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.

Needmoresleep · Today 08:40

The Guardian will need to cover the constitutional issue. I very much hope that like Keir they are forced into acknowledging that women have legitimate concerns, one which Labour need to address.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely, given the gushing coverage they gave to the Scottish Bill, along with interviews with several delighted transexuals.

jgw1 · Today 09:14

You missed the part where I pointed out earlier in the thread that the vast majority of sexual assaults are carried out by someone known to the perpetrator.

You didn't "point it out," you simply made a claim, which was systematically demolished by another poster, with the use of official statistics.

You talk about issues that don’t affect “us”.

this usually means ‘doesn’t affect me’

and if we are using this as an argument, which i don’t think we should, then it works for just about everything jgw is passionate about…if it doesn’t affect me then I don’t care. Its a shame someone so passionate can’t recognise it in other people

(usually i find jgw tactics quite effective on the politics threads, it just doesn’t ‘work’ on this board)

I find most posters straight talking on FWR and making arguments in good faith so the deflection stands out.

Plus claiming other women shouldn’t care about something they do isn’t going to be effective in any way.

It does affect things, because males in prison are treated differently according to the possession of a GRC.

Info here (E&W). If a male has a GRC (now easily obtainable in Scotland) then they are treated as a literal woman):

'A male who has a GRC stating that he is legally a woman is initially placed in a women’s prison. Conviction, offending history and anatomy are not taken into consideration. If he poses a risk to or is at risk from the female prisoners and the risk is too high to manage in a women’s prison, his case is referred to a Transgender Complex Case Board.

Theoretically, a decision may be to transfer him to a men’s prison. However, in assessing this risk he is still ‘treated as a woman’. This means he can only be transferred to a men’s prison if that same decision would be made for a female prisoner. In practice, however, women are never held in the male estate: the risk to their safety would be too great to manage.

Treating a male prisoner with a GRC as a woman extends to risk assessment. We are repeatedly told that male prisoners are thoroughly risk assessed to ensure the safety of female offenders. However, this is not the case.

The OASys Sexual Reoffending Predictor Score, OSP for short, is used for adult men who have been convicted of sexual or sexually motivated offences. It is not for use with female sexual offenders. Neither is it used for male sexual offenders with a GRC, because these prisoners are assessed as women. There is no alternative risk assessment tool for use with women who have been convicted of sexual offences.'

kpssinfo.org/whats-the-problem/

@jgw1 I knew there were issues with men being in women's sports, and I knew JKRowling wanted to have a safe space for just woman. But I didn't know much more than that. Quite simply because it hasn't directly affected me in my personal life (yet), and I'm quite simply busy.

However, since I looked into this issue of 'men are women if they want to be, and therefore can be in women's spaces', it has really opened my eyes.

Let me start by saying that biological men can't be biological women. It's physically impossible.

Men are physically stronger and faster than women. We can't change that fact.
More men abuse women than women abuse men. This is a sad fact.

Abused women fleeing domestic violence do need a female only space to go to.
There is a real risk a vulnerable women and her children are then open to meeting abusive men in what should be a safe environment.

I have only just found out that we already have men in women prisons. I'm pretty horrified by this. Sturgeons changes means that men only need to say they identify as a women for 6 months, and they can then go to a women's prison. And there is nothing that women can do about it. Absolutely nothing.

Not distinguishing between men and women means male carers can attend to females suffering with dementia, or has disabilities with all the risks that entails.

Not distinguishing between men and women means crime stats and equal pay stats are no longer relevant.

How will we know if things are OK/fair for women?

I think I'm going to bore everyone to death with all the issues I can think of.

Needless to say, I think this is a very big issue for women or anyone who cares for someone who is a a biological woman.

I just want to add that I don't think all men are like Jimmy Saville. But I do think the Jimmy Saville's are out there, and one female (or a male child with their mum in a supposedly safe space) being abused by a Jimmy Saville is one too many.

Also are people aware of girls being taught about breast binders in schools . Being offered male hormones and breast surgery ? I am about to work with someone who’s daughter is now his son and if the conversation comes up all I will be able to say is I am not comfortable talking about that subject , or risk losing my job.

And for those saying trans should live their best lives what about about disabled people who want to chose to have female carers , but in fact could have a transwoman who has self- ID ? What about their rights ?

I find most posters straight talking on FWR and making arguments in good faith so the deflection stands out

that’s probably it

And for those saying trans should live their best lives what about about disabled people who want to chose to have female carers , but in fact could have a transwoman who has self- ID ? What about their rights ?

Quite. This thread is so sad, and such an eye-opener:

twitter.com/hen10freeman/status/1603022204467351556?s=46&t=AdA6HZAzUY7z3RXfTMekDA

Fair play to Henrietta Freeman. Out there battling this insanity. I follow her on Twitter and she is always so pithy and cogent.

men only need to say they identify as a women for 6 months

3 months.

It's 6 months for 16 and 17 year olds. 3 months otherwise.

Is there any part of you that can drag your eyes off the men for one second and their motivation? Off deciding exactly what kind of risk, over and above that of intimidation, that they might present to women?

And think about the women? Think about the women who don't want a man, any man, even the most benign man imaginable, in their spaces?

Women are saying no. No men. Whatever his motivation, whatever his desires, whatever his justifications, or his demands the fact that their consent is being ignored, is, before you even get started on anything else, a violation of their boundaries.

Women say no.

Is that a concept that you can even understand?

Depending which statistics you look at the figure varies but somewhere between 9 and 13% of sexual assaults are carried out by someone unknown to the victim.

A focus on strangers in changing rooms is deeply unhelpful when the most likely perpertrator is someone you already know.

The ONS statistics to which you refer from I think 2017 show that all but 13% of sexual assualts were perpertuated by someone known to the victim and nearly half of them by someone the victim lives with.

What point was demolished?

Oh dear.

@jgw1 "A focus on strangers in changing rooms is deeply unhelpful when the most likely perpertrator is someone you already know."

Are you suggesting that allowing deliberate exposure of women and girls to a known risk is acceptable even though the risk is readily avoided by allowing single-sex spaces when they are in a changing room? That's a different issue to the unavoidable risk of somebody in your domestic space.

The overriding risk factor in assault is opportunity. Which is why the woman living under the same roof as you, is an easy target.

Quite apart from the fact that a man serving a prison sentence next to a woman will be known to her, over half of transwomen in prison are already convicted sex offenders.

You're putting a convicted sex offender, into a confined space with a woman, who statistically will already be the victim of abuse, and locking them up together, with the sanction of the authorities.

i'm going to take a punt, and this is just a hunch, that the statistical likelihood of him exploiting his power over her in any number of unimaginable ways, is going to be fairly high.

Oh, and the answer is no. Women are saying no.

@jgw1 Jimmy Saville had nearly 400 allegations come out after he died. The reason was that everyone was too scared to talk about it, The vast majority of those people did not know Jimmy Saville personally.

These sorts of people can now go into womens spaces. This means the risk of this happening is going to increase. And it won't even be reflected in the stats correctly if they identify as a women.

And the law isn't on the women's side at the moment so there isn't much that can be done.

How many lives need to be ruined for the sake of men wanting to be women?

A focus on strangers in changing rooms is deeply unhelpful when the most likely perpertrator is someone you already know.

This just seems so unlikely to me. I’m lucky I’ve never suffered a serious sexual assault but as with most women I’ve been groped, flashed at and leered at countless times over the years. ALWAYS by strangers. Only ever reported one incident (masturbator on a train) because on the whole I know that it’s pointless to report a stranger who gropes me in a bar. When people talk about the “statistics” do they account for all those unreported incidents?

Personally I don’t care what the statistics say. Life has taught me to be wary of men. And that’s not the men who I know and love, it’s any man who is a stranger to me and this applies however they identify and my wariness is likely to increase if they chose not to respect the social boundaries that are in place to protect women.

A focus on strangers in changing rooms is deeply unhelpful when the most likely perpertrator is someone you already know

An opposite-sex stranger in single-sex changing rooms is automatically showing they are extremely likely to pose a threat imo. It is an inherantly transgressive act that tramples on basic boundaries, decency and respect.

jgw, either you are not reading my posts or you don't understand. The proportion of sexual offences carried out by someone know to the victim is a pretty irrelevant one. My concern is preventing unnecessary harm to women by ensuring appropriate safeguarding is in place. This may only prevent one or two percent of such crimes but still worth doing.

(I once set up safeguarding procedures for a swimming club. Most/almost all male swim coaches are fine. However it is known that sports like swimming and gymnastics can attract men who are interested in children. Good procedures protect everyone. The children but also the decent people.)

Putting men in prison cells with women, allowing men/teenage boys to share changing rooms with women, allowing men to be responsible for girl guides on residential camps. These are risks we do not need to take. It does not matter how many offenses might occur. We know some will. Women need their own spaces.

Not these circumstances all involve men who would be known to their victims. The issue is not known/unknown but that women and girls are not allowed the protections they need.

I had assumed you were a MtF late transitioner, one of several who comes on this board to mansplain and patronise us 'inferior' wimmin. Instead it appears you are a regular on other politics boards, seemingly a Starmer apologist and here for a 'debate'. I am the ultimate in floating voters, and normally don't bother to turn out. Unless things change radically I will vote next time, specifically against Starmer and a Labour party who, like you, don't appear to understand that women matter, and who won't listen to what I am trying to tell you.

Trolling he might be. But an argument that goes, more women are raped by their husbands therefore women should get undressed in front of men in their changing rooms, isn't the effective one he thinks it is.

You keep on saying this but this is still reported rapes only.
There are many times more unreported.