• a lot more females being arrested and prosecuted and visibly punished to teach the rest of them to shut up.

The next ones we can probably make intelligent guesses at?

• redefinition of homophobia and misogyny in law to better protect male people and shut up inconvenient female people who don't know their place as walking resources
• safeguarding boundaries to be removed at will if TQ+ is involved.... any oh whoopsie outcomes that causes kids and other vulnerable people fully predictable harm, well, shrug, it's all in a good cause, minimise the recording of it and letting it get into public knowledge, and emphasise a lot that those harmed were far less important and vulnerable than the people the boundaries were moved for
• full blown conversion therapy law that largely prevents anything at all but enthusiastic affirmation regardless of a child's presenting needs
• making it much easier for children to access life altering medication and surgery. (Again, some oh whoopsie issues ahead but whatevs right?)

God only knows the bits not even Stonewall have dared to mention yet, but I very much doubt it all stops there.

I've just watched the last part of this interview and completely agree that Sir Keir looks both constipated and extremely shifty. He refused to answer the question about males in women's sport or the question about whether women can have penises properly. His strategy appears to be fudging the issues and using language in a slippery and dishonest fashion. I really can't see this strategy standing up in a General Election campaign. If it's clearly laid out that Labour Party policy is to make single-sex spaces and services effectively (or actually) illegal, indecent exposure a non-crime, women's sports completely expendable etc, even those women and men who at the moment are going along with it may have second thoughts. I'm sure many people who know a little but not much about it at present don't think they or their family will ever be adversely affected. It seems such a niche issue because so much of it has happened on the QT and is frankly bizarre, but I do think this is changing. I've had more real life conversations about this in the last couple of weeks than in the last couple of years. Only one person has been full on TWAW and everyone else has been either well informed and GC or not very well informed and willing at least to discuss the issues.

Boris isn't coming out of this question well either. Or, his spokesman isn't:

"The Prime Minister has "a very clear position" on trans rights, his official spokesman said.

The spokesman was asked whether the PM thought trans women were women, and said people have "the ability to change their legal sex and how that's recorded"."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/03/28/keir-starmer-refuses-answer-whether-woman-can-have-penis-latest/

Hand up who would've guessed that:

"[politician] refuses to answer whether a woman can have a penis in latest [party] confusion over trans debate"

Would ever be a headline?!

I heard the interview live. Surely the point Starmer was making is that that this is a complex issue, there are two sides to a dialogue and it needs to be conducted in a civilised, respectful way and not at the simplistic reductio ad absurdum level that exists at the moment on both sides.

Ferrari was trying to get a headline and not at all interested in understanding the legal contradictions and practical technicalities of the issue.

Yvette Cooper got it right with 'I'm not going down that rabbit hole'. At the moment, the extremists on both sides are deeply entrenched and shouting at each other across no man's land, figuratively speaking.

At the moment, the extremists on both sides

Knowing the definition of “woman” does not make me an extremist.

@Thymeout

I heard the interview live. Surely the point Starmer was making is that that this is a complex issue, there are two sides to a dialogue and it needs to be conducted in a civilised, respectful way and not at the simplistic reductio ad absurdum level that exists at the moment on both sides.

Ferrari was trying to get a headline and not at all interested in understanding the legal contradictions and practical technicalities of the issue.

Yvette Cooper got it right with 'I'm not going down that rabbit hole'. At the moment, the extremists on both sides are deeply entrenched and shouting at each other across no man's land, figuratively speaking.

What do you think the extremist position is?

Can you define it more eg those who say you can’t change sex or something else

It's difficult, isn't it, because the law does actually allow them to change sex. So it's not legally incorrect to say 'TWAW'.

Would be okay to hear politicians say, 'Yes, a TW with GRC is a woman on a strictly legal basis. However, it's ]reasonable - at at times necessary - to separate that administrative category out from adults born female, and therefore I will use the terms "women" and "transwomen" for clarity.'

No problem for me.

'Yvette Cooper got it right with 'I'm not going down that rabbit hole'. At the moment, the extremists on both sides are deeply entrenched and shouting at each other across no man's land, figuratively speaking.'

Why should we vote for people who refuse to engage with us on the issues we care about? Why is it anything but deeply offensive to call us 'extremists' because we choose to have lines we won't cross, based on reason and science?

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.

I don't think we should underestimate the importance of 'trans children' in this.

Many people, when faced with having to say something about transgenderism which will appear to be 'unkind' towards a vulnerable young person they know who is caught up in this, will try to avoid the question.

I don't think it's a case of 'follow the money' in this case. I think it's much more personal, and is to do with the fact that so many children, in particular teenage girls, now identify as trans. I think it was Emily Thornberry who mentioned at one point that she has a close relative who identifies as a transman. How many other MPs are in a similar position, or have a close friend whose child identifies as transgender, making them terrified to speak out because of the potential personal consequences and the effect they think this will have on the vulnerable young person?

It’s all about passing the buck to individual organizations, just like the SNP / Greens are trying to do in Scotland. They say that organizations can use the single sex provisions if that organization chooses to, so what happens when they don’t?
I can give a clear example of what happens when an organization completely ignores the law.
I don’t know if everyone on this thread is familiar with the situation at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre where a trans identifying man without a GRC is the CEO. That post was exclusively meant for a woman. As an aside Sturgeon is a friend of that person.
I know it’s a different political party but the point still stands.

@Thymeout

Whether or not women have penises is not a complex issue. People have tried to pretend this is complicated and it isn’t - you are either male or female and humans can’t change sex. Sometimes being male or female matters - sports, hospital wards, prisons, changing rooms, medical treatment and screening. If it’s one of those occasions then you need to be treated according to your sex, in some instances a third space/service may be appropriate for trans people.

The end.

'How many other MPs are in a similar position, or have a close friend whose child identifies as transgender, making them terrified to speak out because of the potential personal consequences and the effect they think this will have on the vulnerable young person?'

We need to know their positions, because if they can't or won't look at the issue objectively because of a personal issue, they're not able to discharge their responsibilities.

@tabbycatstripy

'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.

Why is he fudging it deliberately? if the law does make a definition in those circumstances , in other words accepts biological differences , why can’t he?

And was he saying a refuge is a different situation to a prison or toilets etc ?

Where do you draw the line ?

Good questions, Unsure. We should pin him down on those. But I think he is saying a transwoman with a GRC is female and should be able to use a women's refuge that has used the single-sex exception.

@tabbycatstripy

It's difficult, isn't it, because the law does actually allow them to change sex. So it's not legally incorrect to say 'TWAW'.

Would be okay to hear politicians say, 'Yes, a TW with GRC is a woman on a strictly legal basis. However, it's ]reasonable - at at times necessary - to separate that administrative category out from adults born female, and therefore I will use the terms "women" and "transwomen" for clarity.'

No problem for me.

Apart from the ambiguity and obfuscation around whether part-time crossdressers and the like are transwomen, this is a much clearer position that could be supported by many people across the political spectrum. But no we are in full-on woowoo land instead

[quote HermioneWeasley]@Thymeout

Whether or not women have penises is not a complex issue. People have tried to pretend this is complicated and it isn’t - you are either male or female and humans can’t change sex. Sometimes being male or female matters - sports, hospital wards, prisons, changing rooms, medical treatment and screening. If it’s one of those occasions then you need to be treated according to your sex, in some instances a third space/service may be appropriate for trans people.

The end.[/quote]
I totally agree about third spaces . my suggestion was they could be called “freestylers”

But still not sure how far it could be extended?

I think most people know this Needs sensible discussion but we need to start from a sensible base / starting point .

'Apart from the ambiguity and obfuscation around whether part-time crossdressers and the like are transwomen, this is a much clearer position that could be supported by many people across the political spectrum. But no we are in full-on woowoo land instead'

The difficulty with the position I've laid out - which I think is fair to both women and transwomen and recognises everyone's legal rights, is that it denies the woo. The woo cannot be denied.

Boris isn't coming out of this question well either. Or, his spokesman isn't:

"The Prime Minister has "a very clear position" on trans rights, his official spokesman said.

The spokesman was asked whether the PM thought trans women were women, and said people have "the ability to change their legal sex and how that's recorded".

So that's a yes, then. Unless you want to allow him a get-out card to avoid answering the question that you're not willing to allow Starmer.

[quote HermioneWeasley]@Thymeout

Whether or not women have penises is not a complex issue. People have tried to pretend this is complicated and it isn’t - you are either male or female and humans can’t change sex. Sometimes being male or female matters - sports, hospital wards, prisons, changing rooms, medical treatment and screening. If it’s one of those occasions then you need to be treated according to your sex, in some instances a third space/service may be appropriate for trans people.

The end.[/quote]
^^ This puts it so well!

@Swayingpalmtrees

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?

i used to think it was the Twitter effect - confusion that people who shout loudest on there are representative of voting public.

Now I think it got to be money or good old fashioned misogyny it's a woman's issue so unimportant - ie they'll still vote for us so can ignore with a huge does of dismissing concerns with it will never happen and when it does victim blaming or lessons will be learnt platitudes.

Unless you want to allow him a get-out card to avoid answering the question that you're not willing to allow Starmer.

Oh I'm keen to hear Boris answer this question directly too, don't worry about that.

James kirkup being brilliant as always

www.spectator.co.uk/article/starmer-won-t-talk-about-sex-and-gender-that-s-a-problem

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

Stonewall deliberately filled the parties - Labour, LDs, Greens and SNP most successfully - with "true believers". Backfired a bit with Aimee/ Ashton, but they kept going. Then a bit of 'wrong side of history' hyperbole, 'be kind' threats and as PPs have mentioned, the weapons ingredients of shouty twotter, and bingo, everyone is either brainwashed or too frightened to speak up.

This was a deliberate act of infiltration. It didn't just evolve

@Fifteentoes I wonder too how many votes this will cost them? I'd like to think that they've alienated 50% of the population who will not vote for them, but I doubt it. Surely they have focus groups and they're following those? I also think KS is terrified of losing the young vote, especially in university towns and cities as well as alienating the captured in his Party. Whatever the reason, you'd think he might have prepared for such questions. They're not going to stop so he needs to sharpen up.

I do think it will cost Labour votes (including mine) but I wonder how many.