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

I don't think Starmer will lose millions of dyed-in-the-wool 2019 Labour voters from this. Maybe 50,000 GCs (including me) but that won't kill his chances of being PM. Lots of women support self-ID.

What might kill his chances is being unable to win back enough of the votes that went to Johnson in 2019. Particularly older men, who don't.

About time Labour started actually reading the room, and asking people on the doorstep how they feel about adult males with a penis being allowed into loos and changing rooms with young girls.
Labour have become the party of not listening and then slagging off the people who vote for someone else.

I think I must be on the extremist end then as I believe that whether a man has a penis or not, he should exclude himself from women’s facilities.

Fuck you Keir Starmer.

That is all.

Cooper did not get it right by stating she isn't going down that rabbit hole.

Why must the safety and well being of girls and women by a rabbit hole! How can she even get away with saying that??

We are already so bound by what can't be even whispered out loud, our own politicians are unable to speak candidly. Censoring the whole nation won't work for long, the backlash will grow and grow, and so will the resentment. Stonewall and others will find themselves being deserted on mass as people wake up to the realities of their fringe campaign, and understand the fall impact of their toxicity.

My dds have/had been brainwashed to an inch of their lives, thankfully have the intelligence and critical thinking skills to question it all. I believe whole generations are being indoctrinated, and it goes well beyond Keir and is dumb answers and his go slow answers. A day of reckoning is coming, and it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

*be a rabbit hole

Sorry *full impact.

Not read the whole thread. I am ragi g after listening to that interview with Starmer.
He says he has sympathy with women like me who were in abusive relationships yet I doubt he has any idea how many refuges for women admit men.

He doesn't think changing rooms are single sex spaces.
He calls certain people ie women intolerant.
He refused to answer the question.
He wouldn't say a woman can or cannot have a penis.
He is no ally to women. He has drawn a line in the sand.

Kier Starmer and Labour are no friends or supporters if women.

[quote jenny5000]@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.[/quote]
Yep, and then you've got to consider that the opposite policy would cost some votes too. Coming out firmly against any extension of trans rights, and certainly for repealing or limiting any current provisions, would raise huge howls of transphobia that would contribute further to the perception (already strong) among the left, the young, the urban woke etc, that Starmer is not a genuine left leader but just another Tory in disguise.

The Tories don't have a such a problem with this as their core support is skewed much more towards the older and more socially conservative. There is an important base of socially liberal middle class people who vote Tory for purely economic reasons, but they tend to be more pragmatic and willing to compromise on principles to maintain the one all-important outcome of winning elections. They were generally pro-Remain for example, but still voted Tory in sufficient numbers when, for obviously political/electoral reasons, Johnson threw his weight behind Brexit.

The more he speaks the more angry he makes me.
I will never vote for Labour again.

I really think there is a big problem in viewing this like Brexit. Or Indyref.

It's not an old vs young issue for starters. Many younger voters do see through the BS of weaponised suicide stats, and the issues with things like mixed-sex rape counselling.

The difference is that they're less financially secure and less able to be free with their views. Those voting to stay in the Union also kept quiet about their views.

A difference I accept is that younger voters are less likely to vote. Older voters - Conservative ones especially - are more likely to get out and vote.

At the ballot box, people CAN express their views. Labour might not like what the voters who turn up have to say.

@tabbycatstripy

I don't think Starmer will lose millions of dyed-in-the-wool 2019 Labour voters from this. Maybe 50,000 GCs (including me) but that won't kill his chances of being PM. Lots of women support self-ID.

What might kill his chances is being unable to win back enough of the votes that went to Johnson in 2019. Particularly older men, who don't.

A lot of women support self ID ?

Really ?

I don’t personally care what people wear , if they wear make up , high shoes or a suit , I could not give a damn. But that does not make them a woman or female .

Where do you draw the line about what you can self ID as ?

Unsure:

I think they do, yes. They might not have thought it through to the whole conclusion of intact males in female spaces. But in general it's a more popular policy with women than with men.

It is very likely that Starmer will be pressed more and more on this issue, and the cracks and headlines will appear and it will become a topic of debate pre election and therefore allowing all voters to consider whether the Labour proposals are safe/decent/in line with their own values. Millions of votes could be lost, because there are a surprising number of men and fathers that also do not agree at all with the Labour policy. It is not just women that are concerned about this issue.

It's also very possible that the ones who don't say anything have strong feelings against it that they just haven't mustered the courage to express yet.

Given that they are likely to be condemned online, shouted at by their teenagers and possibly fired for saying they don’t think words can make a man female, it does indeed take courage to say that publicly. What a weird world.

@Awkwardy

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

The other issue is the invention of the idea of 'trans children'. This was also deliberate. Once everyone knows one of these young people who identify as transgender - someone in their family, children of friends, friends of their children - it makes it much harder to speak out about this in public, because criticism of gender woo looks like criticism of the children caught up in the gender c**t.

The promotion of the idea that children can be 'trans' (always referred to as 'trans' or 'transgender', not 'transsexual') was a deliberate and cynical move by the people promoting genderism.

Placing both these children and transvestites under Stonewall's trans umbrella means that we are supposed to view a man who gets off on wearing frilly knickers with the same sympathy and consideration that we view vulnerable teenage girls who are coming to terms with their changing bodies at puberty.

This was deliberate.

@Swayingpalmtrees

Cooper did not get it right by stating she isn't going down that rabbit hole.

Why must the safety and well being of girls and women by a rabbit hole! How can she even get away with saying that??

We are already so bound by what can't be even whispered out loud, our own politicians are unable to speak candidly. Censoring the whole nation won't work for long, the backlash will grow and grow, and so will the resentment. Stonewall and others will find themselves being deserted on mass as people wake up to the realities of their fringe campaign, and understand the fall impact of their toxicity.

My dds have/had been brainwashed to an inch of their lives, thankfully have the intelligence and critical thinking skills to question it all. I believe whole generations are being indoctrinated, and it goes well beyond Keir and is dumb answers and his go slow answers. A day of reckoning is coming, and it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

I agree and his washy excuse about everyone being tolerant is rubbish . We all need to be able to discuss freely , because otherwise ignorance breeds intolerance..

When it comes to women’s rights it’s crucial we can speak clearly on it.

Fudging, talking about rabbit holes, extremism or hiding behind ideas of tolerance are all ways to stop women talking about it.

I think quite a few posters are exemplifying my definition of extreme. You know full well that Starmer is not disputing the biological definition. Like everyone else, except the extremists on the other side wanting to be whatever they feel on the day, he knows that you can't change biology.

But, this issue is about more than biology, which, strictly speaking, is only applicable in medical matters. Women won't get prostate cancer and men never need hysterectomies. Beyond that, other issues enter the picture to reflect societal concerns. E.g. when does a child become an adult, stop being a minor? Some cultures consider a girl is a woman and nubile when she starts menstruating. Activities involving physical strength. Age of consent, criminal responsibility, voting rights have been discussed and legislated for. Dictionary definitions no longer apply in every instance - e.g. marriage.

It won't be an all or nothing solution. Neither side is going to 'win' when their aims are mutually exclusive. Politicians aren't fudging the issue. They are recognising that there's more than one issue involved here.

biology, which, strictly speaking, is only applicable in medical matters

What do you mean?
Are sports medical matters?
Is rape a medical matter?
Is voice recognition a medical matter?

But, this issue is about more than biology, which, strictly speaking, is only applicable in medical matters

I disagree my biology affects me every month when I have a period, every pregnancy that I experience, my hormones and my responses. My biology allows me to breast feed babies and to create life. My biology goes well beyond medical matters, I am surprised you would say such a thing. My experience as a girl and a woman is a result of my biology and is a living, breathing reality of mine. So it is hardly an irrelevance!!

I have no interest in 'winning' only ensuring mine and my dd's right to privacy, human rights, freedoms, to participate in sports fairly and our identity remain in tact is not too much to ask for thyme given men have had this for thousands of years. It is not something I am prepared to sacrifice in any way shape or form to be clear.

@Thymeout I think quite a few posters are exemplifying my definition of extreme

Care to enlighten us about your definition of “extreme”? I think you must have a fairly idiosyncratic working definition of that word, to be honest.

You know full well that Starmer is not disputing the biological definition. Like everyone else, except the extremists on the other side wanting to be whatever they feel on the day, he knows that you can't change biology

I don’t know that because he can’t get a coherent sentence out on the topic.

This is what James Kirkup says.

The mismatch between legal reality and public perception helps explain why this issue remains live and heated: politicians collectively created a situation where some women do indeed have penises, but very few of those politicians are prepared to explain this fact to the public.

And he's right.

They have created a situation that any fucking fool could see coming (and many did). And now they are having to deal with the fallout.

They compounded it by having this ridiculous ideology taught to children in schools, so now they are faced with row after row of desperate children who think they can change sex.

And the reason they won't talk about bloody penises, is because they're petrified, as James says, of alerting the electorate to their wholesale idiocy.

Most people would have a fit if they thought a man could be granted legal status as a female, with access to all areas, whilst having a criminal record for rape and being fully intact.

So what are they doing about it?

Making it fucking easier!!!!

And if I hear one more bloody person utterly refuse to talk about any of it, whilst looking pained and saying we need to talk about it, I'll fucking explode.

You can't talk about it Kier, because the general public will think you're unhinged.

Let mumsnet invite him on here (again). There can't be any heat cos it's just words on a screen.

Let's bloody talk then.

@Datun

This is what James Kirkup says.

The mismatch between legal reality and public perception helps explain why this issue remains live and heated: politicians collectively created a situation where some women do indeed have penises, but very few of those politicians are prepared to explain this fact to the public.

And he's right.

They have created a situation that any fucking fool could see coming (and many did). And now they are having to deal with the fallout.

They compounded it by having this ridiculous ideology taught to children in schools, so now they are faced with row after row of desperate children who think they can change sex.

And the reason they won't talk about bloody penises, is because they're petrified, as James says, of alerting the electorate to their wholesale idiocy.

Most people would have a fit if they thought a man could be granted legal status as a female, with access to all areas, whilst having a criminal record for rape and being fully intact.

So what are they doing about it?

Making it fucking easier!!!!

And if I hear one more bloody person utterly refuse to talk about any of it, whilst looking pained and saying we need to talk about it, I'll fucking explode.

You can't talk about it Kier, because the general public will think you're unhinged.

Perfectly put.