Starmer wants you to "ask her to stand"

[ResisterRex]

I wasn't sure if it was a parody of some kind. But it seems to be real

https://twitter.com/keirstarmer/status/1594659089325457408?s=46&t=xQFF9CqEkX7Ts6jXg05dQ

The replies don't hold back

By "Her" does Smarmer mean the fragrant Eddie Izzard?

He talks specifically about Women, that 50% of Labour party members are women.

Whats wrong with that? do you disagree with the desire to have more women in politics?

I think its a bit of a leap to make this a trans issue, unless you ve another agenda?

I'm a huge fan of chief Brody on twitter. If you're on Mumsnet I'd like to tell you how brilliant you are.

It is fairly simple.

When you include males in your definition of woman, as Starmer does, then promoting this is a farce.

In Starmer's world, you could have a Government of 50% males and 50% males who identify as women and that would be progressive and in 'support of women's rights'.

But his "women" includes men who identify as women. All they have to say is "im a woman" and they'd be a woman in politics.

Comments like his mean absolutely nothing when "woman" has no real definition.

Every one of them could be XY, have gone through Male puberty, have grown up as boys and have all the male experiences with no real idea of what it is to grow up a girl and the different challenges we face. But if 50% of them identified as women then half their party would be considered women, diversity would be handled and women would be represented... except we wouldnt be, would we?

Remind me again how many times the Labour party has had a female leader?
And on the opposing side?
Virtue signalling at it's finest.

thevelvetchronicle.com/ny-democrats-quietly-dismantle-1-male-1-female-rule/

This shows very clearly what can happen when a policy with woolly definitions of man and woman impacts women.

If the policy was male / female I would applaud the statement from Keir however it's useless as a chocolate fire-guard when he says the word 'woman' can include adult human males.

Remind me again of the quality of these female leaders?

Thatcher aside and she was hardly a feminist, given she had almost no women in her cabinet & the effect on women of her policies.
The other two, were total failures, esp Truss, who cost the UK 30bn.

Personally, i want a PM selected on merit, not to tick a box.

Still don't see how wanting more women in Parliament is a bad thing, both parties allow self ID (which i think is ridiculous btw) haven't the Tories got a TW MP.

There is literally no one to vote for now. I won’t vote Labour because of this and certainly can’t vote for the Tories. It’s beyond depressing.

Its very sad isn't.

Not sure where I read it but the following resonated with me:

I haven’t left Labour, Labour left me.

ill always be left wing but fuck me they’re making it very hard.

@walkinginsunshinekat

No, the Tories kicked the GRA in to the long grass so they definitely do not support self-ID, in fact are becoming more resolute in their refusal to accept it.

Yes, positions should be given on merit. But ensuring that females have a fighting chance to start from is key. Do you know that women under the age of 30 haven't had 100 years of being able to vote yet?

This is farcical. And bullshit. We all know that he isn't referring to women.

Agree, no one to vote for.

Agreed on there's no clear party to vote for. Both the two main ones are terrible.
I'm more higlighting Starmer's performative hypocrisy which is pure box ticking.
I wonder if Labour will have a male "woman" leader before they have a female woman leader. That would be quite funny and also incredibly depressing at the same time.

Well - just a suggestion - why doesn't Starmer ask Karen Ingala Smith to stand?

Oh, wait:
kareningalasmith.com/category/labour-party/
www.spectator.co.uk/article/labour-s-bizarre-decision-to-bar-the-founder-of-counting-dead-women
labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/karen-ingala-smith-rejected-by-labour-party/

I'm guessing Karen is not the sort of woman he wants you to ask to stand.

It would be great if Starmer had briefly outlined what the Labour party has done and will do to enable women to stand for election. There are significant barriers to accessing politics for those with caring responsibilities, the majority of whom are women. Evening meetings, weekend rallies etc etc don't work if you have children/other dependents. And that's before you consider the fact that you will be exposing yourself to the online barrage of misogyny and sexism that women in the public eye face. And yes, there's the fact that "women" is being used in a way that makes no sense, to include someone like Izzard in the same category as women.

Well, i thought that so long as you had a medical diagnosis, you could say you were male or female?

The GRA of 2004 still stands & i don't believe the Tories have any plans to repeal?

As Labour have had several female deputy leaders and female shadow chancellor, i don't think they have a ceiling against a female leader.

I happen to agree on the "Labour left me" comment but on picking battles, i think this tweet isn't the one to fight,

All political parties need more females as we do in local govt too.

After what he did to Rosie Duffield, he has the nerve to say this? That man is a despicable slimeball. Absolutely disgusting human being.

All political parties need more females as we do in local govt too.

Yes but that's not what Kier is campaigning for. Any man in a dress will do. Women who says a woman is an adult human female are not.

Starmer:

https://twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1442783035389325313?s=46&t=xQF9CqEkX7Ts6jj_Xg05dQ

I can't believe he's got the nerve to call for more women to stand. The post about Karen Ingala-Smith really highlights what needs fixing in the LP. And look at poor Rosie Duffield. He needs to get his house in order before embarking on social media stunts.

Vote for the person (regardless of sex/gender/colour/creed) who has the most talent.

We've been short-changed for far too long.

If this issue is not addressed now walkinginsunshine, when will it be addressed?

In 10 years time when there are 10 transitioned males who have taken the places targeted for females? With all the young transitioned males who are taking the 'women's officer' roles in political parties and at universities, I don't think that number is unrealistic. Do you? When you consider just how many males are in those supposed 'women's officer' roles?

Do you consider those 10 female people missing out to be ok collateral? Because you feel that transitioned males can even adequately represent female people's interests at policy level? (if you do, please do show some examples because I have only seen the complete opposite, but hey, maybe I have not looked hard enough for the past 3 years)

What about the non-binary males, not just those males identifying as women?

What about in 20 years?

Using the sleight of hand language of 'women' in "do you disagree with the desire to have more women in politics?" is dishonest.

"Women" have been discriminated against for millennia. They have been actively discouraged from being political for decades. FFS when did UK women get the fucking vote?

Yet, in one fell swoop, you have just allowed males who do not have that historical oppression to take targeted places meant to help females to overcome that negative sexist discrimination.

How about instead, trans people have their own targets that equals their representation in the population?

"do you disagree with the desire to have more women in politics?"

If you want to phrase it the way you have, yes. I do disagree.

Do you disagree with the desire to have more female people in politics?

No. I certainly don't disagree that there should be more female people in politics. It is right that there is equal representation of males and females in politics and there should be all the encouragement for female people possible to enter politics until there is.

Starmer can’t ask ‘her’ to stand when he’s incapable of identifying who ‘she’ is.

Is that "ask anyone who uses the pronoun she/her to stand", Starmer?

As far as I know the idea isn't to recruit more feminists, not even from Labour, at least not explicitly. As if only feminists are really women.

And I'd hardly say the Tories have had women as a box ticking exercise. Nor do they support self-id. Which the LP still seems to.

Anyway, I think what is really going on here is that the LP are aware they need to somehow bring regular women back onside. But they also have a demographic which includes strong, and often female, supporters of gender ideology.

Starmer is trying to walk a line, but unfortunately for him I think both of those viewpoints are very aware of that and want a clear statement. Women who are moderate are the majority in the population by far, but there is a real core group of Labour supporters who are deeply into all id pol, and think anyone who isn't is a fascist. I'm not sure he's got the balls to stand up to those people.