Telegraph - Keir Starmer: Pro-trans laws are needed across UK

[ResisterRex]

At first glance, just (just!!) a rehash of his video from last year. Which said what it said. But there's this:

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/23/keir-starmer-pro-trans-laws-needed-across-uk/

"Asked by The Telegraph about the leader’s comments to Pink News, Labour confirmed that he stood by plans to reform the GRA.

A party spokesman said: “All political parties agree that the process needs modernising. A future Labour government will consult on what that looks like, while upholding the Equality Act and maintaining single-sex spaces.
“Labour has a strong and proud record of standing up for women’s rights. Our commitment to them is unrelenting.”
Trans rights have become a key electoral battleground in the USS_ and are expected to be similarly important in the UK at the next general election."

Do all political parties agree the GRA needs updating? The Tories just made it easier to get a GRC, and they've not said they plan to do more.

Once again the "maintaining single sex spaces" rhetoric. But next to the Haldane judgement? Come on.

Yes, but when people talk about 'genuine trans people', there never seems to be an explanation of what is meant by this, and what distinguishes them from (for example) crossdressers or fetishists. Or are crossdressers and fetishists also 'genuine trans people', since they are also covered by the Stonewall trans umbrella?

Julie Bindel says:

It is one thing for a person who has thought deeply about transitioning, lived for an extended period in the gender of their choice, engaged in hormone treatment and undergone gender reassignment surgery to be accepted as a trans man or woman.

But quite another for someone who remains to all intents and purposes a member of the biological sex into which they were born to demand the same rights and privileges.

Some fetishists go 'all the way' with hormone treatment and even surgery. And from the obsessive rants you see on the internet, they have definitely thought deeply about this. Are they to be considered 'genuine trans people' and should these males be given the right to enter female-only spaces?

What is a 'genuine trans person'? What distinguishes them from others who identify as trans?

And what does she mean by living in 'the gender of their choice'? Surely this is sexist, misogynistic, homophobic bollocks.

To say 'genuine trans person' is, to me, about as meaningful as saying 'genuine legal fiction' or 'genuine fake'. All you can do is play legal polemics with it - there's no biological reality there though. And if there's no biological reality then the legal mind-games fall like a house of cards, because the law of England & Wales is underpinned by biological reality.

The GRA should never have received Royal Assent. (And lest we forget, Peter Goldsmith - now a Peer - was Blair's longest serving attorney general, who approved it. I wonder what he thinks of it now.)

Does anyone know why in the last 12 years the Tories haven't repealled it then?

'contrary to popular belief, the law cannot be based on an absurdity'

Be good to see this confirmed.

Also on this note: 'Trans migration to “liberal Scotland” is already being planned.'

While the Scotgov might be the most liberal of all in this most liberal of worlds, the general populace certainly isn't. This is going to cause friction.

I think it’s only really been in the last 4 or 5 years that it’s dawned on people what an absolutely shit law this is since trans activists have shown their hand and how far they are prepared to push women’s boundaries (all the way). The tories under May must’ve considered that there was popular support for reform (self ID) or they would never have started the ball rolling. It was only through consultation that it dawned on them that not only was there not support from their own voters but also no support from many left wing feminists. The trouble with repealing the GRA is it will be met with cries of “genocide” and “rolling back of rights” and no party wants to deal with that. We know that once these laws are in place it’s virtually impossible to get rid of them which is why it’s so important that self ID is rejected at this point.

Oh, so Boris only found out what a woman was 4 or 5 years ago.
Makes sense, before then he had been treating them like his play thing, but since then well, he has been partying away taking us all for fools.
But hey, at least he knows what a woman is.

Sorry I’m not really sure what your point is. I’ve no doubt that Boris has always known what a woman is but not certain how this is relevant to my post.

Once but Jeremy Corbyn and Keir had a beer, have proved to be rather foolish lines to attack the Labour party over the past few years the next one was, Boris knows what a woman is. If had always known, then he wouldn't have been in government for years supporting a party that apparrently only recently found out.

I’ve no idea what you are talking about. Who said anything about the Tories only just finding out what a woman is? I was talking about GRA reform and the Tory u turn on it in a fairly neutral way. My take on it is that they thought they had popular support for what they assumed was a progressive harmless tweak of the law and then after consultation realised that it was slightly more complicated than that. This has nothing to do with anyone knowing or not knowing what a woman is. If my analysis is wrong why not debate my point rather than misrepresenting what I have said.

That poster is not arguing in good faith

which is a shame to be honest

So if the Tories are supportive of trans it is progressive and harmless, but if Labour is it is an attack on women. Got it.

Have to say right now I'm more interested in what might have led to JB's apparent about turn and also in how it how will go down with some of her supporters. Pity half of Twitter is still in a post Christmas coma but there are some decent acrobatics from WPUK: supportive of Julie while ignoring what she actually said:
twitter.com/Womans_Place_UK/status/1608080405860868096?cxt=HHwWgIDTmf6mhtEsAAAA

It's incredible that in each response I give you twist what has been said into something else. I like to give the benefit of the doubt but by this point I can only imagine you are doing it on purpose.

I didn't say that self ID was progressive and harmless under the Tories. I said that the Tories THOUGHT they had popular support for what they ASSUMED was a progressive harmless tweak of the law. The fact they did a u turn means they probably realised they were wrong on both counts. I'm not sure why you think this is so controversial.

In my mind self ID is harmful whichever flavour of government pushes it on society. It is bad law full stop. The GRA is bad and unnecessary law. It's reactionary and as we have seen, particularly over the last 4 or 5 years, leads to authoritarian sanctions on those who do not believe that you can change your sex or those who want to maintain women's boundaries, single sex services and sports etc.

I think you're right. I'm a bit slow on the uptake though. I'll leave it there now.

I suspect you understand perfectly, but I'll explain it to you again anyway.

5 or 6 years ago when the Tories were talking about GRA reform, they, along with Labour, thought that this was a harmless and progressive move which would have popular support.

The consultation showed them that the popular support wasn't there, and the proposals were opposed by left-wing feminists as well as many Tory voters. They now understand what the wider effects of GRA reform would be, including the impact on the rest of society, women and children in particular. Labour don't seem to have caught up yet. Perhaps they will eventually.

Good explanation. If pp doesn’t take it in or find it helpful it makes sense

Although I’m not sure Labour or the left care much, and will change eventually, looking at Scotland

He may be doing it deliberately so that we have to opportunity to explain the issues to any lurkers who are new to this debate.

I'm not sure why you think this is so controversial.

I don't think it is the least controversial. Giving those who are trans the opportunity to live their best lives without harrassment seems like an excellent idea to me.

'Giving those who are trans the opportunity to live their best lives without harrassment'

What does this mean? Every crossdresser having the right to enter a women's changing room?

Women and girls have rights too.

And if transwomen living their best life involves a reduction in dignity, privacy and safeguarding for natal women and girls that's ok with you?

No evidence has been provided that the two things are mutually exclusive.

@jgw1 - you should clearly read a few more threads in this folder which seem to demonstrate that absent protected spaces for natal women they clearly are mutually exclusive, when self-ID means any predatory male can simply declare himself to be a woman.

I didn’t realise they were male

live their best lives

Karen White doesn't get to 'live his best life' in a woman's prison. I just don't care if he would prefer to be in a women's prison. He's a rapist. His feelings are not my priority.