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.

I thought it was a logical extension of the argument another poster was making.
Certainly would make the world less dangerous for woman from the very many predatory men that are all around us.
Maybe it has the odd downside, but surely the benefits are much greater?

I didn't miss it. I replied to it and you replied to my post.

You didn't answer her questions.

An unusual yet predictable answer demonstrating that well known feature often seen in adult transactivists - the determination to put a wedge between children and their parents. It's really not a good look.

So whataboutery aside, why is it you think teenage girls (or any other women ) should undress for swimming alongside that 45 year old man who's self IDing as a woman?

The human race wouldn't last very long.

So what's your answer? What is a 'transwoman'? What is the difference between a 'transwoman' and a man?

Could I identify as a 'transwoman'?

Ah, I think I follow, I both did and didn't reply to the questions asked at the same time. A kind of Schrodinger's answer if you will.

The flaw in interpreting crime statistics in this case is the assumption that men you know are an inherently greater risk than men you do not know.

Women and children spend much more time with men they are related to or friends with or who are family friends than with random stranger males. It's theoretically possible that the former are somehow more likely to assault than strangers, but an alternative (and more credible) explanation has to do with access and the amount of time someone spends in near proximity of a possible target for assault.

This is harder for strangers to arrange. If we were able to calculate statistical odds per time unit spent near a possible perpetrator we might find that strange males are far more dangerous in most cases.

This is similar to the argument that most crimes against women take place in their homes, and that, too, has to do with mitigation, i.e, women spend less time out on the streets than men and more time at home. It doesn't actually mean that home is the most dangerous place for women to be. To figure out that, we would have to compare women who don't spend much time at home to women who do, yet have the two otherwise the same.

In short, this is about opportunities for sexual assaults. The predators go where the prey is, and that's good to keep in mind when interpreting the statistical data. (It's also true that many women screen potentially dangerous men out when choosing partners or friends, so this, too, suggests that for some women, at least, the men they know are safer than strange men.)

Please provide evidence of anyone here calling the tories “angels.

It’s a disgrace that supposedly leftwing parties are hellbent on abolishing women’s single-sex rights. That is why so many leftwing women are unable to vote for them.

The chances of my dying in an asteroid impact is about 1 in 700,000 apparently, whereas on the roads the lifetime risk is reportedly about 1 in 100. Which should I spend my time worrying about?

No, you didn’t answer. Do you understand how questions and answers work?

This completely irrelevant comment is what you gave as an answer. Perhaps it self-identifies as an answer.

The same woman and child are at far greater risk from the woman's partner and any other men in the family than they are of someone unknown who happens to have self ID as the statistics provided previously in the thread demonstrate.

It's not true that all women and children are at risk from family members. I'm sorry if your personal experience has led you to believe this. But we are all at risk if any predatory male can self ID and gain access women's single sex spaces.

And your 'statistics' (source unknown) demonstrated no such thing.

No, you didn’t answer. Do you understand how questions and answers work?

Is one allowed to choose how one answers a question or is one only alllowed to answer in certain ways?

It's not true that all women and children are at risk from family members.

But there is no well of telling which women and children are at risk from which family members, so should we assume that no one is at risk of harm, or everyone is at risk of harm?

But we are all at risk if any predatory male can self ID and gain access women's single sex spaces.

But not all of us will suffer harm as a result of that risk as the number of predatory males is quite small, and the number who will take the convuluted route of self IDing to gain access to single sex spaces is even smaller. So should we assume that no one is at risk of harm, or everyone is at risk of harm?

Just because some men attack their wives at home doesn't mean we should let all men into women's spaces. It's an irrelevant argument.

jgw1

A significant number are by men known and trusted by families. Teachers, Police, Scout Masters, priests etc.

Given what we've seen in the Guides, can you honestly say that it doesn't matter? Yes, most child abusers are in a network, do you think that a potential expansion of such a network is trivial?

Thanks for setting that out so clearly.

The flaw in interpreting crime statistics in this case is the assumption that men you know are an inherently greater risk than men you do not know.

Which is a ridiculous assumption if you give it a moment's thought. The violent man who rapes and assaults his wife is a stranger to many more women who he may also rape and assault if he has the opportunity.

What jgw has really illustrated is that it's opportunity which is important. Allowing males into women only spaces gives them more opportunity to assault women. It's absurd to argue that this has no effect on women's safety.

But there is no well of telling which women and children are at risk from which family members, so should we assume that no one is at risk of harm, or everyone is at risk of harm?

We should be aware of how abusers work in a domestic situation so that we can recognise when it is happening in our own relationships or those of our loved ones.

But we are all at risk if any predatory male can self ID and gain access women's single sex spaces.

But not all of us will suffer harm as a result of that risk as the number of predatory males is quite small, and the number who will take the convuluted route of self IDing to gain access to single sex spaces is even smaller. So should we assume that no one is at risk of harm, or everyone is at risk of harm?

We should assume that everyone could be a potential predator, be aware of the prevalence of male violence against women, and take appropriate steps to protect more vulnerable people. This is why we have things like DBS checks and single sex spaces. It's called safeguarding.

I'm intrigued by your suggestion that you think there is a 'convoluted route' involved in self-id. The whole point about self-id is that all it involves is a man saying 'I am a woman '. Perhaps you are not as well informed as you think you are.

I'm a bit confused about the logic of your arguments jgw.

You seem to be saying that because many women suffer abuse from their partners within the home we should therefore do away with all safeguarding in public places.

I don't follow the logic here. Perhaps you could explain.

I am saying that many more women suffer abuse form their partners than men who are unknown to them. Many more women suffer abuse from family members that trans women. Therefore why all the time and energy worrying about trans women rather than worrying about the much bigger danger that all men potentially pose to women There is much greater improvements to women's safety to be made in addressing the whole problem than one small part of it. Consistently for the past 12 years the government have removed support and safeguards that protect us all. But at least Boris/Liz/Rishi know what a woman is.

I'm intrigued by your suggestion that you think there is a 'convoluted route' involved in self-id. The whole point about self-id is that all it involves is a man saying 'I am a woman '. Perhaps you are not as well informed as you think you are.

So if my partner announced at breakfast that he was a woman, then legally he would be? Really you think that?

If your partner declared he is a woman then trans activists would say she is and has always been a woman (with an incorrect birth certificate).

With GRR Bill, if in Scotland, a three month waiting period (or six months if your partner is 16 or 17 years old) and £5 gets her a GRC with her ‘correct sex’ of female. Born female. Legally female. No physical changes needed.

Do you think that could cause anyone else any issues?

Weird argument. Women suffer abuse from their partners, so add to the risks women face by forcing vulnerable women to share prison cells with men who identify as women.

Two separate risks, one is a risk society does not have to take, the second is more difficult and involves processes and structures such as education and refuges. The latter made more difficult in a society that does not value women or understand why women can be more vulnerable.

If I did not allow for the fact you seem to have been at the eggnog I would find your posts, and their lack of sympathy and understanding, both offensive and inhumane. But then I find the same of both the SNP and the Labour Party. No wonder you are such a vocal supporter of the latter.

I agree. And I hope the poster has a good physio because even an acrobat would struggle with the contortions I've seen on this thread.

He would instantly have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This isn't what I think, it's what the EA2010 says.

By network do you mean family?