Starmer may make the Labour Party electable

[oviraptor21]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4a822cec-9577-11ed-a130-baced48eb788?shareToken=a70de80a5b17f9807a092d10dae5bcfe

The Labour leader said: “Sex based rights matter, and we must preserve all those wins that we’ve had for women over many years and including safe spaces for women.”

Like hell does Starmer actually believe in women and children's rights.

I disagree with this. But he has to operate - and speak - within the current legal framework. I think the demand he breaks out of it to 'prove himself first' is a little unreasonable, especially given he's a barrister. But I am making notes and going to write to MPs etc about the EA shortcomings. I don't think signing that petition is enough.

But I suspect this is all still smoke and mirrors - Keir is trying too hard to keep everyone happy.

... which is called, 'trying to get elected'. Corbin didn't bother to keep some under the umbrella happy, and look what happened next: fucking Bojo the car-crash clown.

My father has similar complaints about him not decisively stating NOW how much he'd give the nurses etc. In all of these things, we're so far from the General Election that anything he says will be twisted and manipulated by the Tories for months. He's said enough on the GRR so far to make me feel quietly optimistic, especially when taken together with his track record as Crown Prosecutor.

But his interpretation of that law is stymied by his apparent belief that some men are women in fact and in law. He chooses to completely disregard the exemptions and the by now blatantly obvious areas of conflict.

He is not being honest about this. He is picking and choosing which parts of the law he will rely upon. The game he is playing is anathema to women.

I completely take your point that he's trying to get elected and recoup some of the losses that Labour sustained.

I think my concern is that if he's not more explicit about what he believes then once he's in power we'll be fully subjected to self-ID because he'll be put under pressure from the left of the party - Lisa Nandy et al. His track record in acknowledging what a woman is has been poor.

FWIW, I think he absolutely knows what a woman is, and I doubt he genuinely believes the woo. He just thinks that he has no option if he wants to get Labour in. His records as a Crown Prosecutor makes me think he's one of the few politicians at the top who genuinely wants to do good. People may not like him but I think he's sincere and isn't in it for glory and power, unlike most.

I just worry that the pressure from the left, and the general culture at the moment will make him bow to the whole TWAW. I don't think he realises just how much support he'd receive from the public if he was prepared to break cover.

his apparent belief that some men are women in fact and in law.

I don't agree with this either - especially given a lot of what I've learned on this thread wrt EA etc.

The statement TWAW - which he has said - is a legal fact wrt the GRC and has been so for 20 years (I'm still boggling over how long this has been in place without any apparent massive issues until fairly recently). He's never ever going to say that TW are NOT women. I honestly think expecting him to make this statement as proof of something is just never ever going to happen. Not because he's a sexist, but because he's a barrister. The law is the law.

However, on LBC earlier this week he was very clearly talking about two groups of people: trans women and biological women. He very clearly acknowledged that for biological women - 99.9% - this was about biology and sex.

I do think it would be fairer to listen to him knowing his language is within the legal context of the GRC and EA, and then frame that too with his track record. Telling him to 'fuck off' until he states that TW are NOT women doesn't really get us anywhere.

Hmmm. Interesting.

I would be willing to consider that but some of his rhetoric elsewhere suggests that it's more than just being legally factual.

For example, he described the trans community as "most marginalised and abused communities". He also contradicted Rosie Duffield when she said only women have cervixes and said that "it's not right. It shouldn't be said". He also said re trans rights "wherever we've got to on the law, we need to go further."

I would say that goes further than just be legally careful and makes me a little more cautious about what he really means, and would do. I think perhaps you're overly optimistic but I sincerely hope you're right.

His track record in acknowledging what a woman is has been poor.

It feels to me that this sticking point centres on us fighting a fight that should have been fought 20 years ago.

I am genuinely terrified by the backsliding of woman's rights right now, but why the fuck weren't women making this argument and demand of all politicians when the GRC was drafted and immediately beyond? Why haven't we been demanding that every time anyone talks about woman's rights in the last 20 years that they make it damn clear which group they're talking about? Why haven't we been judging them through the last 20 years, the way we are now, if they don't state they stand by females specifically?

20 years is a long time. A whole generation.

For example, he described the trans community as "most marginalised and abused communities".

He may sincerely believe this to be true. Honestly - this statement, in and of itself, is not threatening to women unless it is used to justify / defend the removal of rights from women. Has he done that?

He also contradicted Rosie Duffield when she said only women have cervixes and said that "it's not right. It shouldn't be said".

For 20 long years people without cervixes have been legally recognised as women if they have a GRC. So he is correct - as inconvenient as it might be - that the term 'women' legally encompasses those with cervixes. And really - 20 years - maybe he has a point that this shouldn't be said?

He also said re trans rights "wherever we've got to on the law, we need to go further."

Now this ... I don't know what he means by 'further'. I am not opposed to making the lives of trans people happier or easier. I don't want anyone to not live their best happiest lives. However, I am opposed to women's rights being eroded and I don't think anything he has said is evidence he's willing to do that.

Ugh.

• that the term 'women' legally encompasses those WITHOUT cervixes.

He may know that the legislation has been around for nearly 20 years but it should have been obvious to him, when the question started being repeatedly fired at him, that the vast majority of people had no idea what had happened and are generally aghast when they find out.

If he meant it wasn't right legally then he should have said that and he certainly should not have added that it 'shouldn't be said' - it sounds very authoritarian and sinister to my ears.

Also, the length of time that legislation has been in place doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticised (or scrapped) - quite the opposite.

Those comments were made together in the same interview re self-ID, and needing to take changes further, trans communities being the most marginalised and Rosie Duffield being wrong. I think that as they were given at the same time, it's a fair assumption that it was talking about self-ID and removing single sex spaces etc.

Rosie Duffield is only wrong if you're referring to gender though - so he could have clearly made reference to the GRC while acknowledging biological sex as separate and distinct. But he didn't. Which effectively threw Rosie back under the TRA bus.

I think it's possible to pick apart each piece of evidence re Keir's views individually but sometimes it's a case of the sum being greater than the parts. When you put everything together, he seems to have been a vocal supporter of ushering self-ID along and implementing more changes to support trans rights.

I agree with you re I don't wish anyone any harm. And I know there are plenty of trans identifying folks out there who just want a quiet and peaceful life. And I genuinely wish them all the happiness they can find. But this mustn't be at the expense of women, or by eroding our unique identity. And that seems to be what most politicians are happy to sign us up to. I think Keir is in the middle and could swing either way.

What I would say is that more recent comments from Keir have started to allude to biological women - the comments I mentioned above were from early last year. So it's possible he's seeing the tide turning within our culture - and I think it is - and moderating his language to align with that. Because as you said, it's about the votes and being seen to say the right thing.

Starmer is not going to regain Labour losses whilst listening to people in his bubble. That’s not the votes that he’s lost. He’s also not going to win using the youth vote.

We need to lock him in a room for an hour with Helen Joyce.

What I would say is that more recent comments from Keir have started to allude to biological women - the comments I mentioned above were from early last year. So it's possible he's seeing the tide turning within our culture - and I think it is - and moderating his language to align with that. Because as you said, it's about the votes and being seen to say the right thing.

I don't think it's a politically expedient choice though. I recommend listening to the Full Disclosures podcast where James O Brien interviews Keir Starmer.

Why don't we all write to him as well? Which address do you think would be the one he'd most likely actually set eyes on a letter..

members.parliament.uk/member/4514/contact

I'd be up for writing to him.

I think it would be most effective if lots of women wrote to him about their concerns, and about how they currently feel politically lost due to all the left of centre parties supporting self-ID. Maybe needs a new post here to try and get some of us to write to him?

Re your other post, I don't like JOB so I avoided it, but I will hold my nose and listen to it when I get the chance.

The Tories have made Labour electable. Sounds like Starmer is waking up to the fact that this issue could lose him the election - which will be unbelievable.

Labour MPs like Lloyd Russell-Moyes and all the other MRAs activists in the Labour Party will continue to make them unelectable. Starmer and all his ‘bloky’ football chat makes my skin crawl

@StalkedByASpider Yay. 🤝 I'm on it too. I'm going to craft it very carefully though, so will take days to write it.

I got my father to listen to that podcast and he very grudgingly conceded that maybe there was more to Kier Starmer than he initially thought. My overall impression was of a man who cares very very deeply about public service - from a position of integrity and honesty and self-sacrifice. I think he's terrible at marketing himself and hasn't fully appreciated how critical it is. He talks about how he focuses on getting a job done. I often wonder if, in the process of filtering out noise and focussing on detail, he might miss things ... like the nuance of this issue. I also believe he is deeply committed to addressing violence against women.

A friend of mine who has never voted anything other than Tory, and whose politics often enrage me (think pro-Brexit, stupidity on immigrants etc total Daily Mail reader), says she thinks Starmer is a "righteous man". She said she thought he was the first truly righteous person she'd ever known in her lifetime in politics.

That word, from HER, totally TOTALLY blew my mind.

but why the fuck weren't women making this argument and demand of all politicians when the GRC was drafted and immediately beyond?

There are sex based exemptions written into both the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act.
The fact that these are now being misrepresented by organisations with an agenda is not the fault of women.

He stated it as an absolute. The law does not.

He may now choose to discuss the two cohorts as though they are indeed different but if his belief is that the law is unequivocal then he is a large part of the problem.

THAT is the point being made.

It really isn't difficult to clearly state that the law does not change biological reality and is, as it was set up to be, a legal fiction intended to make some aspects of being trans easier. It was never intended to, and does not, mean that some men actually are women in law or otherwise. It is a legal protection against discrimination, not a magical key to all things female.

And the sooner he and all other politicians say that our loud the better.

Until then they can all fuck off

At the risk of sounding like I'm playing the world's tiniest violin 😅 I have very little free time at the moment, but I'll try and get it written at the weekend. It does need careful thought to succinctly highlight what the issues are.

I think Keir is quite a modest man and doesn't engage in the usual back slapping and point-scoring bollocks and people misunderstand that. I think he tried to support the Tories during COVID without trying to score easy jibes because he thought it was important that we were cohesive at such a dire time. And I think that's been misinterpreted as weak whereas I think it's actually the opposite. His razor-sharp takedowns of the Tories in the Commons is something to behold - but most people won't see that. You can see his QC background, he doesn't miss a thing.

I strongly believe that he's a principled, intelligent, genuine man who really does want to do the right thing. He's the first leader of either party in a long time who has really and truly deserved the role of PM by virtue of being a decent person.

I was honestly gutted that Labour was supporting self-ID because I thought his background and personal qualities made him one of the best-qualified people we could ever have as PM. I'll listen to that interview. I've never given up hope that he might see the light - but that was more about optimism than belief.

Sadly I think you have this spot on.
Although I have my doubts that he actually believes that TWAW - he is merely bowing to the activists in his party because he needed them to elect him!
But if he makes enough statements with woolly enough wording, he may manage to fudge the issue enough that women who are not familiar with the obfuscation will believe he supports their right to genuinely single sex spaces.

In my comments, I was referring to the GRC, not the Equality Act. It's the GRC that gives males with a certificate a legal right to be 'women'. My point was, why has there not been visceral anger and demands for clarification dating back to 2004 and through all the years in between?

I agree with you totally about the EA though.

A GRC and new birth certificate does not change a persons legal gender for all situations. The GRC lists situations in which having a GRC does not change a persons legal gender; they include sports, parenthood, peerages, and some types of crime.

We never thought we needed clarifications, they are already written into the legislation. We're angry now because the law is being misrepresented and the clarifications ignored.