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.

@jgw1 - Can you show me where I said that?

For the sake of clarity, please could you define exactly what you meant by 'one small idea'? In real-world practical terms, preferably.

Self ID which I thought was the topic of this thread.

jgw1 · Today 17:15

There was a poster earlier complaining about people twisting words. I see what they mean.

Really? How is quoting your words back at you "twisting" them?
Here's the post in question:

jgw1 · Today 14:09

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.

Self-identification means that legal sex becomes a choice. This has consequences for how a society deals with the protected characteristic of sex which is, in fact, immutable.

I can never quite remember what the difference is between someone "JAQ"ing on a thread & sealioning

<which I always read as seal-ioning 😵‍💫>

Perhaps when another poster says

"Do you really, honestly think that putting rapists, with functioning penises, into women's prisons is rational?"

Is twisting my words, given I have never said anything about putting people into prisons.

jgw1 · Today 18:09

Is twisting my words, given I have never said anything about putting people into prisons.

No it's not, you are fully onboard with the politicians who do support this. You don't need to write, or say the actual words; it's implicit in your support of the Scottish GRA.

You continue to leap to unsubstantiated conclusions, it is really rather tiresome.

What is 'JAQ'ing, please?

jgw1

I'm not jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. I've read what you've written and can see that, as you support what has been passed, but don't appear to realise that it will allow rapists to be placed in prison with women.

I think it was you who said that people opposing the amendment, which allows this, were doing so in bad faith, to wreck the bill.

Therefore, you either support it, or you don't care about it. There is no other conclusion to be drawn.

Just Asking Questions

Ah, fab. Thanks.

And again.

What is happening in Scotland is so scary . And affects so much more than single sex spaces . It is legislation for the impossible. And what happens if a transwoman , who will now legally be a woman has prostate cancer symptoms ? If you carry on the total belief that transwomen are women then presumably that cancer won’t be treated . It’s no different to the claims that transwomen have periods and can have babies is it ? I follow a lot of de-transitioners in USA and what has happened to them is honestly so sad . Surgery and hormones have ruined their lives at a very young age . And that is what Labour are proposing? FGS please someone get sir Robert Winston to have a debate within Starmer . In public .

What is happening in Scotland is so scary .

So is what is happening in the whole of the UK with the clamp down on the right to protest and strike. As someone said, ones rights are removed they are very hard to put back.

Because until very recently hardly anyone was aware that men were being locked up in women's prisons (not to mention the rest of what's been going on). Lots of people still have no idea.

Are we to allow people to "live their best lives" with no concern for the effect upon others?

"Karen" White's 'best life' appears to be assaulting women. Why should we give "her" a free reign?

Well I am sure if the evidence is there, then the law will duly be applied.

Well that would be the case if the government hadn't for the past 12 years consistently cut the funding for the criminal justice system to such an extent that I am not sure it can be called a system any more.

Good job that the House of Lords is there to revise bad legislation then.

Oh hang on, someone wants to get rid of it.

"Oh don't worry, when this man woman assaults you in prison, we'll prosecute him her"

Prevention is better than cure.

Will you answer a straightforward yes/no question?

Should the male rapist known as "Karen White" be in a women's prison?

In a functioning system a risk assessment would be carried out to determine where best they would should be imprisoned.
If a male is convicted of raping men, are theey imprisoned in a men's prison?

@jgw1 - Well I am sure if the evidence is there, then the law will duly be applied.

As now written in Scotland, violent crimes against women and girls carried out by transwomen are recorded as having been carried out by women, despite the fact that transwomen have a male pattern of offending and usually male body types. Duly applying the law means they go into women's prisons. Do you think that's OK? If your daughter/mother/wife was banged up with the likes of Karen White you'd regard that as acceptable collateral damage if she was raped?

I have a wife?

I thought I was just a man for today?

I don't think we should ignore that it's entirely possible that what's happening in Scotland is on it's way to the rUK.

It seems like there is a 'political fad' for many western countries at the minute. I've been reading today about very young kids having lessons on pan-sexuality in Australia (why?), a man wearing overly large fake breasts teaching teenagers in Canada (sounds like a fetish), and an assault by a teen-trans in the toilets in the USA (what not a surprise!).

It's all bonkers.

Why is it so vital that trans people are able to "live their best lives", but not women?

I reckon that the female Ivy Leage swimmers' best lives probably involved having a fair chance to compete and win at the sport they have dedicated the best years of their lives to.

There's also a female weightlifter out there somewhere whose best life probably involved getting to represent her country at the Olympics.

They didn't get to live their best lives because it was deemed more important for Lia Thomas and Laurel Hubbard to live theirs.

There are many other women out there for whom living their best lives requires having access to female only spaces. Rape survivors who need support to deal with their trauma and try to move on, who only feel safe accessing that support in a single sex environment. Muslim women who looked forward to the women-only sessions at their local pool or gym. Teenage girls who used to love spending their Saturdays trying on clothes until they were traumatised by a male stranger in the mixed sex changing rooms at Primark.

Do you really believe that none of these women should have the right to live their best lives because of a few male people whose best life involves having access to what are supposed to be women only spaces?

The trouble with trans people living their best lives is that they also live in a society, like the rest of us. And if you living your best life has a negative impact on others, then no, it's not an excellent idea to allow you to do that.