Starmer: biology matters

[tabbycatstripy]

“Biology matters, and for the vast majority of women that’s what matters. Nobody is quarrelling with that. But there’s no denying there are also a small number of people who struggle with their gender identity, and they go through a difficult time...”

Went on to say that three times. Almost exactly what Rachel Reeves said: “the vast majority of women” - in other words, there are women who are not female.

Robotic performance aside, it’s at least better.

@tabbycatstripy

‘Are you planning to enforce the laws of gravity next? Pass laws to prohibit humans from levitating, just in case someone does?’

Nobody is trying to pass laws to prevent people literally changing their sex. That can’t happen. No law is needed to prevent it.

So why the efforts to prevent people from socially and medically transitioning?

Again, why does this "biological reality" need social and legal enforcement? Why is your ideology centered on restricting something that you believe to be physically impossible?

‘Honestly, it sounds as though you're not saying "You can't change sex" as a statement of fact, but more as a prohibition.’

I said the opposite. Nobody needs to prohibit it. It’s not possible.

Nor do I want to prohibit people modifying their bodies to feel more comfortable. It’s not an issue for me.

‘So why the efforts to prevent people from socially and medically transitioning?’

I support people who feel they need to transition. I just don’t believe it literally changes their sex. It’s just a limitation on what is possible, not a preference.

@Cayeli

“Marriage is a social convention.”

As is the notion of womanhood or manhood.

“The two sexes of men and women still exist whether social convention chooses to acknowledge that or not”

Even if, so? Why does "biological reality" need social and legal enforcement? If you truly believe biological reality to be immutable, why not just let it be?

Are you planning to enforce the laws of gravity next? Pass laws to prohibit humans from levitating, just in case someone does?

Biological reality doesn't need social and legal enforcement, silly.

Women, however, need rights and protections in law based on that reality. Because of things that very definitely do happen.

It's not a subtle distinction.

@tabbycatstripy

‘So why the efforts to prevent people from socially and medically transitioning?’

I support people who feel they need to transition. I just don’t believe it literally changes their sex. It’s just a limitation on what is possible, not a preference.

So, why impose specific social identities on people based on their sex?

The physical characteristics are what they are. You do not need to impose labels and categories on people based on the physical characteristics they have.

‘So, why impose specific social identities on people based on their sex?’

I don’t.

‘You do not need to impose labels and categories on people based on the physical characteristics they have.’

We do. The physical categories exist. Naming them is useful and sometimes necessary.

@Cayeli

“Marriage is a social convention.”

As is the notion of womanhood or manhood.

“The two sexes of men and women still exist whether social convention chooses to acknowledge that or not”

Even if, so? Why does "biological reality" need social and legal enforcement? If you truly believe biological reality to be immutable, why not just let it be?

Are you planning to enforce the laws of gravity next? Pass laws to prohibit humans from levitating, just in case someone does?

Womanhood is not a social convention. Maybe retake GCSE biology.

So, why impose specific social identities on people based on their sex?

That's precisely what gender ideology is does. Feminists believe people have sexed bodies and personalities.

Poor Starmer. He’s never had to guts to say what he thinks about all this, and now he’s so tangled up in trying to repeat slogans that he’s pleasing no one and annoying everyone.

Pretty disappointed in him tbh, I was excited to have a QC leading Labour, but I’m still waiting for the flash of brilliance QCs usually come up with. Labour politicians spend too much time in echo chambers and need to get out and listen to voters.

I wonder who will replace him?

Hopefully someone knows that women make up half the electorate, and who can spot that female voters are fed up of being told by men that we have no right to opinions on what it is to be a woman.

@Letterasaurus

So, why impose specific social identities on people based on their sex?

That's precisely what gender ideology is does. Feminists believe people have sexed bodies and personalities.

Nope, you are the ones imposing the social identities of "man" and "woman" based on physical characteristics.

Trans people are the ones asserting people can live by any identity they feel comfortable with regardless of what their bodies are like.

@tabbycatstripy

‘You do not need to impose labels and categories on people based on the physical characteristics they have.’

We do. The physical categories exist. Naming them is useful and sometimes necessary.

It is never necessary, you just need to do so to impose your idea of social order. That's it.

Outside medical context, you do not need to refer to one's physical characteristics at all. Especially not in social interactions, and especially not on social media.

I won’t vote for him. I’ll vote for whichever party recognises a woman and defends her right to be safe taking a piss/in jail/ in a refuge/in a hospital and anywhere else. I will not have my daughters used as props in others fantasies or fodder for others fetish.

@Cayeli

“Marriage is a social convention.”

As is the notion of womanhood or manhood.

“The two sexes of men and women still exist whether social convention chooses to acknowledge that or not”

Even if, so? Why does "biological reality" need social and legal enforcement? If you truly believe biological reality to be immutable, why not just let it be?

Are you planning to enforce the laws of gravity next? Pass laws to prohibit humans from levitating, just in case someone does?

You (and your mob) have decided that womanhood is a social convention. Most people, however, understand womanhood to be the life existence of the adults of the female sex.

You've decided womanhood is, what, heels, dresses, femininity? The social side of being a human who "identifies as a woman"?

Even if you call it that, the reality of the adult females continues, as actual 'womanhood', even if you call it something else or refuse to dignify it with a name. All those living that female life, with the shared characteristic of being female, still exist.

The ultimate problem you will always have is that females are a separate class of people to males. Even if you socially/by convention ban all the words we can use to say that, there will still be females and males.

Please can someone wheel in Kathleen Stick and Emma Hilton to explain why labour when spouts utter nonsense it matters. I do hope LWD are going to finally have their requests to talk to Keir granted. Perhaps he could just watch the video from last year’s meeting to get up to speed? I don’t hold out much hope of clarity being achieved in time for May’s elections though

‘Outside medical context, you do not need to refer to one's physical characteristics at all. Especially not in social interactions, and especially not on social media.’

I’m afraid that isn’t going to happen. My perceptions are mine and I will discuss them when I feel the need to do so. Males objectively differ from females. That isn’t prejudice, it’s the truth.

Stock, Stock, not stick

Outside medical context, you do not need to refer to one's physical characteristics at all. Especially not in social interactions, and especially not on social media.

Why do you need to do it in a medical context?

You're very confused, Cayeli.

The feminist position is that 'social identities' should not be determined by sex. That's the genderist view, which argues that if you don't conform to sex stereotypes (Barbie, G Joe) you're trans.

@Cayeli outside of a medical context, there are several other contexts where the physical shape of the body matters. This includes sports and changing rooms and shared accommodation (e.g. prisons). These are primarily segregated based on sex and should remain so.

for the rest, things like jobs and housing and education and the right to vote, sex doesn't matter and neither does gender. we should be able to move beyond both.

He's crapped it. Lots more to come 'sir'

Trans people are the ones asserting people can live by any identity they feel comfortable with regardless of what their bodies are like.

But that's not true, Cayeli. Trans people are the ones imposing very rigid codes of dress and behaviour and undergoing painful surgeries to imitate the identity they profess.

If they were comfortable regardless of bodily appearance they wouldn't transition, surely?

@teawamutu

Trans people are the ones asserting people can live by any identity they feel comfortable with regardless of what their bodies are like.

But that's not true, Cayeli. Trans people are the ones imposing very rigid codes of dress and behaviour and undergoing painful surgeries to imitate the identity they profess.

If they were comfortable regardless of bodily appearance they wouldn't transition, surely?

Nope. Men and women, cis and trans alike, can all dress however they want. There's no "rigid dress code".

And no one "has to" undergo any medical procedure they do not want.

“Biology matters, and for the vast number of women what matters is biology. We all understand that, we all get that and that’s common sense. But there are a small number of people who are born into a gender which they don’t identify with and they strongly identify with another gender and they often struggle.”

It is GARBAGE! Here’s the clip. Worth watching to the end to see him repeat it 3 times in exactly the same words like a well-coiffeured parrot:

twitter.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1509536708357984259?s=20&t=Qx0R6FYzMWjPdQomdFr6Gg

Oo look, a sea lion!
(sea lions are not lions, btw)