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.

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

In other words: "You're most likely to be raped or sexually assaulted by someone you know, therefore I don't care if you are assaulted or raped by a stranger in a changing room."

Is this really the best you can do @jgw1 ?

And who is only concerned about rapes and attacks. I don't want to be in a changing room with a bloke who is never going to attack anybody.

some people just can't get their head around the fact that women are not a service.

"Attack" can be pervy gazing and I'm not up for that, nor do I expect my daughter or granddaughters to be. Why isn't "I don't want a male-bodied stranger around me when I'm not dressed" sufficient?

I do think there is a limitation in focusing only on dangers.

It's not just about that, it's also about privacy.

I am not super-nervous about men, and I've worked in settings where I had to share intimate spaces with them because facilities were very makeshift, and that's fine for me.

I still am not keen to be in a changing room next to a strange man at the YMCA or whatever. It's a matter of privacy and dignity. Even if the man was my dad - sure, in a pinch I could share space with him, but I don't want to, and he doesn't, and that is how most people feel about mixed sexed intimate spaces.

Sex differences are real, they reflect the realities of sexual reproduction which is always considered private, and intimate spaces are typically separated by sex because of the implications of that. Men and women together naked, in a culture where people are usually dressed, has a tendency to create a sexualized environment. And that can happen even when people are all being respectful, and people do not want that in non-sexual contexts.

I am pretty sure we agreed yesterday that I was only going to be a he yesterday and that today I would return to being a woman. Apparantently that is also how some people thing the law works.

Why the need to keep twisting my words?

And I should point out that NONE of the other type of men on the list are even asking to use women's changing rooms. It's only the delusional ones.

I didn't intend to twist your words, I just rephrased what you had said for better clarity of meaning.

How am I supposed to interpret the phrase "A focus on strangers in changing rooms is deeply unhelpful"?

By using the word 'unhelpful' I understood that you think that focusing on strangers in changing rooms is unimportant and/or irrelevant. If this is incorrect, what did you mean by 'unhelpful'? Unhelpful to whom? The attackers? The victims? You?

From this and other posts I understood that you think that sexual assaults which take place in such places are unimportant because you are convinced that there are more assaults in the home by people known to their victims and these are the only assaults you care about.

If I've misunderstood, perhaps you should consider writing more clearly so that people don't misunderstand.

Why the need to keep twisting my words?

Lol, that's a bit rich coming from you!

Knock yourself out, keep making up stuff I haven't said.

OldCrone

I didn't intend to twist your words, I just rephrased what you had said for better clarity of meaning.

I think, like you, I've drawn conclusions from what jgw has and hasn't said, over a period of many posts.

You would appear to be correct at first glance but things change when you look at more than the raw data. An analogy to the incidence of sex attacks could be the incidence of pedestrians being injured in motor accidents. Very few pedestrians are injured on motorways compared to the number on footpaths. This suggests that it is safer for pedestrians to walk on the motorway. That is totally wrong because it doesn't take the tiny number of pedestrians on the motorway into account. The lower percentage of stranger attack is the result of fewer women being in a position to be attacked by a stranger than somebody they know. Allowing Self ID transwomen unfettered access to female only spaces simply increases the number of women being in a position to be attacked by a stranger. It's like telling pedestrians to walk on the motorway as it's safer than the footpath.

We didn't agree Jack shit, mate. Try and keep up.

@ArabellaScott Do you actually have source documents for your claims - like I'm about as likely to believe a site called kpssinfo.org as I am a site called qanonsecrets.com

Of course, EvilBee. All of the pages/info on the KPSS page are hyperlinked - text shows up in pink on this page, for example:

kpssinfo.org/are-male-prisoners-really-in-womens-prisons/

Link for E&W is:

'The Ministry of Justice and HMPPS Policy Framework setting out when a male can be housed in a women’s prison is The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender. It applies to prisons throughout England and Wales'

www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-care-and-management-of-individuals-who-are-transgender

For Scotland:

'Prisons in Scotland are covered by a different framework produced by the Scottish Prison Service: Gender Identity and Gender Reassignment Policy for those in our Custody.'

www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Publication-2561.aspx

Pigeon chess, is all I'm saying.

I haven't made anything up. You said: "A focus on strangers in changing rooms is deeply unhelpful"

I have speculated on what you might mean by this, but if my assumptions are incorrect, you are free to explain more clearly exactly what you mean by this.

I mean by it that a focus on strangers in changing rooms is deeply unhelpful when far greater dangers exist for women elsewhere, that you and others seem determined to ignore.

Oh right, so I wasn't a man yesterday, well that is something, I'm not one today either.

I'm not quite sure why we are not hammering the actual government who can change things now to support women better rather then concentrating on a party who had no control over any change yet.

I think it's a disgrace that men are being housed in women prisons, this is happening now, under this government, not a maybe in a couple of years, right now under our noses and people are saying but look the other way. I know lots of women are lobbying their current Tory MPs about this, but in order to be taken seriously in the debate it does need to be recognised how badly this government is neglecting women and reducing our rights. Maybe they look like they are trying, but they have had years and still womens services are continually underfunded and our rights eroded, so there is no real change, just talk.

I mean, it's the Mail..and in the unlikely event that there is such a split, by the time Labour get in and get around to it, there will have been a year or two of stat declaration in Scotland and diddly squat happening. Just as diddly squat has happened in the other 70+ places where they have a form of stat declaration.

Also, in every poll on issues that matter to the population, trans stuff comes last..and funnily enough, normal people are worried about things like, y'know, being able to heat their houses or having a job that doesn't screw them over.

I mean by it that a focus on strangers in changing rooms is deeply unhelpful when far greater dangers exist for women elsewhere, that you and others seem determined to ignore.

Drunk driving's bad, so let's ignore speeding. I see.

@jgw1 - I mean by it that a focus on strangers in changing rooms is deeply unhelpful when far greater dangers exist for women elsewhere, that you and others seem determined to ignore.

Far from ignoring it, several people have helpfully put that into context for you. But you seem determined to ignore that.

Only a minority of adults abuse children so let's abandon safeguarding. Is that how this works in clown land?