Keir Starmer and misgendering

[Athenajm80]

I read something in Twitter that KS has said if he gets elected then he will make misgendering a crime. I was walking home so didn't read the whole article and typically can't find the tweet again.

I am confused about how that would work considering being GC is a protected belief in law. Has anyone heard more about this and can try to explain how it would work? Would he revoke GC being protected? Can he do that?

If he's upholding single sex spaces that's great. The Tories have thrown ours away.

What he means is he will retain single sex female only spaces, which any male can enter at any time and make use of. Which means using both the space and the females in it: it's not possible for a male to enter that space because they wish to and to meet their own needs without this using the females in the space. As Datun so often says, it's the presence of females in vulnerable and intimate situations that is the desired thing and not the space.

Starmer is committed to meeting that male desire.

Not one political party has the guts or the will to say that no, females are not a resource and should not be forced to be non consenting props and service humans to males or lose access. Because that would obviously sound insane and male supremacist. That's what they're doing, that's what they're supporting, but they will never admit it out loud.

Bloody cowards.

Not one political party has the guts or the will to say that no, females are not a resource and should not be forced to be non consenting props and service humans to males or lose access. Because that would obviously sound insane and male supremacist. That's what they're doing, that's what they're supporting, but they will never admit it out loud.

Sorry, totally incoherent from multi tasking.

Not one political party has the guts or the will to say that no, females are not a resource and should not be forced to be non consenting props and service humans to males, or lose access. Because they know they would have to deal with the howls of rage from the TQ+ political lobby and they are afraid.

They don't have the guts either to own it and say, yes we believe that females are a male owned resource and should be forced to be non consenting props and used by males or lose their access - up to and including their health care in crisis apparently - because that would obviously sound insane and male supremacist.

That is what they are tacitly supporting, and indicating that they believe though by their refusal to speak out. They're too scared to admit or to face it.

And yes, I still think they're all bloody cowards.

Half the time I think it is Russia destabilising the West stoking the culture wars but then Keir Starmer or Joe Biden speak and I realise that Western democracy really does have significant issues.

Oooh, next time I email her I will definitely get some of her pronouns in.
In fact next time I email any MP or well anyone who could help fix this I will happily misgender the lot.
Fun times ahead.

This could be the new form of protest 😁 If everyone is misgendered and misgendering, then who are the guilty and who are the victims?

Definitely misgendering of Keira would be a worthy protest of this BS.

Gah Keir

It is crazy but it's true.

@Alltheprettyseahorses I understood your brain dump perfectly

I also want to know how it would work with the gender fluids who change every day. Perhaps we could all go to labour hq and get misgendered by labour and the police....and what happens if the police misgender you in the custody suite ? 🤔

I thought you'd done that on purpose. I'm still laughing...Keira Starmer

it's probably just a matter of time.

Nah you had it right the first time!!

He’s going to make it easy for transwomen to become legally the female sex. Then he can ‘uphold single sex spaces’ and allow transwomen inside. He thinks he’s being clever 🙄 and that women will be too dim to notice all the men. All the rapes and choking etc will be recorded as crimes by women so it’ll be hard to unpick or even discuss once Starmer is through with the GRA.

I genuinely think Labour are throwing away the next general election over this. Sure they’re popular now, after the Johnson and Truss disasters, but Sunak seems competent and Starmer increasingly seems to be an idiot hell bent on alienating 50% of the population.

🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

This is why it’s all such a legal nonsense. Currently the legal position is that if you walk down the street and pass a biological man who has just decided in his head to identify as female, and you refer to him as ‘sir’, he can complain to the police that you hurt his feelings and they will record it as a hate incident against transpeople (or, if the police officer is particularly gullible, as hate crime). A lot of this is going on. This means that the statistics show a massive rise in hate crime / hate incidents, which statistics the TRAs then use to argue that they need stronger protections and entitlements to ‘feel safe’ by invading women’s safe spaces such as rape centres and toilets. M

It’s not accidental.

He's going to make it easy for transwomen to become legally the female sex.

How could he possibly make it easier? All it takes is a declaration and a couple of quid.🤷‍♀️ But men don't even need that. Just look at the case, a couple of weeks ago, where a male paedophile was reported as a woman and put in a women's prison and he didn't need a GRC.🤯

Can you guess the police response to women who said WTF?

He's going to make it easy for transwomen to become legally the female sex.

I know I'm quibbling, but buying into the language helps all this along. No male can become the female sex. Male is by definition not female. It's a ridiculous concept, it's absolutely batshit.

He would like to enable many males to enact a legal fiction on their identity paperwork that they are women - women having been a word now stripped of all meaning (hence the whole fixation on 'and now lets make female so stupid that another word is needed for females, and then cling to and drown that one too' - the ethics of which are many and multiple and have never been discussed or at all mandated.

Should it be possible for people to fictionalise their legal documents to a version of reality they like better than the actual one?

No of course not. That's bloody ridiculous on multiple fronts, the whole point of legal paperwork and documents is accurate information. What's the point in collecting it or bothering with it if it's fictional avatars?

Should it be possible for people to legally identify into a group they objectively are not and then claim access to the resources set aside to meet the equality needs and access needs of the group who actually do have that characteristic and can't identify out of it?

Obviously not. That way sheer madness lies, again on multiple fronts. Not least that those people needed those resources and shouldn't be competing with people not of that group who just like the fiction of being there with them and enacting having that characteristic.

And how exactly once sex is a matter of fictional choice, does Starmer plan to gate keep age or disability? Because those groups are getting steadily bolder and you're a fool if you don't think they'll exploit any opportunity to the last decimal place.

Starmer is out of his mind. Just not far enough to be honest with the electorate about all this, which shows even he knows its insanity and will do massive harm.

If he's upholding single sex spaces that's great. The Tories have thrown ours away.

If that was labours aim, they could have demonstrated that by stopping izzard waltz into the womens toilets.

Just a very quick thought (before I lose it in my meno brain)

Each time we have something happen and we all feel the need to email whichever company has decided to be nuts today, use they
For everything
So with m and s
They for the men in the womens, they for the person you are writing to, they for directors, they for you. It could be amusing as fuck, but start to make the point.

I don’t really understand misgendering. I use pronouns based on what I perceive someone’s sex to be.

Is it really going to be a crime not to use words someone else wants you to use?

Are there going to be pronouns which it is going to be acceptable to compel people to use, and those that aren’t? I mean - what if someone wants to be called her majesty?

And there would need to be many many exemptions or defences - English not a mother tongue, neuro diverse, has not been specifically told etc etc etc.

Apart from anything else, criminals would have a whale of a time in custody or in court - what would stop people changing pronouns every 5 minutes?!

If there is someone in politics who really can understand the law I'd say it is Keir Starmer so for all those on here saying his plans are unworkable I hope you are better qualified than him.

There was a time I might have taken that seriously. Oh how naive I once was.

But having a MNetter who regularly posts here and is a member of that legal community, it has been well evidenced that such training and participation in the law does not in any way automatically equate with representing it truthfully, or having the capacity to understand and interpret it in a fair, objective, balanced way. Take a look at the bench book and the various critiques of it.

Someone in hock to this ideology is fundamentally untrustworthy. it is based in a belief that truth and reality is a created thing by some and inflicted/forced upon others, and that you select from facts that you like and ignore/deny the unwanted bits.

Once upon a time I believed the police knew and understood the law too. Guess what...

has he actually said they will do anything more specific than 'update/modernise the GRA'?
because if I was him in week 2 say of being PM I'd say
right- modernising the GRA- let's appoint a committee to gather all the evidence we already have - let's speak to some people directly involved (including say, detransitioners and various whistle blowers)- lets consult with interested parties (including say prison governors, VAWG charities, sporting bodies, voluntary sector and trans people)
I think by the time this happens there will be ample evidence in the public domain to suggest that gatekeeping needs to be stricter not more relaxed and that legal fictions are irrelevant when it comes to safeguarding vulnerable adults and children

It's a stupid idea, however someone made coercive control illegal too and they rarely get through the courts. I would love to see a world in which abusive men were genuinely punished for their deeds and people accusing others of misgendering are laughed out of court. I can only dream.

What about misgendering a stranger who says they are a woman (not to you), but looks and dresses exactly like a man? What then?

I'll just point out that other countries have laws against misgendering. They are chilling in their effect, but it can be done.