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, most CSA is perpetrated by family members, which is why schools no longer require police checks for staff, of course.

MrsOvertonsWindow

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

I think that's the case, I probably don't understand, because the size 57 shoes are a bit big for me.

Right. What about the links I carefully copied out for you upthread, are you not going to read them? Just throw out sneers about sources, and then ignore the evidence when it's served up to you? A thank-you wouldn't go amiss, either.

Ack, my apologies, I will check them out

No problem. Hope they are of use.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

Ooh, good fallacy, Muffy, thank you!

Thanks for the sources, like kpssinfo does not mention on that initial allocation that there are additional safeguards before the main risk assessments. Like, call me snarky or whatnot, but misinfo is rife.

@MuffytheWooWooSlayer looks like I was correct to be suspicious..and that took me all of a couple of minutes

I have zero interest in your gender fluidity.

Are those adults who abuse children more likely to be someone known to them or someone they don't know?

Neither do I. It just seemed a little strange that another poster who I had never met knew that I had sef ID as a man yesterday whan I had no idea myself.

If the much greater dangers for women than strangers in changing rooms are not being ignored by some, why the endless threads on the subject?

It's not that we're ignoring it, it's just that that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about Keir Starmer and how he wants to allow males, including paedophiles and rapists, to self identify their way into women's prisons, refuges and other spaces that women might expect to be single sex.

If you want to discuss male violence against women more generally you could start your own thread.

I wasn't aware there were rules about what topics could and could not be posted about on a thread. Have they added that to the t and cs?

rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/about-sexual-violence/myths-vs-realities/

@jgw1 - If the much greater dangers for women than strangers in changing rooms are not being ignored by some, why the endless threads on the subject?

The vast majority of women are well aware of dangers that can arise from familiar male-bodied people and generally know who they can trust or not. Sometimes they get that wrong, and because of the much greater presence of those familiar people in their spaces those women are vulnerable to harm from such people.

That kind of danger in spaces formerly assumed to be safe because they excluded male-bodied people are a much more recent thing to have to deal with. They are a risk that had not arisen so much in our lives before - an additional risk to the risk that we run as women anyway from predatory or aggressive males. Of course most of us want to reduce risks like that as much as possible.

and generally know who they can trust or not.

Please could you give me some clues as to who I can trust and who not?

Ah grasshopper, you must seek your own enlightenment.

Probably because the danger posed by male people in women's changing rooms is simple to fix by just not letting them in? But we have to let them in because we're supposed to believe them when they say they are women?

I wasn't aware there were rules about what topics could and could not be posted about on a thread. Have they added that to the t and cs?

A bit like how decent people respect consent and women's rights to privacy, so too do posters generally not behave in a disingenuous fashion or make thinly veiled, repeated attempts to derail threads. That's because we want to discuss women's rights and child safety rather than disrupt those wanting to discuss those things here, a thread about what would happen under Starmer in respect of spreading the Scottish approach across the whole UK, wrt women's rights and child safety.

And its not acceptable to point out that women's rights those of children and indeed men, will more than likely improve under Starmer, whilst they have got significantly worse in the last 12 years of the Tories?

How do you know someone is male?

I use these two things in my head called eyes.

Ah, so as long as you look male you are not allowed in.
Are there any particular features that allow your eyes to determine this, is it perhaps the way they dress? Short hair?