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.

Ah, yet again. 🙄 You can always tell the US posters who roll over from Twitter with their tired old gotchas but are totally ignorant of U.K. law, and also seem to genuinely think we use hair length and clothes to tell men and women apart.

Funny how earlier generations managed so well, given that short hair was the default hairdo for most women in the U.K. between the forties and the nineties. Even today, almost all women over the age of 60 have short hair, and the vast majority of them wear trousers. However do the old folks manage? They must be getting misgendered by the minutes!

Why, I even hear that the most popular female comedy character on British television is actually (whisper) played by a MAN! Nobody tell the oldies! I guess they can’t tell!

I'm pretty sure what I said was that about 90% of sexual offences are committed by someone known to the victim.

Perhaps you were reading a different post by someone else?

So what was your point with that post then?

I reckon my point was to note that about 90% of sexual offences are commited by someone known to the victim.

That you seem to think is justification for grown arse men to disrobe in front of
13-year-old girls. Or Rapists being sent to prison with incarcerated women.

It's just nonsensical drivel.

I think my memory is failing me, could you share with me the post where I said any of those things?

OK. How is that relevant to the discussion then?

Oh yeah, I completely agree that you're just posting random jibber jabber for no reason, on a thread where your background knowledge equals the sum of fuck all.

So this 90% includes the male in a women's prison who rapes one of the women. It's very likely that the woman knew him before he raped her.

Can you see the problem with self ID yet?

It's not your memory that's failing, it's literally any point whatsoever to any of your posts.

You've realised you don't know what you're talking about, and so the posts that you fondly thought were significant, aren't.

Pound to a penny, you're itching to start the next one with well actually...

Rape in UK law involves insertion of a penis - so no rapes are carried out by women.

And what about the other 10% - shouldn't we take steps to safeguard them? Or are they collateral damage?

How do you know someone is male?

Beaten to it, but: I have eyes.

As to your 90% figure, why do you want to reduce that?

The 90% clearly isn't any kind of argument, otherwise transwoman would be just as safe in men's prisons and wouldn't need to be transferred in the first place.

Because they have the opportunity

And your answer to that is to open up the opportunity to all.

This is that semantic argument that says women can be rapists because some people with penises have a piece of paper that says they're a woman.

Essentially this is a world view that ignores material reality in favour of language. Oh Derrida, oh Foucault, what did you do to us? Well in the case of Foucault, his interest was not in women at all but in young boys, so I guess he didn't think (or care) about the effects of his theories on women.

So you are confident that 100% of the time you can identify whether or not someone is male?

Are we back to the argument that because a tiny number of people look androgynous, we should make all spaces mixed sex? What is the purpose of your question and what does this have to do with the GRA?

Under the law which has just been voted for in Scotland, and which Keir Starmer would extend to the whole of the UK, looks have nothing to do with access to single sex spaces. He wants obviously male men with full male anatomy to have full access to all women only spaces on the strength of a simple declaration that they are 'living as a woman'.

*jgw1" · Today 06:48

So you are confident that 100% of the time you can identify whether or not someone is male?

In vivo, yes, within seconds.

In a posed photo, careful pose, heavy makeup and a soft filter, less confident every time.

Everyone is so reasonable dealing with these deflections I’m impressed.

No straight answers just continual non points

Just so. Like saying that since people will insist on murdering each other , we might as well scrap these tiresome laws against it.

We seem to be spending a lot of time defending why TW shouldn't be using women's toilets and changing rooms and defending ourselves against the suggestion that we see TW as a threat.

Since apparently attacks in these spaces are so rare and women are generally attacked in the home by someone they know, surely toilets and changing rooms with men in them (ie. men's spaces) are perfectly safe for TW to use. If a male using a female space is very unlikely to pose a threat, surely a male using a male space is very unlikely to be a threat too? - Or is @jgw1 slurring all men with the accusation that they are a threat to TW?

Please can you explain if there is a reason why TW should use female spaces?

And since most people are killed by someone that they know, there's no point in worrying about strangers with murderous intent. FFS!

Exactly. According to jgw1 the 90% 'rule' means transwomen are safe in the spaces of their own sex.

Im sure they're going to be very grateful to jgw1 for making this point.

Exactly what does 'known to the victim' mean?

According to www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-43128350.amp only 9% of victims were attacked by a total stranger. But it does say
'44% were assaulted by "another known person"' How known is known? Who could that be? Someone they've seen around the local area, someone they've noticed before in a supermarket queue? Someone they know of rather than actually know? Most people have a routine and because of that will not necessarily come across classic 'total strangers' very often.

And, of course, as PPs have said opportunity matters. A total stranger is fairly unlikely to bump into you on the more deserted parts of your commute for example and from this I'd argue that 9% of attacks being committed by total strangers is statistically very high. But someone you may vaguely notice at the station a few times a week who knows what train you get off and which gate you walk through to take a shortcut through the quiet park gardens opposite is not a total stranger. And so on.