Starmer and his 99.9%

[bellinisurge]

The Labour leader is desperately trying to stay on the fence with his 99.9% of women are biological women schtick.

He repeated it in the recent MN interview.

Let me be clear, as he is so fond of saying, 100% of women are biological women. And as long as you keep pandering to this alleged "0.1%", we will lose the language we need to describe us, and we will lose the right to single sex spaces. Women are a sex class. And any attempt to pretend otherwise will fall over at the first scrutiny. And you will lose the election because you have manufactured an existential crisis for women. Try harder.

Is any word not a dog whistle now?

Since reality does not align with gender ideology, any true statement aboir sex or gender unavoidably becomes a dog whistle.

Awesome. Just call me Barbara Woodhouse then.

It won't be long before saying 'dog whistle' becomes a 'dog whistle'.

Did that drive by poster explain what rights are being lost? Because the right to be validated by 51% of the population who need to put themselves at risk to do so isn't a right. It's a demand for compliance.

Quite.

Did that drive by poster explain what rights are being lost?

• they never do
• the right to unfairly subordinate and exclude females and to own/control all female spaces
• to trump and oppress female rights

In essence. Oddly no one ever wishes to state this or defend it.

Dogwhistle.

Noun.

Meanings:

Shut up
Shutupshutupshutup
That conversation is really inconvenient and I don't want to have it
These are facts and thoughts that risk believers being drawn away from the One True Faith if permitted to enter their heads
Paniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiic

minipie 31/10/2022 14:08
What’s he trying to say with his 99.9% point? That this isn’t a big deal?

Well yes it is if that 0.1% are allowed into women’s safe spaces and sports. 0.1% is enough to have a significant effect on the women who have to share those spaces with them.

If they just let one man into a women’s prison for every 1000 women, or one male Olympic athlete into every women’s Olympic event, would he think that was ok? As it’s just 0.1%?

Not to mention the erasure of the meaning of the word woman as pp have said. Does dog still mean dog if 0.1% of dogs are actually cats? No it doesn’t.

I think many more than 1 in 1000 people are MtF transgender now.

The .1% is, i think based on the number of people with a GRC. But hes ignoring those men with the protected characteristic of GR.

What he should have been asked is:

Should born male with a GRC be able to use womens single sex spaces?

If not, how will that be enforced?

If they can, what facilities do women use who cannot share facilities with born males?

Should men with the PC of GR be allowed to use womens spaces?

If yes, what are the numbers? And how do we determine which men have the PC of GR and those who do not?

Given some born males are given strong female id without a GRC, how do service providers determine the difference between the .1% and those self identified male born women?

@ZuttZeVootEeeVo , those are questions which, up to this point, have been answered by Labour with "Be Kind, you bigot".

GR for Gender Reassignment and GRC Gender Recognition Certificate is all so confusing. I don’t believe that in practice most people know what either means in law or would dare to tempt legal trouble by excluding any form of man identifying as a woman.

I am struggling to get past Filia and the Labour Women's Declaration being denied stalls at the Labour Party conference. Which weren't even refilled for the event.

That action is the Labour Party actually stifling women's speech and feminist thought.

What words can Starmer give us to make up for that action?

FunnyTalks · Today 09:55
I am struggling to get past Filia and the Labour Women's Declaration being denied stalls at the Labour Party conference. Which weren't even refilled for the event

That action is the Labour Party actually stifling women's speech and feminist thought.

What words can Starmer give us to make up for that action?

He has probably worked out that he represents more women Be-Kinds as a percentage than he represents suppressed women who see this new oppression.

So he may feel smug and secure about those women he has been cancelling. He’ll probably be careful to evade any questions about it though.