Keir Starmer fudge fudge waffle waffle

[xalo]

On Laura Kuenssberg just now.
Utterly useless. And why are both using gender instead of sex?

I think there is enough commonality between Lib Dem, Green and Labour voters that if one of those parties' leaders stuck their head above the parapet and clearly said "we support women, the female kind" they would gather a huge amount of support from members of the other two parties.

@Birdsweepsin Agreed!

When it comes to the next election, even though it is a fundamental issue, I don't think it will be one of the major things talked about.

I'm still not confident that the government will use section 35 re the Bill passed in the Scottish Parliament.

If you asked me to name the indignity in the current law, I would say that a waiting time if you have had gender reassignment surgery, especially if you have no male genitals, is too long.

100% no to self-ID though.

was thinking exactly that.

Which one? Succession or professor?

He’s as much use as a marzipan dildo

“If you asked me to name the indignity in the current law, I would say that a waiting time if you have had gender reassignment surgery, especially if you have no male genitals, is too long.”

Very few transwomen indeed have no male genitals. Really that’s as it should be though so it would cause problems if castration were to become a factor in getting one more quickly.

From what I've heard and read, I'd say Starmer is more scared of factions within his own party than he is of the electorate. And to be fair, I think he has good reason - it's all very well speculating about what voters think but he has to make it through to a general election first.

Ironically, I think the one thing most likely to make him feel secure enough to face down the TRA lobby would be a comfortable government majority. Equally ironically, I won't trust him to deliver on this unless he speaks up.

So round and round he goes. I might even kind of sympathise, but not enough to vote for him.

Being split on the issue doesn't require anyone to utter any variation of "some men can be women"

He's an educated man. He should be able to work out a sentence that supports the issues trans people by really do suffer whilst not trampling over women's rights.

It's the 'understanding silence/acquiescence' that has allowed all the ridiculous gender ideology to run riot.

Caroline Nokes is fully TWAW. She was one of the driving forces behind PM May's announcement of Self ID in 2017.

I do have some sympathy with Starmer though. I think the centre/left voter population really is split on this issue. Many (not all) of my nice, intelligent friends and colleagues have pronouns on their emails etc. So I kind of don't blame him sitting on the fence for now and letting the Tories sort it out.

I don't have any sympathy for him. He is a leader, it is his job to provide leadership. Most people are woefully uninformed about this issue and deliberately* *so, when facts are laid out, all but the most zealous see this for what it is. If he took a hard line on this nonsense most people would realise what has been going on and he will win far more respect. Pronouns would dissappear overnight, vast majority conforming to social pressure and complacently believe they're being good people. That's fine for Joe public, it's not remotely OK for the leader of the opposition. Its his job to identify injustice and stand against it. He should be using his position to positively influence public opinion not just flapping around like the hopeless weathercock that he is.

@sensechec Succession

No sympathy at all for Starmer. He knows exactly what he's doing.

Starmer is 21% in the lead in the polls.
The economy is shit so the incumbents will not build up their poll lead irrespective of what they do. They've also had 13 years and people get bored and want any half decent change.

So Starmer knows that although women are half the electorate, the gender issue will not be enough to lose more than a relatively small minority of them. Added to which if he came out as against self ID he'd likely lose as many TQs.

So he sits on the fence and once safely in power, probably with a stonking majority, he can do what he likes.

I actually think he does believe that those who claim to be trapped in the wrong body are some harmless downtrodden minority and that they are a tiny number and if they say they are women he is not going to argue. He will protect single sex spaces but his definition of single sex will be very different to mine and to objective reality.

We just need to keep this issue at the forefront. The tide has not turned.

He's as blind as he can be
Just sees what he wants to see
Keir Starmer, can you see me at all

Lifelong Labour voter and now have nobody to vote for. Starmer can piss off wanting to take away ‘indignities’

what about the fucking indignity of being frightened and not being able to use a public or workplace toilet without stress because it is full of MEN?

Starmer: '16 is too young to change legal gender' www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64281548

On BBC news app now.

The UK Labour leader voiced "concerns" about the Scottish government's reforms to the process, citing a potential impact on UK-wide equalities law.

However, he stopped short of backing a challenge to the Holyrood legislation, something UK ministers are considering.

As well as it not being a good idea to
lower the age of consent for a Gender Recognition Certificate to 16,

what about not teaching and nudging children into thinking they may be transgender in the first place?

To sign this petition against teaching gender identity ideology to children in RSE lessons in school
⬇️
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/618970

Look up too, the petition against The Tate creating teaching resources for schools which promote gender ideology propaganda and against them The bringing in Drag Queen Story Hour for young children.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64281548

'"I have concerns about the provision in Scotland, in particular the age reduction to 16 and, in particular, the rejection of our amendment in relation to the Equalities Act."

Pressed on whether you are old enough at 16 to decide to change gender, he replied: "No, I don't think you are."'

YES KEIR!!! (It's the Equality Act, but I'll let you off).

And Keir's statement is front page BBC News.

I dont think there is anything in his statement to do with actually caring about women and / or the GRR.

This is just political tactics. On the one had he can be caring about young people (16 is too young) but on the other hand still accept self id.

And given Labour shocking losses in Scotland no way is he going to be part of any Government attempt to block a law passed by the Scottish Parliament.

So the "i'm just waiting for the legal advice" is so that he doesn't have to be seen to be behind any move to block the bill. Because he knows that, any attempt to do will bring out all sorts of people who dont care about gender recognition, let alone women's rights, who will get really angry about Westminister over ruling MSPs. (Not forgetting that this is something Welsh Assembly is looking and, and NI if they weren't in perpetual gridlock).

So for him its a win win.

Also, not just Starmer but all these people going on about safeguarding the EA.

The new scottish bill doesn't impact what is already written there about SSE

the problem is not just in Scotland, but all over the UK nobody bothers with or places any value on the SSEs.

So one very slight positive out of this is maybe a few people who dont listen to women, might now recognise that the SSE are too easily ignored.

The mere fact that women who are 50+% of the population are only allowed a few instances when their rights take precedent over a tiny, tiny minority, shows how low down the pecking order women are.

Logically the exemptions should have been those few occassion when a GRC took precedence over women's sex based rights. Like ... marriage and ... ???

This was a very prominent piece on the BBC 6 O'clock news

Be interesting to hear how Keir's newfound hesitancy about self ID goes down.

I fear you are right.
The problem is that he wants to avoid making any decision, so he wants to kick the can down the road. "Waiting to see" is what we hope would happen, the reality is he would resist any pushes to actually find out what the result was.
No one whos chosen course of action is to delay ever wants to actually deal with the thing being delayed. Especially politicians. Once delay is chosen, it becomes delay forever.
Starmer would never address it, unless forced to against his will.
Evidence would be ignored, positivly avoided, make it go away.
Starmer is most comfortable on the fence, he has no vision, no prinicpals, nothing he's willing to stand up for beyond his own arse. Considering how bad the Tories are doing Starmer is the very worst insipid bland milquetoast alternative at a time we desperately need alternatives. He is an invisible man trying to hide.