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.

@SinnerBoy no - and it's not a board I've seen you on. Crikey, there's probably tonnes of them. It's the march of the 'twisting my words' bots!

It's an identical set of phrases:

Twisting my words
Please quote the post where I said that
Please provide sources no not those sources other sources

I don't recall seeing any arguments either. I think it is entirely possible this is a bot.

There aren't any arguments. Just a series of unrelated posts making silly statements and then going 'Yeah? So?'

😁

There one on Step-Parenting now, or possibly two arguing with other about who 'tagged' who first, an infinitum ad nauseam. The effect is to disrupt the flow of the discussion and make the thread become pretty tiresome.

Might be one for Site Stuff? It would be the best place to collate examples.

I'm also noting the lack of either substantive arguments or evidence to back up arguments hinted at or clarification of points implied. It's an extraordinarily dishonest way of contributing to a discussion, designed basically to derail it and make it centre on that poster rather than on the topic.

Yep, I think the 'bot' suggestion is highly likely.

Scroll on by?

I try my best to do this with varying success.
It depends on the day, the poster, if theres a teachable moment in replying, if I'm up to it.
But the most effective response in many cases is no response.

@CryInToYourCornflakesNicola - you're right of course. Silly of me to expect answers or clarity from a poster determined to offer neither.

I recently signed up for this course: www.futurelearn.com/courses/designing-a-feminist-chatbot

It's a bit shit, but it reveals that these things are already in use.

Which remarks were they?

Here's a heartwarming story about a lovely transexual and the event which never happened:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11586815/Registered-sex-offender-identifying-woman-arrested-exposing-erect-penis-young-girl.html

He whines that his family and friends have suffered, apparently not realising that, had he not been a creepy pervert, it wouldn't have.

Well isn't that just fucking lovely, as my old dad used to say when sorely aggrieved.

Well, quite.

That story is an exercise in how much batshit you can include in one episode.

He exposes his penis to women and children, and the spa staff said they had no choice, because he was trans and was entitled to get as naked as all the 'other women.'

People were told it was perfectly acceptable. We were told on here, on countless threads, that the child just shouldn't have looked, that it was transphobic, blah blah blah.

But then it came to light that he was a convicted sex offender.

Which, according to the rules, shouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference.

How does that matter, according to the rules? Are convicted female sex offenders not allowed to go into spas?

And now he appears to be saying that he doesn't understand all the fuss was about anyway. Why do people get so
aerated because he gets his cock out in front of little kids? Because "'One step away from Santa Monica Boulevard, where there are rainbows and guys sitting in windows with rubber balls sticking in their mouths. You bring your kids over here, and you’re afraid they’re seeing a transgender person?' he questioned."

Quite.

Rainbow butt dildo monkey, drag queen storytime, and rapists in women's prisons.

The normalisation of sex offending and paedophilia couldn't be clearer.

How does that matter, according to the rules? Are convicted female sex offenders not allowed to go into spas?

It strikes me that the only reason it was accepted that this man has done anything wrong is because he was already a convicted sex offender. If this had been his first offence the “she was only getting changed” narrative would have been the one that won out. And looking to the future, if the only thing making it unacceptable for a man to expose his penis in a women’s changing room is that he is already a convicted sex offender does that mean in future wannabe sex-offenders will be able to expose themselves as often as they like without any risk of being convicted so long as they limit their activity to when they are in women’s changing rooms?

I find it so dishonest when people bang on about female sex offenders, or post pictures of trans men and say "would you want these people in your changing rooms then?"

The problem is male people. It's always male people. We know this.

The likelihood of a woman or girl in a women's changing room or spa having been sexually assaulted by another woman is close to zero, whereas a scarily large minority of them will have been sexually assaulted by a man. 98% of all sexual offences are committed by male offenders.

Nobody cares whether trans men want to use men's changing rooms, or what sporting categories they compete in, because they pose no threat to men.

Stop flipping it round, because it's literally irrelevant.

They use it as a gotcha, because they want women to be scared to challenge obviously male people. It's wholly dishonest.

Not to mention this sudden crop of "cis women", claiming to have been challenged or even attacked in women's toilets for not looking feminine enough.

Firstly, no, I don't believe you. You look like a woman and you have pronouns in your bio. I don't believe this is a thing that actually happens.

Secondly, if it is happening, whose fault is it that women are now paranoid about the possibility of men in their single sex spaces? Don't you fucking dare blame us for a problem that you created!

Secondly, if it is happening, whose fault is it that women are now paranoid about the possibility of men in their single sex spaces? Don't you fucking dare blame us for a problem that you created!

It's just another DARVO gaslighting tactic. Trans activists enjoy the idea of turning women on each other, and pretending that feminists aren't acting in women's best interests, and trans activists are. I see this more quoted by men, to be honest. The women involved are very much NPC types allowing themselves to be used in the service of males accessing women's spaces.

Keir Starmer has several children. I am sure he knows that the ones with a penis (if any) are male and that girls do not have this appendage. He is just playing to the TRA gallery seemingly unaware the rest of us do not believe this.

If he can't be trusted to speak the truth to TRAs, how can he be trusted with anything. Another election, another spoiled ballot paper. I'm desperate to vote Labour again. But this is an existential crisis for women's rights and he's too scared to speak about it.

I note that the writer is avoiding referring to Merager as "she". Progress, of a sort.

That article’s all over the place with the pronouns it uses for a convicted sex offender and burglar.

A biological male, Merager - who said he would fight his case in court before suddenly going on the run in September 2021 - faces 11 charges in total for the pair of incidents, where she allegedly used her status as a transgender woman to access women's changing areas and show his partially erect penis to those inside.

I suspect it’s partly down to the Fail’s habit of copy and pasting articles wholesale from other sources. It seems to use ‘she’ and ‘her’ for most of the rest of the piece.

The (extensive list of) offences he’s committed to date aren’t typically associated with female criminality, but I suspect at least some will have been recorded as such.